text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'In the second paper of the series, we have modeled low frequency carbon radio recombination lines (CRRL) from the interstellar medium. Anticipating the LOw Frequency ARray (LOFAR) survey of Galactic CRRLs, we focus our study on the physical conditions of the diffuse cold neutral medium (CNM). We have used the improved departure coefficients computed in the first paper of the series to calculate line-to-continuum ratios. The results show that the line width and integrated optical depths of CRRL are sensitive probes of the electron density, gas temperature, and the emission measure of the cloud. Furthermore, the ratio of CRRL to the \[CII\] at 158 $\mu$m line is a strong function of the temperature and density of diffuse clouds. Guided by our calculations, we analyze CRRL observations and illustrate their use with data from the literature.'
author:
- 'F. Salgado, L. K. Morabito, J. B. R. Oonk, P. Salas, M. C. Toribio, H. J. A. Röttgering, A. G. G. M. Tielens'
title: 'Low Frequency Carbon Radio Recombination Lines II: The Diffuse Interstellar Medium'
---
Introduction
============
The interstellar medium (ISM) plays a central role in the evolution of galaxies. The formation of new stars slowly consumes the ISM, locking it up for millions to billions of years while stars, as they age, return much of their mass increased in metallicity, back to the ISM. Stars also inject radiative and kinetic energy into the ISM and this controls the physical characteristics (density, temperature and pressure) as well as the dynamics of the gas as revealed in observed spectra. This interplay of stars and surrounding gas leads to the presence of distinct phases (e.g. @field1969 [@mckee1977]). Diffuse atomic clouds (the Cold Neutral Medium, CNM) have densities of about $50~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ and temperatures of about $80~\mathrm{K}$, where atomic hydrogen is largely neutral but carbon is singly ionized by photons with energies between $11.2~\mathrm{eV}$ and $13.6~\mathrm{eV}$. The warmer ($\sim8000~\mathrm{K}$) and more tenuous ($\sim0.5~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$) intercloud phase \[the Warm Neutral medium (WNM) and Warm Ionized Medium (WIM)\] is heated and ionized by FUV and EUV photons escaping from HII regions [@wolfire2003]. While these phases are often considered to be in thermal equilibrium and in pressure balance, the observed large turbulent width and presence of gas at thermally unstable, intermediate temperatures may indicate that kinetic energy input is important. Thermally unstable gas could indicate that the gas does not have sufficient time to cool between subsequent passages of a shock or after intermittent dissipation of turbulence (e.g. @kim2011). In addition, the ISM also hosts molecular clouds, where hydrogen is in the form of $\mathrm{H_2}$ and self-gravity plays an important role. All of these phases are directly tied to key questions on the origin and evolution of the ISM, including energetics of the CNM, WNM and the WIM; the evolutionary relationship of atomic and molecular gas; the relationship of these ISM phases with newly formed stars; and the conversion of their radiative and kinetic power into thermal and turbulent energy of the ISM (e.g. @cox2005 [@elmegreen2004; @scalo2004; @mckee2007]).
The diffuse interstellar medium has been long studied using, in particular, the 21 cm hyperfine transition of neutral atomic hydrogen (e.g. @kulkarni1987 [@heilesandtroland2003a]). These observations have revealed the prevalence of a two phase structure in the interstellar medium of cold clouds embedded in a warm intercloud medium. However, it has been notoriously difficult to determine the physical characteristics (density, temperature) of these structures in the ISM as HI by itself does not provide a good probe. Optical and UV observations of atomic lines can provide the physical conditions but are by necessity limited to pinpoint experiments towards bright background sources. However, with the opening up of the low frequency radio sky with modern interferometers such as the Low Frequency ARray for Radioastronomy (LOFAR, @vhaarlem2013), Murchison Wide field Array [@tingay2013], Long Wavelength Array [@ellingson2013] and, in the future, the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), systematic surveys of low frequency ($\nu \lesssim 300~\mathrm{MHz}$) Carbon Radio Recombination Lines (CRRLs) have come in reach and these surveys can be expected to quantitatively measure the conditions in the emitting gas [@oonk2015a].
Carbon has a lower ionization potential (11.2 eV) than hydrogen and can be ionized by radiation fields in regions where hydrogen is largely neutral. Recombination of carbon ions with electrons to high Rydberg states will lead to CRRLs in the sub-millimeter to decameter range. CRRLs have been observed in the interstellar medium of our Galaxy towards two types of clouds: diffuse clouds (e.g.: @konovalenko1981 [@erickson1995; @roshi2002; @stepkin2007; @oonk2014]) and photodissociation regions (PDRs), the boundaries of HII regions and their parent molecular clouds (e.g.: @natta1994 [@wyrowski1997; @quireza2006]). Recently, @morabito2014 discovered extragalactic CRRLs associated with the nucleus of the nearby starburst galaxy, M82. Theoretical models for CRRLs were first developed by @watson1980 and @walmsley1982, including the effects of dielectronic recombination [^1] with the simultaneous excitation of the ${^2}P_{3/2}$ fine-structure level and later extended by @ponomarev1992 and by @payne1994. However, these studies were hampered by the limited computer resources available at that time.
In the coming years, we will use LOFAR to carry out a full northern hemisphere survey of CRRL emitting clouds in the Milky Way. This will allow us to study the thermal balance, chemical enrichment and ionization rate of the cold neutral medium from degree-scales down to scales corresponding to individual clouds and filaments in our Galaxy. Furthermore, following the first detection of low-frequency CRRLs in an extragalactic source (M82; @morabito2014) we will also use LOFAR to perform the first flux limited survey of CRRLs in extragalactic sources. Given the renewed observational interest in CRRLs, a new theoretical effort seems warranted. In the first paper of this series, (@salgado2015, hereafter Paper I), we studied the level population of hydrogenic atoms including the effects of dielectronic recombination in carbon atoms. The level population of atoms, however, is not the only process that influences the strength of an observed line as radiative transfer effects can alter the strength/depth of an observed line. In this paper, we use the results of Paper I to develop CRRLs as a tool to derive the physical conditions in the emitting gas. In this, we will focus on cold diffuse clouds as these are expected to dominate the low frequency CRRL sky. The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[section\_radtransf\] we review radiative transfer theory in the context of radio recombination lines. We review the line broadening mechanisms of CRRLs in Section \[section\_lineprofile\]. In Section \[section\_results\], we present the results of our models and compare them with observations from the literature and provide guidelines to analyze such observations. Finally, in Section \[section\_conclusions\], we summarize our results and provide the conclusions of our work.
Theory
======
Radiative transfer of carbon radio recombination lines {#section_radtransf}
------------------------------------------------------
The physical conditions of the diffuse interstellar medium (temperatures of $T_e\approx 100~\mathrm{K}$ and electron densities $N_e\approx 10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$) favor an increase in the level population at high quantum levels via dielectronic recombination (Paper I). Moreover, the presence of an external radiation field can also alter the level population of carbon atoms. In addition, while low frequency CRRLs are observed in absorption against a background continuum (e.g. @kantharia2001 [@oonk2014; @morabito2014]), high frequency recombination lines are observed in emission. Therefore, radiative transfer effects must be analyzed in order to derive meaningful physical parameters from observations.
We begin our analysis by revisiting the radiative transfer problem in the context of CRRLs. At a given frequency, the observed emission has two components, corresponding to the line transition itself and the underlying continuum emission. In Appendix \[appendix\_radtransfer\], we summarize the standard general solution to the one dimensional radiative transfer equation of a line in a homogeneous medium. Here, we show the result for a cloud at a constant temperature $T_e$ [^2]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_linecontgeneral}
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}} &=& \frac{\eta B_\nu(T_e) (1-e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}})+I_0(\nu) e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}}}{B_\nu(T_e)(1-e^{-\tau_\nu^c}) + I_0(\nu) e^{-\tau_\nu^c}} -1,\end{aligned}$$ where $I_\nu^{line}$ is the intensity of a line at a frequency $\nu$, $I_\nu^{cont}$ is the intensity of the continuum, $\eta$ is a correction factor to the Planck function due to non-LTE effects (as defined in @strelnitski1996 [@gordon2009], see Appendix \[appendix\_radtransfer\]), $B_\nu(T_e)$ is the Planck function, $\tau_\nu^{total}$ is the sum of the line and continuum optical depth (${\tau_\nu^l~\mathrm{and}~\tau_\nu^c}$, respectively) and $I_0(\nu)$ is the intensity of a background continuum source at the frequency of the line [^3].
In the presence of a strong background radiation field, as is the case for low frequency lines in the diffuse ISM ($I_0 \gg \eta B_\nu(T_e)$, see below), the background term ($I_0$) dominates and the first term in the numerator and denominator on the right-hand-side of Equation \[eq\_linecontgeneral\] can be ignored and this equation simplifies to, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_linecontapp}
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}}&=& e^{-\tau_\nu^l}-1,\end{aligned}$$ independent of the background source. Assuming that the line is optically thin ($|\tau_\nu^l| \ll1$), Equation \[eq\_linecontapp\] is approximated by (e.g. @kantharia2001): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_lintoconttau}
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}}&=& -\tau_\nu^l.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, due to the minus sign on the right hand side of Equation \[eqn\_lintoconttau\], when $\tau_l$ is positive the line is observed in absorption against the background source.
From the definition of $\tau_\nu^l$ (see Appendix \[appendix\_radtransfer\]) and explicitly considering the normalized line profile, $\phi(\nu),~(\mathrm{with}~\int{\phi(\nu)}=1)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_linetocontapp}
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}}&=& - \kappa_\nu^l \phi(\nu) L.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing the departure coefficients from LTE, $b_n$ and the correction factor for stimulated emission or absorption, $\beta_n$ [@brocklehurst1972; @gordon2009], we can write, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}}&=& - \kappa_\nu^l(LTE) \phi(\nu) b_n \beta_{nn'} L,\nonumber\\
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}}&\approx& -1.069\times10^7 \Delta n M(\Delta n) \frac{b_n \beta_{nn'}}{T_e^{5/2}} e^{\chi_n} EM_{\mathrm{C+}} \phi(\nu),\end{aligned}$$ assuming $h \nu \ll kT_e$, and $\Delta n/n \ll 1$, in Equation 5 we have inserted the value for $\kappa_\nu^l$ absorption coefficient (Appendix \[appendix\_radtransfer\]). Here, $EM_{\mathrm{C+}}=N_e N_{\mathrm{C+}} L$ is the emission measure in units of $\mathrm{cm^{-6}~pc}$, $N_e$ is the electron density, $N_{C+}$ is the carbon ion density and $L$ is the pathlength of the cloud in pc. $\Delta n=n'-n$ is the difference between the levels involved in the transition, the factor $M(\Delta n)$[^4] comes from the approximation to the oscillator strength of the transition, as given by @menzel1968 (see Appendix \[appendix\_radbroadening\]). The $b_n\beta_{nn'}$ factor relates the line emission or absorption to the level population of the emitting atoms and has been calculated following the method described in Paper I; ${\chi_n= hc Z^2 Ry /n^2 k T_e}$, as defined in Appendix B.
At the line center, the line to continuum ratio depends on the broadening of the line (see Section \[section\_lineprofile\], below). However, we can remove the dependence on the line profile by integrating the line over frequency: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_integlinetocont}
\int \frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}} \mathrm{d}\nu&=& -1.069\times10^7 \Delta n M(\Delta n) \frac{b_n \beta_{nn'}}{T_e^{5/2}} e^{\chi_n} EM_{\mathrm{C+}}~\mathrm{Hz}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that by setting $\Delta n=1$ (i.e. for $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ lines[^5]) in Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\] we recover Equation 70 in @shaver1975 and Equation 5 in @payne1994.
For high densities, $b_n\beta_n$ approaches unity at high $n$ levels and the integrated line to continuum ratio changes little with $n$ for a given $T_e$ and $EM_{\mathrm{C+}}$. When the $\beta_n$ factor in Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\] is positive (negative) the line is in absorption (emission). The strong dependence on electron temperature of the integrated line to continuum ratio ($\propto T_e^{-2.5}$) favors the detection of low temperature clouds. An increase of a factor of two (three) in the temperature reduces the integrated line to continuum by a factor of about 6 (15), all other terms being equal.
From Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\], we note that for $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ lines: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_integlinetocontx}
\int \frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}} \mathrm{d}\nu&=& -20.4 b_n \beta_{nn'}\left(\frac{T_e}{100~\mathrm{K}}\right)^{-2.5} EM_{\mathrm{C+}} ~\mathrm{Hz},\\
&=&-0.2 b_n \beta_{nn'}\left(\frac{T_e}{100~\mathrm{K}}\right)^{-2.5} \left(\frac{N_e}{0.1~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}}\right)^2 \left(\frac{L}{\mathrm{pc}}\right)~\mathrm{Hz},\end{aligned}$$ assuming that electrons are produced by singly ionized carbon ($N_e=N_{C+}$) and for high $n$ level ($n\gg \sqrt(1.6\times10^5/T_e)$). The typical optical depths that can be observed with current instruments are $\sim 10^{-3}$. As we already mentioned, for high $n$ $b_n\beta_n\simeq 1$. Hence, clouds ($L\simeq 5$ pc) with electron densities greater than $10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ (hydrogen densities $>50$ cm$^{-3}$) are readily observable.
The far-infrared fine structure line of $\mathrm{C+}$
-----------------------------------------------------
The fine structure transition ${^2}P_{1/2}-{^2}P_{3/2}$ of carbon ions is one of the main coolants in diffuse neutral clouds at 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$. Moreover, the \[CII\] 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ is directly linked to the level population of carbon atoms at low temperatures through the dielectronic recombination process. In Section \[section\_results\], we show how observations of this line combined with CRRLs can be used as powerful probes of the temperature of diffuse neutral clouds. Here, we give a description of an emission model of the line. The intensity of the \[CII\] 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ line in the optically thin limit is given by (e.g. @sorochenko2000): $$\begin{aligned}
I_{158}&=& \frac{h\nu}{4 \pi} A_{3/2,1/2} N^+_{3/2} L \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{h\nu}{4 \pi} \frac{A_{3/2,1/2} 2\exp(-92/T_e) R}{1+2 \exp(-92/T_e) R}N_{\mathrm{C^+}} L,\end{aligned}$$ with $\nu$ the frequency of the ${^2}P_{1/2}-{^2}P_{3/2}$ transition, $A_{3/2,1/2}=2.4\times10^{-6}~\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ is the spontaneous transition rate, $N^+_{3/2}$ the number density of carbon ions in the $3/2$ state, $L$ the length along the line of sight of the observed cloud and $N_{\mathrm{C^+}}$ the density of carbon ions; $R$ is defined in @ponomarev1992 [@payne1994] (see Paper I): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqpayner}
R = \frac{N_e\gamma_e+N_H\gamma_H}{N_e\gamma_e+N_H\gamma_H+A_{3/2,1/2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_e~\mathrm{and}~\gamma_H$ are the de-excitation rates due to electrons and hydrogen atoms, respectively. The rates involved are detailed in Paper I. We assume that collisions with electrons and hydrogen atoms dominate over molecular hydrogen and neglect collisions with H$_2$, as in Paper I. This is a good approximation for diffuse clouds with column densities up to $\sim10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. For larger column densities, the H/H$_2$ transition will have to be modeled in order to evaluate $R$.
The optical depth of the C$+$ fine structure line for the transition ${^2}P_{1/2}-{^2}P_{3/2}$ is given by @crawford1985 [@sorochenko2000]: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{158} &=& \frac{c^2}{ 8 \pi \nu^2} \frac{A_{3/2,1/2}}{1.06 \Delta \nu} 2 \alpha_{1/2} \beta_{158} N_{\mathrm{C^+}} L,\end{aligned}$$ $\Delta \nu$ is the FWHM of the line (assumed to be Gaussian); the $\alpha_{1/2}(T_e)$ and $\beta_{158}(T_e)$ coefficients depend on the electron temperature of the cloud and are defined by @sorochenko2000: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{1/2}(T_e) &=& \frac{1}{1+2 \exp(-92/T_e) R},\\
\beta_{158}(T_e) &=& 1-\exp(-92/T_e)R.\end{aligned}$$ Adopting a line width of $2~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$, at low electron temperatures and densities, the FIR \[CII\] line is optically thin for hydrogen column densities less than about $1.2\times10^{21}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$. For a cloud size of 5 pc, this corresponds to hydrogen densities of $\sim 10^2$ cm$^{-3}$ and electron densities of $\simeq 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ if carbon is the dominant ion.
Line profile of recombination lines {#section_lineprofile}
-----------------------------------
The observed profile of a line depends on the physical conditions of the cloud, as an increase in electron density and temperature or the presence of a radiation field can broaden the line and this is particularly important for high $n$. Therefore, in order to determine the detectability of a line, the profile must be considered. Conversely, the observed line width of recombination lines provides additional information on the physical properties of the cloud.
The line profile is given by the convolution of a Gaussian and a Lorentzian profile, and is known as a Voigt profile [@shaver1975; @gordon2009]. Consider a cloud of gas of carbon ions at a temperature $T_e$. Random thermal motions of the atoms in the gas produce shifts in frequency that reflect on the line profile as a Gaussian broadening (Doppler broadening). In the most general case, turbulence can increase the width of a line and, as is common in the literature (e.g. @rybicki1986), we describe the turbulence by an RMS turbulent velocity. Thus, the Gaussian line profile can be described by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu_D= \frac{\nu_0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{2kT_e}{m_C}+\langle v_{RMS} \rangle^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $m_C$ is the mass of the carbon atom and $\langle v_{RMS} \rangle$ is the RMS turbulent velocity. The Gaussian width in frequency space is proportional to the frequency of the line transition.
At low frequencies, collisions and radiation broadening dominate the line width. The Lorentzian (FWHM) broadening produced by collisions is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu_{col} = \frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\neq n'} N_e C_{n'n},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{n'n}$ is the collision rate for electron induced transitions from level $n'$ to $n$, and $N_e$ is the electron density. Note that $C_{n'n}$ depends on temperature [@shaver1975; @gordon2009]. In order to estimate the collisional broadening, we fitted the following function at temperatures between 10 and 30000 K: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_fitcol}\label{eqn_colbroaden}
\sum_{n\neq n'} C_{n'n} = 10^{a(T_e)} n^{\gamma_c(T_e)},\end{aligned}$$ which is valid for levels $n > 100$. Values for $a(T_e)$ and $\gamma_c(T_e)$ as a function of electron temperature are given in Table \[table\_col\].
In a similar way as for collisional broadening, the interaction of an emitter with a radiation field produces a broadening of the line profile. In Appendix \[appendix\_radbroadening\], we give a detailed expansion for different external radiation fields. Here, we discuss the case of a synchrotron radiation field characterized by a power-law with a temperature $T_0$ at a reference frequency $\nu_0=100~\mathrm{MHz}$ and an spectral index $\alpha_{pl}=-2.6$ (see section \[section\_results\]). Under the above considerations, the FWHM for radiation broadening is given by : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_radbroaden}
\Delta \nu_{rad}= 6.096\times10^{-17} T_0 n^{5.8}~(\mathrm{s^{-1}}).\end{aligned}$$ As is the case for collisional broadening, radiation broadening depends only on the level and the strength of the surrounding radiation field. The dependence on $n$ is stronger than that of collisional broadening at low densities and radiation broadening dominates over collisional broadening. As the density decreases, the level $n$ where radiation broadening dominates decreases. In order to estimate where this occurs we define $t_n$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_tnfac}
t_n(T_e,T_0,N_e)&=& \frac{\Delta \nu_{rad}}{\Delta \nu_{col}}, \nonumber\\
&=& \left[\frac{6.096\times10^{-17}}{10^{a(T_e)}} \right] \left( \frac{T_0}{N_e} \right) n^{5.8-\gamma_c(T_e)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the dependence on electron temperature is contained within the fitting coefficients, $a$ and $\gamma_c$. For $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$, we find $t_n\approx 5.82\times10^{-7} \sqrt{n} \left( T_0/N_e\right)$. In Figure \[fig\_tnfac\], we show $t_n$ as a function of electron density for $T_0=1000~\mathrm{K}$. For a given electron temperature and density, the influence of an external radiation field is larger for higher levels since $t_n \propto n^{5.8-\gamma_c}$ and $\gamma_c<5.8$ (see Appendix). For a given density, the influence of the radiation field on the line width is larger at higher electron temperatures. For the typical conditions of the CNM, i. e. at $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$ and $N_e=0.02~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, the value of $t_n\approx1$ and both radiation field and electron density affect the line width in similar amounts.
![The $t_n$ factor defined in Equation \[eqn\_tnfac\] as a function of electron density for quantum $n$ levels between 200 (black line) and 1000 (blue line). The figure is presented for two electron temperatures: $T_e=50~\mathrm{K}$ (dashed lines) and $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$ (solid lines). The dotted line marks the boundary for the line widths being in the collision dominated regime ($t_n<1$) and the radiative dominated regime ($t_n>1$).\[fig\_tnfac\]](tfactorvselecdensTbg1000.ps){width="1\columnwidth"}
Method {#section_results}
======
In order to study the radiative transfer effects on the lines we use the method outlined in Paper I to compute the departure coefficients for different electron temperatures, densities and considering an external radiation field. The cosmic microwave radiation field (CMB) and the Galactic synchrotron power law radiation field spectra are included. We represent the cosmic microwave radiation field (CMB) by a 3 K blackbody and the galactic radiation field by a power law \[$I_0(\nu)=T_0(\nu/\nu_0)^{\alpha_{pl}}$\] with $T_0=1000~\mathrm{K}$ at a frequency $\nu_0=100~\mathrm{MHz}$ and $\alpha_{pl}=-2.6$ [@landecker1970; @bennett2003]. In the Galactic plane, the Galactic radiation field can be much larger than 1000 K at 100 MHz [@haslam1982]. At frequencies higher than 1 GHz, corresponding to $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ transitions from levels with $n<200$, the background continuum is dominated by the CMB (Figure \[fig\_contdiff\]). At even higher frequencies, the background continuum can be dominated by dust and free-free emission, which are strongly dependent on the local conditions of the cloud and its position in the Galaxy. For simplicity, we focus our study on levels with $n>200$.
Departure coefficients were computed for $T_e=20,~50,~100~\mathrm{and}~200~\mathrm{K}$ and electron densities in the range $10^{-2}~\mathrm{to}~1~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. Once the departure coefficients were obtained, we computed the corresponding optical depths assuming a fixed length along the line of sight of 1 pc from the usually adopted approximated optical depth solution to the radiative transfer problem (Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\]). The value of 1 pc corresponds to emission measures in the range of $EM_\mathrm{C+}=10^{-4}~\mathrm{to}~1~\mathrm{cm^{-6}~pc}$. Our calculations assume a homogeneous density distribution in a cloud and should be taken as illustrative since it is well known that inhomogeneities exist in most clouds. The fixed length of 1 pc corresponds to column densities of $10^{18}~\mathrm{to}~10^{21}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$, with the adopted density range. Diffuse clouds show a power-law distribution function in HI column density with a median column density of $0.76\times10^{20}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ [@heilesandtroland2003b]. Reddening studies are weighted to somewhat large clouds and the standard “Spitzer” type cloud [@spitzer1978] corresponds to a column density of $3.6\times10^{20}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$. Local HI complexes associated with molecular clouds have $\mathcal{N}_\mathrm{H}\approx10^{21}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$.
![A comparison between the continuum radiation fields. The galactic synchrotron radiation field dominates over the free-free cloud continuum at $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$. Therefore, the strong background approximation is valid for the low temperature cases considered in this analysis. The yellow zone marks the range in frequency observable by LOFAR.\[fig\_contdiff\]](continuumDIFregion1.ps){width="1.\columnwidth"}
Results
=======
Line widths
-----------
We begin our discussion with the results for the line widths. We show the line widths for our diffuse clouds models in Figure \[fig\_widthdiff\]. At high frequencies (low $n$), the Gaussian (Doppler) core of the line dominates the line profile in frequency space and the line width increases with frequency. At low frequencies (high $n$), on the other hand, the Lorentzian profile dominates –either because of collisional or radiation broadening– and the line width decreases with increasing frequency. In order to guide the discussion we have included observed line widths for $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ transitions for Cas A [@kantharia1998; @payne1994], Cyg A [@oonk2014] and M82 [@morabito2014] .
When the Doppler core dominates, CRRLs observations provide both an upper limit on the gas temperature and an upper limit on the turbulent velocity of the diffuse ISM (cf. Equations \[eqn\_radbroaden\] and \[eqn\_colbroaden\]). For typical parameters of the turbulent ISM ($1~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$), turbulence dominates over thermal velocities when $T_e\lesssim 700~\mathrm{K}$.
Radiation broadening and collisional broadening show a very similar dependence on $n$ and it is difficult to disentangle these two processes from CRRLs observations. For the Galactic radiation field (i.e. synchrotron spectrum with $T_0=1000~\mathrm{K}~\mathrm{at}~100~\mathrm{MHz}$), the two processes contribute equally to the line width at a density $N_e\approx0.03~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ (Figure \[fig\_widthdiff\]). Low frequency observations can, thus, provide an upper limit on the density and radiation field. As illustrated in Figure \[fig\_widthdiff\], the transition from a Doppler to a Lorentzian broadened line is quite rapid (in frequency space) but the actual value of $n$ where it occurs depends on the physical conditions of the cloud (i.e. $T_e,~N_e,~T_0~\mathrm{and}~\langle v_{RMS} \rangle$).
In Figure \[fig\_widthdiff\] we can see that the RRLs from Cas A and Cyg A fall in a region of the diagram corresponding to densities lower than about $0.1~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ and the detection in M82 corresponds to either higher densities, to a much stronger radiation field or to the blending of multiple broad components. From observations at high frequencies, it is known that the lines observed towards Cas A are the result of three components at different velocities in the Perseus and Orion arms. Therefore, the physical parameters obtained from line widths should be taken as upper limits.
![A comparison between broadening produced by the Galactic radiation field (blue line), collisional broadening at $N_e=1,~0.1~\mathrm{and}~0.01~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ (green lines) and thermal (Doppler) broadening at 100 K (black dashed line). The red and yellow curves correspond to a turbulent Doppler parameter $<v_{RMS}>^2=2~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$ and $T_e=300~\mathrm{K}$, respectively. We include data for Cas A [@payne1994; @kantharia1998] as red points, Cyg A [@oonk2014] as yellow points, regions for the inner galaxy [@erickson1995] as blue points and data for M82 [@morabito2014] as a black point. \[fig\_widthdiff\]](linewidthfwhmvsfrequency_crp.ps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
When the line profile is dominated by the Doppler core, the ratio of the $\beta$ to $\alpha$ line width is unity. However, radiation or collisional broadening affects the $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ and $\mathrm{C}n\beta$ lines differently as at the same frequency $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ and $\mathrm{C}n\beta$ lines originate from different $n$ levels. In Figure \[fig\_widthdiffbetagamma\], we show the ratio $\Delta \nu(\beta)/\Delta \nu(\alpha)$. We notice that, when radiation broadening dominates the line width, this ratio goes to a constant value, independent of the background temperature. From the radiation broadening formula (Equation \[eqn\_radbroaden\]) we see that $\Delta \nu(\beta)/\Delta \nu(\alpha)=(n_\beta/n_\alpha)^{-3\alpha_{pl}-2}$ and, for a power law $\alpha_{pl}=-2.6$, the ratio approaches $\Delta \nu(\beta)/\Delta \nu(\alpha)=3.8$ as $n$ increases. At high electron densities, collisional processes dominate the broadening of the lines. From Equation \[eqn\_colbroaden\] the $\Delta \nu(\beta)/\Delta \nu(\alpha)$ ratio tends to a constant value of $(n_\beta/n_\alpha)^{\gamma_c}=1.26^{\gamma_c}$. There is a temperature dependence in the exponent $\gamma_c$ and, for electron temperatures less than 1000 K, we find that $\Delta \nu(\beta)/\Delta \nu(\alpha)\approx3.1-3.6$ (see Table \[table\_col\]); similar to the radiation broadening case.
![$\alpha~\mathrm{and}~\beta$ line width transitions for diffuse regions as a function of frequency for different power law radiation fields. a) Without an external radiation field; b) a power law radiation field with $T_0=1000~\mathrm{K}$ and c) as b) for $T_0=5000~\mathrm{K}$. The line widths correspond to electron densities of $N_e=1,~0.1,~\mathrm{and}~0.01~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ (red, green and black lines). \[fig\_widthdiffbetagamma\]](alphatobetawidthratio.ps){width="1\columnwidth"}
Integrated line to continuum ratio
----------------------------------
As discussed in section \[section\_radtransf\], the line to continuum ratio of CRRL is often solved approximately, using equation . In this subsection, we will discuss when this approximation is justified. In this, we have to recognize that, under the conditions of the diffuse ISM, recombining carbon atoms are not in LTE (Paper I). Indeed, electrons can recombine to high levels due to dielectronic recombination, thus increasing the population in comparison to the LTE values. This increase in the level population leads to an increase in the values of the $b_n\beta_n$ coefficients in Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\] and, consequently, to an increase in the optical depth of the lines.
In Figure \[fig\_integtau\] we show the integrated line to continuum ratio as a function of level $n$ for $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$. We compare the values obtained using the approximated expression given in Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\] (red lines) and by solving the radiative transfer equation (Equation \[eq\_linecontgeneral\], black lines). The agreement between the two approaches is good for levels $n\gtrsim250$, since at these high levels the approximations that lead to Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\] are valid. For levels lower than $n\approx250$, differences appear. In particular, at low electron densities ($N_e\approx0.01~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$) results using Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\] show lines in absorption while the results derived from solving the radiative transfer equation predict lines in emission. The difference between the two approaches can be understood in terms of the excitation temperature (see Appendix). As can be seen in Figure \[fig\_integtau2\], the red zones correspond to low $n$ levels, where the excitation temperature is higher than the background continuum temperature and the lines appear in emission (despite the $\beta_n$ being positive). At higher $n$ values, $\beta_n < 0$ (yellow zones) and the excitation temperature is negative reflecting an inversion in the level population, consequently, lines appear in emission. While there is an inversion of the level population the line optical depths are too low ($\tau_l\sim 10^{-3}$) to produce a maser (cf. Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocontx\]). At even higher levels (blue zones in Figure \[fig\_integtau2\]), the excitation temperature is less than the background continuum temperature and the lines are in absorption. As the electron density increases, dielectronic recombination is less efficient and the levels for which $\beta_n$ is negative shift to lower $n$ values, resembling the values for hydrogenic level population (@hummer1987, Paper I). Furthermore, for high quantum numbers and high densities, $\beta_n=1$ and the excitation temperature is equal to the electron temperature of the gas.
![The line-to-continuum ratio of CRRL as a function of principal quantum number for $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$ and $N_e=0.01~\mathrm{and}~0.1~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ (left and right panels, respectively). The values were computed from the radiative transfer solution (Equation \[eq\_linecontgeneral\]) and the galactic radiation field as a background. Black lines correspond to the result of solving the equation of radiative transfer while red lines correspond to the approximation expression given in Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\]. At levels larger than $n\gtrsim250$, the differences between the approximation (dashed) and the radiative transfer solution (solid) are minor. \[fig\_integtau\]](integratedtau_nlevel_Te1d2_ne_1dm2.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![The line-to-continuum ratio of CRRL as a function of principal quantum number for $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$ and $N_e=0.01~\mathrm{and}~0.1~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ (left and right panels, respectively). The values were computed from the radiative transfer solution (Equation \[eq\_linecontgeneral\]) and the galactic radiation field as a background. Black lines correspond to the result of solving the equation of radiative transfer while red lines correspond to the approximation expression given in Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\]. At levels larger than $n\gtrsim250$, the differences between the approximation (dashed) and the radiative transfer solution (solid) are minor. \[fig\_integtau\]](integratedtau_nlevel_Te1d2_ne_1dm1.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
![Ratio of the excitation to background temperature ($T_X/T_{bg}$). Lines are in emission in the red zone since $T_X > T_{bg}$ and in the yellow zone due to an inversion on the level population and $T_X< 0$. Lines appear in absorption in the light blue zone since the background temperature is (much) larger than the excitation temperature.\[fig\_integtau2\]](excitationtemp_tbg_nlevel_Te1d2_0.01.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![Ratio of the excitation to background temperature ($T_X/T_{bg}$). Lines are in emission in the red zone since $T_X > T_{bg}$ and in the yellow zone due to an inversion on the level population and $T_X< 0$. Lines appear in absorption in the light blue zone since the background temperature is (much) larger than the excitation temperature.\[fig\_integtau2\]](excitationtemp_tbg_nlevel_Te1d2_0.1.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
From this analysis, we conclude that Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\] is valid for high ($n\gtrsim250$) quantum numbers and the ratio of two lines depends only on the temperature and electron density of the cloud through the departure coefficients. In Figure \[fig\_integtau3\], we demonstrate this by showing the integrated line to continuum ratio of $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ as a function of quantum number normalized to the level 500 (similar results can be obtained by using other $n$ levels). The normalized ratio becomes smaller for high densities owing to the fact that $b_n\beta_n$ values change little with $n$ as the levels are closer to equilibrium. As the electron density decreases, dielectronic recombination is more efficient in overpopulating intermediate levels (Paper I) producing large changes in the values of the ratios.
CRRLs as diagnostic tools for the physical conditions of the ISM
----------------------------------------------------------------
### Line Ratios
We have already discussed the use of the line width to constrain the properties of the emitting/absorbing gas. As figure \[fig\_integtau3\] illustrates, line ratios are very sensitive to the physical conditions in the gas. Moreover, the use of line ratios “cancels out” the dependence on the emission measure. Here, we demonstrate the use of line ratios involving widely different $n$’s as diagnostic tools in “ratio vs. ratio” plots. As an example, we show three line ratios in Figure \[fig\_integtauratio\], normalized to $n=500$. The lines are chosen to sample the full frequency range of LOFAR and the different regimes (collisional, radiative) characteristic for CRRLs. The $n=300,~400,~500$ lines are a particularly good probe of electron density for regions with temperature less than about $100~\mathrm{K}$. The use of the $n=500$ level does not affect our results and other levels (e.g. $n=600~\mathrm{or}~800$) may be used for computing the ratios. We note that in a limited but relevant electron density range ($N_e\sim1-5\times10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$), these lines can be good tracers of temperature. At higher densities, the departure coefficients approach unity and the ratios tend to group in a small region of the plot and the use of the ratios as probes of temperature requires measurements with high signal to noise ratio to derive physical conditions from the observations.
![Integrated line to continuum ratio normalized to the value at the level $n=500$ for $T_e=20,~50,~100,~\mathrm{and}~200~\mathrm{K}$. Dotted lines indicate that the $\mathrm{C}500\alpha$ line is in emission. The values have been computed considering radiative transfer effects (Equation \[eq\_linecontgeneral\]).\[fig\_integtau3\]](multiintegratedtauvsnne_normalized_500.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Example ratio diagnostic plots for different electron temperatures and densities. Cyan points are at $T_e=50~\mathrm{K}$, black points for $T_e=100~\mathrm{K}$ and orange points for $T_e=200~\mathrm{K}$. Different densities are joined by: dotted lines ($N_e=10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$), dashed lines ($N_e=2\times10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$), dashed-dotted lines ($N_e=3\times10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$) and continuous lines ($N_e=5\times10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$). (a) Ratio of the integrated line to continuum for levels 400 and 500 vs. 300 to 500 ratio. (b) Ratio of the integrated line to continuum for levels 600 and 500 vs. 300 to 500 ratio. (c) Ratio of the integrated line to continuum for levels 800 and 500 vs. 300 to 500 ratio. \[fig\_integtauratio\]](ratiovsratioplot300v2.ps){width="1\columnwidth"}
### The Transition from Absorption to Emission
In Paper I, we discussed the use of the level where lines transition from emission to absorption ($n_t$) as a constraint on the density of a cloud (Figure \[fig\_ntvsne\]). The limited observations in the Galactic plane [@erickson1995; @kantharia2001] indicate that $400>n_t>350$ and $n_t$ depends on both temperature and density. The transition level can be used to estimate the electron density for electron densities lower than about $10^{-1}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. For increasing electron density it becomes more difficult to constrain this quantity from the transition level alone.
![Level where lines transition from emission to absorption ($n_t$) as a function of electron density ($N_e$) for $T_e=50,~100~\mathrm{and}~200~\mathrm{K}$. The horizontal dashed lines mark the limits as suggested by observations of CRRLs in the Galaxy. \[fig\_ntvsne\]](densityvsnt.ps){width="1\columnwidth"}
### Line Ratios as a Function of $\Delta n$
Combining observations of $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ lines with $\mathrm{C}n\beta$ and $\mathrm{C}n\gamma$ lines can provide further constraints on the physical parameters of the cloud. In Figure \[fig\_alphabetagammaratios\] we show the $\alpha$-to-$\beta$ ratio of the integrated line to continuum ratio as a function of frequency. Recall that $\mathrm{C}n\alpha~\mathrm{and}~\mathrm{C}n\beta$ lines observed at almost the same frequency probe very different $n$ levels ($n_\alpha=1.26n_\beta$). Figure \[fig\_alphabetagammaratios\] shows that both electron density and temperature are involved. At high $n$ levels the $b_n \beta_n$ are approximately unity and the $\alpha$-to-$\beta$ approaches $M(1)/2 M(2)\approx0.1908/0.0526=3.627$ (Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\]) making the ratio less useful to constrain temperature and electron density. However, even at high $n$, this ratio does remain useful for investigating the radiation field incident upon the CRRL emitting gas.
![Comparison between the integrated line to continuum $I(\alpha)/I(\beta)$ ratio as a function of frequency for different densities (colorbar); dashed lines indicate that the ratio is negative, the color of the lines is the same as in Figure \[fig\_integtau3\]. The values for the ratios approach the LTE value of 3.6 at high $n$. Large differences can be observed for different densities because lines observed at the same frequency correspond to different levels. We have included the data points for Cas A from @stepkin2007 (red point) and for inner Galaxy from @erickson1995 (dark blue points).\[fig\_alphabetagammaratios\]](alphatobetaratiotemp_G02_freq_wdata_crp.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
### The CRRL/\[CII\] Ratio
The \[CII\] 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ is the dominant cooling line of diffuse clouds and acts as a thermostat regulating the temperature [@hollenbach1999]. In realistic models of the ISM of galaxies (e.g. @wolfire1995), the photoelectric effect on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon molecules and very small grains heats the gas and the cooling by the \[CII\] 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ line adjust to satisfy the energy balance. As the heating is a complicated function of the physical conditions [@bakes1994], models become very involved. Here, we sidestep this issue and we calculate the \[CII\] 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ intensity as a function of $N_e$ and $T_e$ for a uniform cloud. The intensity scales with the column density of carbon ions, $\mathcal{N}_\mathrm{C^+}$, and temperature. In contrast, the CRRLs scale with the emission measure divided by $T_e^{5/2}$ (cf. Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocont\]). Hence, the ratio of the CRRL to the 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ line shows a strong dependence on temperature (and electron density), but for a constant density this ratio does not depend on column density. In Figure \[fig\_diagplotdensity\] we show the CRRL/\[CII\] ratio as a function of density for different temperatures. For the physical conditions relevant for diffuse clouds, the CRRL/\[CII\] ratio is a powerful diagnostic tool. Moreover, as we demonstrate below, low frequency CRRLs are not expected to be observable at the typical temperatures and densities of classical HII regions. We recognize that \[CII\] at 158 $\mu$m can be produced by the WIM. Nevertheless, we expect the contribution from the WIM to the \[CII\] line to be $\sim 4\%$ in the general ISM[@pineda2013]. However, COBE observations of the \[NII\] 205 $\mu$m line from the Milky Way (Bennet et al 1994) have demonstrated that \[CII\] 158 $\mu$m emission from the WIM may be more important along some sight-lines (Heiles 1994).
![Ratio of the line to continuum ratio, for $n=700$, to the \[CII\] $158~\mu m$ line as a function of density. This example ratio shows how CRRL/\[CII\] can be used as a diagnostic plot to constrain electron density and temperature.\[fig\_diagplotdensity\]](crrl700firlineratiovsne.ps){width="1\columnwidth"}
On the Observed Behavior of CRRLs {#section_examples}
=================================
General considerations
----------------------
CRRLs have been observed towards two types of regions: high density PDRs and diffuse clouds [@gordon2009]. In general, low frequency CRRLs are observed in absorption with values for the integrated line to continuum ratio in the range of $1~\mathrm{to}~5~\mathrm{Hz}$ [^6] and a peak line-to-continuum ratio of $\sim10^{-4}~\mathrm{to}~10^{-3}$ [@erickson1995; @kantharia1998; @roshi2002; @oonk2014].
In order to observe CRRLs, carbon atoms must be singly ionized. In HII regions, carbon is found in higher stages of ionization and the gas is dense and warm. Hence, recombination lines of the type we study here are not expected to be strong. n photodissociation regions of high density, carbon atoms transition from ionized to neutral and into molecular (CO) around a visual extinction $A_V\approx 4$ mag, depending on the density and UV field. Assuming $A_V=\mathcal{N}_\mathrm{H}/1.9\times10^{21}~\mathrm{mag~cm^{-2}}$ we can estimate the maximum column density of carbon that can be expected for such a transition region. Assuming that carbon is fully ionized and a carbon abundance of ${1.6\times 10^{-4}}$, we obtain a column density of carbon of $1.2\times10^{18}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$.
As mentioned in Section \[section\_radtransf\], CRRLs produced in clouds with high temperatures are faint due to the strong dependence of the line-to-continuum ratio on temperature. Therefore, regions of low temperature are favored to be observed using low frequency recombination lines. These two considerations (low $T_e$ and $N_e$) set a range of electron density and temperature for which CRRLs are easier to detect. Specifically, consider a medium with two phases in pressure equilibrium. From Equation \[eqn\_linetocontapp\], the optical depth ratio scales then with: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tau_1}{\tau_2}\propto \frac{N_{e,1}^2}{T_{e,1}^{5/2}} \frac{T_{e,2}^{5/2}}{N_{e,2}^2} \frac{(b_n\beta_n)_1}{(b_n\beta_n)_2}\frac{L_1}{L_2}\propto
\left(\frac{T_2}{T_1} \right)^{9/2} \frac{(b_n\beta_n)_1}{(b_n\beta_n)_2}\frac{L_1}{L_2}.\end{aligned}$$ For parameters relevant for the CNM and WNM ($T_{e,1}=80~\mathrm{K},~T_{e,2}=8000~\mathrm{K}$, respectively, @tielens05), we have then $\tau_1/\tau_2\sim10^9 (b_n\beta_n)_1/(b_n\beta_n)_2 L_1/L_2$. Clearly, CRRLs will overwhelmingly originate in cold, diffuse clouds. Therefore, unlike 21 cm HI observations, analysis of CRRL observations is not hampered by confusion of CNM and WNM components.
The fact that low frequency recombination lines are observed in absorption sets a lower limit on the density for the clouds where CRRLs are produced. Our models show that at electron densities lower than $10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ and for temperatures lower than 200 K low frequency CRRLs are in emission.
Illustrative examples
---------------------
In this section we illustrate the power of our models to derive physical parameters from observations of CRRLs. We selected observations towards Cas A as, to our knowledge, the clouds towards Cas A are the best studied using CRRLs. We then expand this illustration, by using observations of two regions observed towards the Galactic Center from @erickson1995.
### Cas A
We begin our analysis with CRRLs detected towards Cas A from the literature (e.g. @payne1994 [@kantharia1998; @stepkin2007]). In Figure \[fig\_contourcasa\], we summarize the constraints from: the integrated line $\alpha$ to $\beta$ ratio as a blue zone using the @stepkin2007 data. The transition from emission to absorption ($350<n_t<400$) is shown as the green zone. The 600 to 500 ratio vs. 270 to 500 ratio is included as the red zone[^7]. Finally, the yellow zone is the intersection of all the above mentioned zones.
The line width does not provide much of an additional contraint. For Cas A, with an observed line width of $6.7~\mathrm{kHz}$ at $\nu=560~\mathrm{MHz}$ [@kantharia1998] the implied gas temperature would be $T_e=3000~\mathrm{K}$ and actually we expect that the line is dominated by turbulence with $<v_{RMS}>\approx 2~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$ (Figure \[fig\_widthdiff\]). Likewise, the Cas A observations from @payne1994 [@kantharia1998] are of little additional use as we arrive at $N_e\lesssim0.1~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ and $T_0\lesssim2000~\mathrm{K}$.
Perusing Figure \[fig\_contourcasa\], we realize that the $\alpha$ to $\beta$ line ratio does not provide strong constraints due to the frequency at which the lines were observed as all the models converge to the high density limit (Figure \[fig\_alphabetagammaratios\]). The transition level from emission to absorption ($n_t$) restricts the allowed models to an area in the $N_e~\mathrm{vs}~T_e$ plane. However, at low temperatures ($T\lesssim 50$ K), the constraining power of $n_t$ is limited. The “ratio vs. ratio” plots can be quite useful in constraining both the electron density and the temperature of the line producing cloud, as we have illustrated here.
The results of our models show that the properties of the cloud are well restricted in density ($N_e=2-3\times10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$) – corresponding to H-densities of $\sim100-200~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ – but somewhat less in temperature ($T_e=80-200~\mathrm{K}$). We emphasize, though, that these results are ill-defined averages as the CRRLs towards Cas A are known to be produced in multiple velocity components which are blended together. In addition, preliminary analysis of the LOFAR data indicates variations in CRRL optical depth on angular scales significantly smaller than the beam sizes used in the observational data from the previous literature studies quoted here. Nevertheless, this example illustrates the power of CRRL observations to measure the physical conditions in diffuse interstellar clouds.
![Summary of the constraints for the $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ and $\mathrm{C}n\beta$ transitions from @stepkin2007 towards Cas A. The blue zone shows the region allowed by the integrated $\alpha$ to $\beta$ ratio constraints. The green zone is the region allowed from the $n_t$ constraints. The red zone is the region allowed from the 600 to 500 ratio vs. 270 to 500. The yellow zone shows the overlap region from all the constraints. The electron density is well constrained to be $2-3\times{10^{-2}}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. The temperature is constrained to be within 80 and 200 K.\[fig\_contourcasa\]](contourplotsCasA_lines.ps){width="1\columnwidth"}
### Galactic Center Regions
As a second example, we analyze observations of clouds detected towards regions in the galactic plane [@erickson1995]. In view of the scarceness, low spatial resolution and limited frequency coverage of the data available in the literature, our results should be taken with care and considered illustrative. We chose two regions with good signal to noise measurements (SNR$>10$). In Table 1, we show the line parameters for $\mathrm{C}441\alpha$ and $\mathrm{C}555\beta$ lines from @erickson1995 with a beam size of $4^\circ$.
---------- ------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
Name $\tau(441\alpha)$ $\Delta v(441\alpha)$ $\tau(555\beta)$ $\Delta v(555\beta)$
$\times10^{-3}$ $\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$ $\times10^{-3}$ $\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$
G000.0+0 0.73$\pm$0.03 24$\pm$1 0.35$\pm$0.03 24$\pm$2
G002.0-2 0.97$\pm$0.08 9$\pm$1 0.75$\pm$0.04 25$\pm$2
---------- ------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
: Selected values for $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$ and $\mathrm{C}n\beta$ lines for regions observed by @erickson1995.
In Figure \[fig\_contourGC\], we summarize the constraints imposed by the integrated $\alpha$ to $\beta$ line ratio as a blue zone, the transition from emission to absorption ($n_t$ level) as a green zone (we estimate to be $350<n_t<400$) and the integrated line-to-continuum to the $I(158~\mu m)$ ratio as the orange zone.
From the line widths towards the lines of sight in Table 1, an upper limit to the density can be estimated by assuming pure collisional broadening, as shown in Section \[section\_lineprofile\]. The upper limits on density are $N_e\leq 1.5~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ for G000.0+0 and $N_e\leq 0.5~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ for G002.0-2. The constraint is even more strict when considering that part of the broadening must be produced by the Galactic radiation field. Assuming no collisional broadening, the upper limits on the background temperatures for the regions are ${T_0}\leq 4\times10^4~\mathrm{K}$ for G000.0+0 and ${T_0}\leq 1.5\times10^4~\mathrm{K}$ for G002.0-2. These are strict upper limits as the observations from @erickson1995 were performed with large beams and the observed lines are likely produced by several “clouds” in the beam.
We estimate the value for $I(158~\mathrm{\mu m})$ to be $8-12\times10^{-5}~\mathrm{erg~s~cm^{-2}~sr^{-1}}$ from *COBE* data [@bennett1994]. Since the data from @erickson1995 is for the $\mathrm{C}441\alpha$ line, we created a diagnostic plot similar to that in Figure \[fig\_diagplotdensity\] for the level 441. We obtain for G000.0+0, a value for $T_e$ between $20~\mathrm{and}~60~\mathrm{K}$ and $N_e$ between $4\times10^{-2}~\mathrm{and}~1\times10^{-1}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. For G002.0-2, we obtain $T_e=20~\mathrm{to}~80~\mathrm{K}$ and $N_e=4\times10^{-2}-1\times10^{-1}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. With these values and using Equation \[eqn\_integlinetocontx\] we determine lengths of 2 to 19 pc for G000.0+0 and 1 to 9 pc for G002.0-2. Assuming that the electrons are provided by carbon ionization and adopting a carbon gas phase abundance of $1.6\times 10^{-4}$, we derive thermal pressures between 5000 and 37500 $\mathrm{K~cm^{-3}}$ for G000.0+0 and between 5000 and 50000 $\mathrm{K~cm^{-3}}$ for G002.0-2. Strictly speaking the values from COBE include emission produced in the neutral and warm components along the lines of sight. Since CRRLs are expected to be produced predominantly in cold clouds, the here determined ratio between the CRRL and the \[CII\] line can be underestimated. However, @pineda2013 showed that the contribution from ionized gas to the \[CII\] line is $\sim 4\%$ towards the inner Galaxy. It is clear from Figure \[fig\_contourGC\] that the $n_t$ level (green zone in the plots) and the integrated $\alpha$-to-$\beta$ line ratio provide similar constrains in the $N_e$ vs. $T_e$ plane. By far, the strongest constraint comes from $n_t$, since the errors in the measurements do not provide strong limits on the $\alpha$-to-$\beta$ line ratio. As the error bars are rather large, the derived constraints – given above – are not very precise. Nevertheless, the inherent power of CRRL for quantitative studies of diffuse clouds in the ISM is quite apparent.
![Same as Figure \[fig\_contourcasa\] for regions towards the Galactic center (data from @erickson1995). The $\alpha$ to $\beta$ ratio constraints is shown as a blue region. The constraints derived from $n_t$ are shown as a green zone. In addition, we have added the constraint from CRRL to \[CII\] 158 $\micron$ ratio as the orange shaded zone.\[fig\_contourGC\]](contourplotsGC_00.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![Same as Figure \[fig\_contourcasa\] for regions towards the Galactic center (data from @erickson1995). The $\alpha$ to $\beta$ ratio constraints is shown as a blue region. The constraints derived from $n_t$ are shown as a green zone. In addition, we have added the constraint from CRRL to \[CII\] 158 $\micron$ ratio as the orange shaded zone.\[fig\_contourGC\]](contourplotsGC_02.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Discussion
----------
As the examples of Cas A and G000.0+0 and G002.0-2 show, a large amount of relevant physical information on the properties of the clouds can be obtained from CRRL measurements, despite the scarceness of the data used here. The $\alpha$-to-$\beta$ line ratios can provide powerful constraints as long as the frequency observed is higher than 30 MHz. As illustrated by our Cas A example, the CRRL ratio plots can be extremely useful in constraining the electron density and temperature, and lines with a large separation in terms of quantum number are expected to be the most useful ratios. As illustrated in Figure \[fig\_integtauratio\], ratios between levels around 300 and 500 can provide direct constraints or indirect constraints by using, in addition, the $n_t$ value. An advantage of using ratios is that they only depend on the local conditions and beam filling factors are of little concern.
Although we consider our examples illustrative the determined values for $T_e$ and $n_e$ are within the values expected from theory (e.g. @wolfire2003 [@kim2011]) and HI 21 cm observations [@heilesandtroland2003b]. Moreover, the derived thermal pressures agree well with those derived from CI UV lines in the local ISM [@jenkins1979; @jenkins1983; @jenkins2011].
Summary and Conclusions {#section_conclusions}
=======================
In this paper we have analyzed carbon radio recombination line observations. Anticipating the LOFAR CRRL survey, we focus our study in the low frequency regime, corresponding to transitions between lines with high principal quantum number. We have studied the radiative transfer of recombination lines and the line broadening mechanisms in the most general form.
Our results show that line widths provide constraints on the physical properties of the gas. At high frequencies the observed line widths provide limits on the gas temperature and on the turbulent velocity of the cloud. At low frequencies, observed line widths provide constraints on the electron density of the intervening cloud and on the radiation field that the cloud is embedded in. Using the departure coefficients obtained in Paper I, we analyzed the behavior of the lines under the physical conditions of the diffuse ISM. Integrated optical depths provide constraints on the electron density, electron temperature and the emission measure or size of the cloud. The use of CRRLs together with \[CII\] at 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ can constrain the temperature.
As an illustration of the use of our models, we have analyzed existing data in low frequency CRRLs towards Cas A and the inner galaxy to derive physical parameters of the absorbing/emitting clouds [@payne1994; @stepkin2007; @erickson1995].
Our models predict that detailed studies of CRRLs should be possible with currently available instrumentation. By using realistic estimates for the properties of the diffuse ISM we obtain optical depths that are within the capabilities of LOFAR and of the future Square Kilometer Array [@oonk2015a]. Given the clumpy nature of the ISM, we encourage observations with high angular resolution. Observations with large beams are biased towards line of sights with large optical depth and narrow lines, and these happen to be clouds of low density for a given temperature. High spectral resolution is also encouraged in order to distinguish multiple components along the line of sights. Once the temperature and the density have been determined, the observed intensities yield the C$+$ column density which can be combined with the HI column density from 21 cm observations to determine the gas phase carbon abundance.
The main conclusions of our work are:
1\) CRRLs provide a powerful probe of the physical conditions of diffuse interstellar clouds.
2\) Meaningful constraints on gas properties can be derived from combining information on the location of the transition from emission to absorption, $\alpha$-to-$\beta$ ratios and $\alpha$-line ratios spread in frequency. Further limits are provided by the low frequency line width.
3\) Comparison of CRRLs with \[CII\] 158 $\mu \mathrm{m}$ line measured by COBE [@bennett1994], BICE [@nakagawa1998] and Herschel (GOT C+;@pineda2013); in addition to new observations with the German Receiver for Astronomy at Terahertz Frequencies (GREAT; @heyminck2012) on board of SOFIA, will provide important constraints primarily on the temperature, but also aid in further constraining the density and size of diffuse clouds.
Bakes, E. L. O., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1994, , 427, 822 Bennett, C. L., Fixsen, D. J., Hinshaw, G., et al. 1994, , 434, 587 Bennett, C. L., Hill, R. S., Hinshaw, G., et al. 2003, , 148, 97 Brocklehurst, M. 1970, , 148, 417 Brocklehurst, M. 1971, , 153, 471 Brocklehurst, M., & Seaton, M. J. 1972, , 157, 179 Brocklehurst, M. 1973, , 14, 81 Brocklehurst, M., & Salem, M. 1975, Computer Physics Communications, 9, 258 Brocklehurst, M., & Salem, M. 1977, Computer Physics Communications, 13, 39 Cox, D. P. 2005, , 43, 337 Crawford, M. K., Genzel, R., Townes, C. H., & Watson, D. M. 1985, , 291, 755 Dupree, A. K. 1972, , 173, 293 Erickson, W. C., McConnell, D., & Anantharamaiah, K. R. 1995, , 454, 125 Ellingson, S. W., Taylor, G. B., Craig, J., et al. 2013, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 61, 2540 Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, , 42, 211 Ferri[è]{}re, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031 Field, G. B., Goldsmith, D. W., & Habing, H. J. 1969, , 155, L149 Gordon, M. A., & Sorochenko, R. L. 2009, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 282, Griem, H. R. 1967, , 148, 547 Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2003, , 145, 329 Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2003, , 586, 1067 Heyminck, S., Graf, U. U., G[ü]{}sten, R., et al. 2012, , 542, L1 Hollenbach, D. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1999, Reviews of Modern Physics, 71, 173 Haslam, C. G. T., Salter, C. J., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. E. 1982, , 47, 1 Hummer, D. G., & Storey, P. J. 1987, , 224, 801 Jenkins, E. B., & Shaya, E. J. 1979, , 231, 55 Jenkins, E. B., Jura, M., & Loewenstein, M. 1983, , 270, 88 Jenkins, E. B., & Tripp, T. M. 2011, , 734, 65 Kalberla, P. M. W., & Kerp, J. 2009, , 47, 27 Kantharia, N. G., Anantharamaiah, K. R., & Payne, H. E. 1998, , 506, 758 Kantharia, N. G., & Anantharamaiah, K. R. 2001, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 22, 51 Kim, C.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2011, , 743, 25 Konovalenko, A. A., & Sodin, L. G. 1981, , 294, 135 Kulkarni, S. R., & Heiles, C. 1987, Interstellar Processes, 134, 87 Landecker, T. L., & Wielebinski, R. 1970, Australian Journal of Physics Astrophysical Supplement, 16, 1 McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, J. P. 1977, , 218, 148 McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, , 45, 565 Menzel, D. H. 1968, , 218, 756 Morabito, L. K., Oonk, J. B. R., Salgado, F., et al. 2014, , 795, LL33 Natta, A., Walmsley, C. M., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1994, , 428, 209 Nakagawa, T., Yui, Y. Y., Doi, Y., et al. 1998, , 115, 259 Oonk, J. B. R., van Weeren, R. J., Salgado, F., et al. 2014, , 437, 3506 Oonk, J. B. R., Morabito, L. K., Salgado, F., et al. 2015a, arXiv:1501.01179 Oonk, J. B. R., et al. 2015b, in preparation Payne, H. E., Anantharamaiah, K. R., & Erickson, W. C. 1994, , 430, 690 Pineda, J. L., Langer, W. D., Velusamy, T., & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, , 554, AA103 Ponomarev, V. O., & Sorochenko, R. L. 1992, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 18, 215 Quireza, C., Rood, R. T., Balser, D. S., & Bania, T. M. 2006, , 165, 338 Roshi, D. A., Kantharia, N. G., & Anantharamaiah, K. R. 2002, , 391, 1097 Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics, by George B. Rybicki, Alan P. Lightman, pp. 400. ISBN 0-471-82759-2. Wiley-VCH , June 1986., Salgado, F., et al. submitted (Paper I) Scalo, J., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2004, , 42, 275 Seaton, J. M 1959, , 119, 81 Seaton, J. M 1959, , 119, 90 Shaver, P. A. 1975, Pramana, 5, 1 Sorochenko, R. L., & Tsivilev, A. P. 2000, Astronomy Reports, 44, 426 Spitzer, L. 1978, New York Wiley-Interscience, 1978. 333 p., Stepkin, S. V., Konovalenko, A. A., Kantharia, N. G., & Udaya Shankar, N. 2007, , 374, 852 Strelnitski, V. S., Ponomarev, V. O., & Smith, H. A. 1996, , 470, 1118 Tingay S. J., Goeke R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, 7 Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2005, The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium, by A. G. G. M. Tielens, pp. . ISBN 0521826349. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005., van Haarlem M. P., Wise M. W., Gunst A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, 2 Walmsley, C. M., & Watson, W. D. 1982, , 260, 317 Watson, W. D., Western, L. R., & Christensen, R. B. 1980, , 240, 956 Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D., McKee, C. F., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Bakes, E. L. O. 1995, , 443, 152 Wolfire, M. G., McKee, C. F., Hollenbach, D., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2003, , 587, 278 Wyrowski, F., Schilke, P., Hofner, P., & Walmsley, C. M. 1997, , 487, L171
List of Symbols {#appendix_listofsymbols}
===============
[lp[100mm]{}]{}
\
\
Symbol & Descritpion\
\
Symbol &\
\
$A_{n'n}$ & Einstein coefficient for spontaneous transitions\
$A_{3/2,1/2}$& Spontaneous transition rate of the carbon fine structure line ${^2}P_{3/2}$-${^2}P_{1/2}$\
$a(T_e)$& Fitting coefficient for collisional broadening\
$B_{nn'}$ & Einstein coefficient for stimulated transition\
$b_n$& Departure coefficient for level n\
$B_{\nu}(T)$ & Planck function at frequency $\nu$ for a temperature $T$\
$C_{n'n}$& Rates for energy changing collisions between level $n'$ and $n$\
$\mathrm{C}n\alpha$& Carbon recombination line with $\Delta n=1$\
$c$& Speed of light\
$EM_{\mathrm{C+}}$& Emission measure of carbon ions\
$h$& Planck constant\
$I_0(\nu)$& Intensity of the background continuum\
$I_\nu^{line}$& Intensity of the line\
$I_\nu^{cont}$& Intensity of the continuum\
$I_{158}$& Intensity of the fine structure line of carbon at 158 $\mathrm{\mu m}$\
$j_\nu^l$ & line emission coefficient\
$j_\nu^c$ & continuum emission coefficient\
$k$& Boltzmann constant\
$k_\nu^l$ & line absorption coefficient\
$k_\nu^c$ & continuum absorption coefficient\
$L$& Pathlength of the cloud\
$M(\Delta n)$& Approximation factor for the oscillator strength, as given by @menzel1968\
$m_C$& Mass of a carbon atom\
$N_{3/2}^+$& Level population of carbon ions in the ${^2}P_{3/2}$ core\
$N_{\mathrm{C}+}$& Number density of carbon ions\
$N_e$& Electron density\
$\mathcal{N}_\mathrm{C^+}$& Carbon column density\
$\mathcal{N}_\mathrm{H}$& Hydrogen column density\
$n$& Lower principal quantum number\
$n'$& Upper principal quantum number\
$n_t$& Level where the observed lines transition from emission to absorption\
$R$& Ratio between the fine structure (${^2}P_{3/2}$-${^2}P_{1/2}$) level population and the fine structure level population in LTE\
$Ry$& Rydberg constant\
$T_0$& Temperature of power law background spectrum at frequency $\nu_0$\
$t_n$& Ratio of radiation to collisional broadening\
$T_X$ & Excitation temperature\
$T_e$& Electron temperature\
$\langle v_{RMS} \rangle$& RMS turbulent velocity\
$\alpha_{1/2}$& Fraction of carbon ions in the ${^2}P_{1/2}$ level\
$\alpha_{pl}$& Exponent of the power law background spectrum\
$\beta_{n n'}$& Correction factor for stimulated emission\
$\beta_{158}$& Correction for simulated emission to the \[CII\] fine structure line ${^2}P_{3/2}$-${^2}P_{1/2}$\
$\gamma_c(T_e)$& Fitting coefficient for collisional broadening\
$\gamma_e$& De-excitation rate for carbon ions in the ${^2}P_{3/2}$ core due to collisions with electrons\
$\gamma_H$& De-excitation rate for carbon ions in the ${^2}P_{3/2}$ core due to collisions with hydrogen atoms\
$\Delta n$& $n'-n$, difference between the upper and lower principal quantum number\
$\Delta \nu_D$& Doppler width\
$\Delta \nu_{rad}$& Radiation broadening\
$\Delta \nu_{col}$& Collisional broadening\
$\nu$& Frequency of a transition\
$\eta$& Correction factor to the Planck function due to non-LTE level population\
$\tau_{158}$& Optical depth for the \[CII\] fine structure line ${^2}P_{3/2}$-${^2}P_{1/2}$\
$\tau_\nu^l$& Optical depth of the line\
$\tau_\nu^c$& Optical depth of the continuum\
$\tau_\nu^{total}$& Sum of $\tau_\nu^l$ and $\tau_\nu^c$\
$\phi(\nu)$& Line profile\
$\nu_0$& Reference frequency for the power law background spectrum\
${\chi_n}$ & ${hc Z^2 Ry /n^2 k T_e}$\
Radiative Transfer {#appendix_radtransfer}
==================
The radiative transfer equation for a line in the plane parallel approximation is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dI_\nu}{dx}(x)&=& -k_\nu(x) I_\nu(x)+j_\nu(x)\\
k_\nu&=&k_\nu^l+k_\nu^c\\
j_\nu&=&j_\nu^l+j_\nu^c,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_\nu^l$ is the line absorption coefficient, $k_\nu^c$ is the continuum absorption coefficient, $j_\nu^l$ is the line emission coefficient, $j_\nu^c$ is the continuum emission coefficient and $I_\nu(x)$ is the specific intensity of a nebula at a frequency $\nu$ as a function of depth in the cloud $x$. The line absorption and emission coefficients are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_emmcoeff}
j_\nu^l &=& \frac{h \nu}{4 \pi} A_{n'n} N_{n'} \phi(\nu),\\
k_\nu^l &=& \frac{h \nu}{4 \pi} \left( N_{n} B_{nn'}-N_{n'} B_{n'n} \right) \phi(\nu),\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{n'}$ is the level population of a given upper level and $N_{n}$ is the level population of the lower level; $\nu$ is the frequency of the transition and $A_{n'n}$, $B_{n'n}(B_{nn'})$ are the Einstein coefficients for spontaneous and stimulated emission (absorption), related to each other by: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n'n}&=& \frac{2 h\nu^3}{c^2} B_{n'n},\\
B_{nn'}&=& \frac{\omega_{n'}}{\omega_n} B_{n'n}.\end{aligned}$$ The factor $\phi(\nu)$ in Equation \[eqn\_emmcoeff\] is the normalized line profile ($\int \phi(\nu) \mathrm{d}\nu=1$). The effects on the emission are analyzed in Section \[section\_lineprofile\]. Here, we assume that $j_\nu$ is evaluated at the line center where the frequency of the transition is $\nu_0$ and omit the $\phi(\nu_0)$ factor. Note that due to the normalization, $\phi(\nu_0)<1$. Under thermodynamic equilibrium the level population of a level $n$ ($N_n(LTE)$) is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
N_{n}(LTE)&=&N_e N_{ion}\left(\frac{h^2}{2 \pi m_e k T_e}\right)^{1.5} \frac{\omega_{n}}{2\omega(i)} e^{\chi_n}, \chi_n=\frac{hc Z^2 Ry}{n^2kT_e},\end{aligned}$$ where $N_e$ is the electron density in the nebula, $T_e$ is the electron temperature, $N_{ion}$ is the ion density, $m_e$ is the electron mass, $h$ is the Planck constant, $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, $c$ is the speed of light, $Ry$ is the Rydberg constant and $\omega_{n}$ is the statistical weight of the level $n$ ($\omega_{n}=2n^2$, for hydrogen). In the ISM, levels can be out of local thermodynamic equilibrium (Paper I). The level population can then be described by the departure coefficients $b_n = N_n/N_n(LTE)$, i. e. the ratio of the level population of a given level to its LTE value. From the definitions of $j_\nu^l$ and $k_\nu^l$, we can write the emission and absorption coefficients in terms of the departure coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
j_\nu^l &=& j_\nu^l(LTE) b_n,\\
k_\nu^l&=& \frac{h \nu}{4 \pi} \left( b_n N_{n}(LTE) B_{nn'}- b_{n'}N_{n'}(LTE)B_{n'n} \right),\\
&=& k_\nu^l(LTE) b_n \frac{1 - \frac{b_{n'}}{b_n} e^{-h\nu/kT_e}}{1 - e^{-h\nu/kT_e}}.\end{aligned}$$ The correction factor for stimulated emission/absorption, $\beta_{nn'}$, is: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{nn'}&=& \frac{1-\frac{b_{n'}}{b_n} e^{-h\nu/kT_e}}{1-e^{-h\nu/kT_e}}.\end{aligned}$$ Deviations from equilibrium can be also described in terms of the excitation temperature ($T_X$) of a transition, defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{N_{n'}/\omega_{n'}}{N_{n}/\omega_{n}}&=& \exp\left(\frac{-h \nu}{kT_X}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that $T_X$ is related to $\beta_{nn'}$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{nn'}&=& \frac{1-e^{-h\nu/kT_X}}{1-e^{-h\nu/kT_e}}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, under LTE conditions the excitation temperature approaches the value of the electron temperature, i.e. $T_X=T_e$. The description of the level population in terms of $T_X$ is useful to explain the behavior of the lines as we show in Section \[section\_results\]. For a homogeneous cloud, the radiative transfer equation can be solved. At a given frequency, the observed flux has contributions from both the line and the continuum; which can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
I_\nu^{total} &=& \frac{j_\nu^c+j_\nu^l}{k_\nu^c+k_\nu^l} \left[1-e^{-(\tau_\nu^c+\tau_\nu^l)}\right]+I_0(\nu) e^{-(\tau_\nu^c+\tau_\nu^l)},\\
I_\nu^{c} &=& \frac{j_\nu^c}{k_\nu^c} (1-e^{-\tau_\nu^c})+I_0(\nu) e^{-\tau_\nu^c},\end{aligned}$$ where a background continuum source, $I_0(\nu)$ has been introduced. The coefficients $\tau_\nu^x=\int k^x_\nu(s) ds$ are the optical depth for $x$ of either the continuum or the line. Assuming homogeneity $\tau_\nu^x= k^x_\nu L$, where $L$ is the length along the line of sight of the cloud, we can separate the contribution from the line itself since it is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
I_\nu^{line}&=& I_\nu^{total}- I_\nu^{c}\\
I_\nu^{total}- I_\nu^{continuum} &=& \frac{j_\nu^c+j_\nu^l}{k_\nu^c+k_\nu^l} (1-e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}})+I_0(\nu) e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}}\\
&&- \frac{j_\nu^c}{k_\nu^c}(1-e^{-\tau_\nu^c})-I_0(\nu) e^{-\tau_\nu^c} \nonumber\\
\tau_\nu^{total} &=&\tau_\nu^c+\tau_\nu^l.\end{aligned}$$ We can write the line contribution in terms of the source function ($S_\nu$) by using Kirchoff’s law \[$j_\nu=\kappa_\nu B_\nu(T_e)$, with $B_\nu(T_e)$ the Planck function\]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_\nu &=& \frac{j_\nu^c+j_\nu^l}{k_\nu^c+k_\nu^l} \nonumber\\
&=& \left[\frac{k_\nu^c+b_{n'} k_\nu^l(LTE)}{k_\nu^c+b_n \beta_{nn'}k_\nu^l(LTE)}\right]B_\nu(T_e).\end{aligned}$$
We identify a correction factor to the Planck function for departures from LTE: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta&=&\frac{k_\nu^c+b_{n'} k_\nu^l(LTE)}{k_\nu^c+b_n \beta_{nn'}k_\nu^l(LTE)},\end{aligned}$$ as in e.g. @strelnitski1996 and @gordon2009.
With these definitions, we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
I_\nu^{line}&=& \eta B_\nu(T_e)(1-e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}}) -B_\nu(T_e)(1-e^{-\tau_\nu^c})+ \nonumber\\
&&+I_0(\nu)e^{-\tau_\nu^c}\left(e^{-\tau_\nu^l}-1\right),\end{aligned}$$ and the intensity of a line relative to the continuum is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_linecontgeneral_app}
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}} &=& \frac{\eta B_\nu(T_e) (1-e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}})+I_0(\nu) e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}}}{B_\nu(T_e)(1-e^{-\tau_\nu^c}) + I_0(\nu) e^{-\tau_\nu^c}} -1,\end{aligned}$$ In the absence of a background radiation field ($I_0=0$) this reduces to: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{I_\nu^{line}}{I_\nu^{cont}}&=& \frac{\eta (1-e^{-\tau_\nu^{total}})}{(1-e^{-\tau_\nu^c})}-1.\end{aligned}$$
In Section \[section\_lineprofile\], we showed that under the conditions of the diffuse ISM the line profile is expected to be Lorentzian in shape, and, at the line center, $\phi(\nu_0)=2/\pi\Delta\nu_L$ with $\Delta \nu_L$ the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the line. This sets a range of physical parameters for which the approximation $|\tau_\nu^l| \ll1$ is valid.
Doppler and Lorentzian broadening {#appendix_dopbroadening}
---------------------------------
Doppler broadening occurs due to turbulent motions in the gas and thermal motions is given by a Gaussian distribution with a Doppler width [@rybicki1986]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu_D= \frac{\nu_0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m_{atom}}+\langle v_{RMS} \rangle^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{atom}$ is the mass of the atom and $\langle v_{RMS} \rangle$ is the RMS turbulent velocity. The line profile as a function of frequency is given by the expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_\nu^G(\nu)=\frac{1}{\Delta \nu_D \sqrt{\pi}} \exp{-\left(\frac{\nu-\nu_0}{\Delta \nu_D} \right)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ With this definition the FWHM is $\Delta \nu_D(\mathrm{FWHM})= 2\sqrt{\mathrm{ln(2)}}\Delta \nu_D$. Note that Doppler broadening is dominated by turbulence for $T_e~<~60.5~(m_{atom}/m_H) (\langle v_{RMS}\rangle/\mathrm{km~s^{-2}})^2~\mathrm{K}$, here $m_H$ is the mass of a proton.
The Lorentzian width of a line produced by a transition from a level $n'$ to $n$ is related to the net transition out of the levels [@shaver1975; @rybicki1986]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{n'n}&=& \Gamma_{n'}+\Gamma_{n},\\
\Gamma_{n'}&=& \sum_{n<n'} A_{n'n}+\sum_{n\neq n'} N_e C_{n'n}+\sum_{n \neq n'} B_{n'n} I_\nu,\\
&=& \Gamma_{natural}+\Gamma_{collisions}+\Gamma_{radiation}\end{aligned}$$ with an analogous formula for $\Gamma_{n}$. Here, we have to consider collisions with electrons and transitions induced by an external radiation field. This produces a Lorentzian line profile: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_\nu^L(\nu)=\frac{\gamma}{\pi} \frac{1}{(\nu-\nu_0)^2+\gamma^2},\end{aligned}$$ the FWHM is $\Delta \nu_L(\mathrm{FWHM})= 2 \gamma$. The width $\gamma$ of a line transition between levels $n$ and $n'$ is given by $\gamma=(\Gamma_n+\Gamma_{n'})/4\pi$. For transitions between lines with $n\approx n'$ we have $\Gamma_n\approx\Gamma_{n'}$ and $\gamma\approx\Gamma_{n}/2\pi$.
In the most general case, the line profile is given by the Voigt profile, i.e. the convolution of the Gaussian and the Lorentzian profile, e. g. @gordon2009: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_\nu^V(\nu)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \phi_\nu^L(\nu) \phi_\nu^G(\nu) \mathrm{d}\nu.\end{aligned}$$ This can be written in terms of the Voigt function \[$H(a,u)$\] by using the proper normalization: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_\nu^V( \nu)&=&\frac{1}{\Delta \nu_D \sqrt{\pi}} H(a,u) \\
H(a,u)&=&\frac{a}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-y^2} \mathrm{d}y}{a^2+(y-u)^2},\end{aligned}$$ with $a=\gamma/\Delta \nu_D$ and $u=(\nu-\nu_0)/\Delta \nu_D$. The FWHM of the Voigt profile can be approximated by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu_V(\mathrm{FWHM})=0.5346 \Delta \nu_L(\mathrm{FWHM})+\sqrt{0.2166 \Delta \nu_L(\mathrm{FWHM})^2+\Delta \nu_D(\mathrm{FWHM})^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Collisional/Stark broadening {#appendix_colbroadening}
----------------------------
Collisions with electrons produce line broadening: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu_{col} = \frac{2}{\pi}\sum_{n\neq n'} N_e C_{n'n},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{n'n}$ is the collision rate for electrons induced transitions from level $n'$ to $n$, and $N_e$ is the electron density. For levels $n > 100$ we fitted the following function to depopulating collisions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_fitcolapp}
\sum_{n\neq n'} N_e C_{n'n} = N_e 10^a \times n^{\gamma_c}.\end{aligned}$$ Values for $a$ and $\gamma_c$ are given in Table \[table\_col\]. The values used here agree with those from Shaver at low temperatures, but at temperatures larger than about $1000~\mathrm{K}$ they can differ by factors larger than about $4$. The values presented here agree well with those of @griem1967 at large temperatures. At low frequencies, collisional broadening is large and dominates over Doppler broadening in the absence of a background radiation field. As can be seen from the dependence on the electron density, clouds with higher densities have broader lines than those with lower densities at a given level $n$.
$T_e~\mathrm{(K)}$ $a$ $\gamma_c$
-------------------- -------- ------------
10 -10.97 5.482
20 -10.67 5.435
30 -10.49 5.407
40 -10.37 5.386
50 -10.27 5.369
60 -10.19 5.354
70 -10.12 5.341
80 -10.06 5.329
90 -10.01 5.318
100 -9.961 5.308
200 -9.620 5.228
300 -9.400 5.170
400 -9.234 5.122
500 -9.085 5.077
600 -8.969 5.041
700 -8.869 5.009
800 -8.780 4.980
900 -8.701 4.953
1000 -8.630 4.929
2000 -8.272 4.806
3000 -8.009 4.706
4000 -7.834 4.636
5000 -7.708 4.583
6000 -7.613 4.542
7000 -7.538 4.509
8000 -7.477 4.482
9000 -7.427 4.458
10000 -7.386 4.439
20000 -7.181 4.329
30000 -7.113 4.281
: Coefficients for Equation \[eqn\_fitcol\].[]{data-label="table_col"}
Radiation broadening {#appendix_radbroadening}
====================
The depopulation of a given level $n'$ due to stimulated transitions is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{n'}^{radiation} = \sum_{n \neq n'} B_{n'n} I_\nu.\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{n'n}$ is the Einstein $B$ coefficient for stimulated transitions from level $n'$ to $n$, and $I_\nu$ is an external radiation field.
We can write the Einstein $B_{n'n}$ coefficients in terms of the Einstein $A_{n'n}$ coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu=\frac{c^2}{2 h \nu^3} A_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu,\end{aligned}$$ (e.g. @shaver1975 and @gordon2009) where we have used the $n'=n+\Delta n$. Assuming a power-law like radiation field, with temperature $T_R=T_0 (\nu/\nu_0)^{\alpha_{pl}}$ we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_bnnann}
B_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu=\frac{ k T_0}{h \nu_0^{\alpha_{pl}}} A_{n+\Delta n,n} \nu^{\alpha_{pl}-1}.\end{aligned}$$ The Einstein $A$ coefficient can be written in terms of the oscillator strength, $f_{n,n+\Delta n}$ (e.g. @shaver1975): $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n+\Delta n,n} = \frac{8 \pi^2 e^2 \nu^2}{m_e c^3} \left(\frac{n}{n+\Delta n} \right)^2 f_{n, n+\Delta n},\end{aligned}$$ Replacing in Equation \[eqn\_bnnann\] leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_appbnnp}
B_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu&=& \frac{k T_0}{h \nu_0^{\alpha_{pl}}} \frac{8 \pi^2 e^2 \nu^2}{m_e c^3} \left(\frac{n}{n+\Delta n} \right)^2 f_{n, n+\Delta n} \nu^{\alpha_{pl}-1}, \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{8 \pi^2 e^2}{ m_e c^3} \left( \frac{k T_0}{h\nu_0^{\alpha_{pl}}}\right) \left(\frac{n}{n+\Delta n} \right)^2 f_{n, n+\Delta n} \nu^{\alpha_{pl}+1}.\end{aligned}$$
@menzel1968 gives a simple approximation for computing the oscillator strength: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f_{n+\Delta n,n}}{n} \approx M(\Delta n) \left(1+ \frac{3}{2} \frac{\Delta n}{n} \right),\end{aligned}$$ with $M(\Delta n)=4/3 J_{\Delta n}(\Delta n) J'_{\Delta n}(\Delta n)/\Delta n^2$, where $J_{\Delta n}(\Delta n)$ is the Bessel function of order $\Delta n$. The $M(\Delta n)$ can be approximated by $M(\Delta n)\approx 0.1908/\Delta n^3$ to less than 16% in accuracy for $\Delta n=5$, and to better than 3% accuracy, by changing the exponent from 3 to 2.9. The values for $M(\Delta n)=0.1908,~0.02633,~0.008106,~0.003492,~0.001812$ for $\Delta n=1,~2,~3,~4,~5$.
The frequency of a line in the hydrogenic approximation is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{n+\Delta n,n} &=&Ry c Z^2\left( \frac{1}{n^2}-\frac{1}{\left(n+\Delta n \right)^2}\right),\\
&\approx& 2 Ry c Z^2 \frac{ \Delta n}{n^3}\left(1- \frac{3}{2} \frac{\Delta n}{n} \right),\end{aligned}$$ (e. g. @shaver1975 [@gordon2009]). Replacing $\nu$ in Equation \[eqn\_appbnnp\] and for $Z=1$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu&=& \frac{8 \pi^2 e^2}{ m_e c^3} \left( \frac{k T_0}{h \nu_0^{\alpha_{pl}}}\right)\left(\frac{n}{n+\Delta n} \right)^2 M(\Delta n) \left(1+ \frac{3}{2} \frac{\Delta n}{n} \right)n \left[2 Ry c \frac{ \Delta n}{n^3}\left(1- \frac{3}{2} \frac{\Delta n}{n} \right)\right]^{\alpha_{pl}+1}, \nonumber \\
&\approx& \frac{8 \pi^2 e^2 (2 Ry c)^{\alpha_{pl}+1} k T_0}{m_e c^3 h \nu_0^{\alpha_{pl}}} M(\Delta n) n \left(\frac{\Delta n}{n^3}\right)^{\alpha_{pl}+1}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $\Delta n /n \ll 1$. Rearranging the expression we arrive to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_appc}
B_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu&=& \frac{8 \pi^2 e^2 (2 Ry c )^{\alpha_{pl}+1} k T_0}{m_e c^3 h \nu_0^{\alpha_{pl}}} M(\Delta n)n^{-3\alpha_{pl}-2} \Delta n^{\alpha_{pl}+1},\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{8 \pi^2 e^2 (2 Ry c )^{\alpha_{pl}+1} k T_0}{m_e c^3 h \nu_0^{\alpha_{pl}}} 0.1908 n^{-3\alpha_{pl}-2} \Delta n^{\alpha_{pl}-2},\nonumber \\
&=& 2.137 \times 10^4 \left(\frac{6.578 \times 10^{15}}{\nu_0}\right)^{\alpha_{pl}+1} k T_0 \nu_0 n^{-3\alpha_{pl}-2} \Delta n^{\alpha_{pl}-2}.\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating Equation \[eqn\_appc\] for $T_0=22.6 \times 10^3~\mathrm{K},~\nu_0=30~\mathrm{MHz},~\alpha_{pl}=-2.55$ at $n=100$, and $\Delta n=1$, we recover formula 2.177 of @gordon2009. Assuming $\alpha_{pl}=-2.6$ at a reference frequency of 100 MHz, Equation \[eqn\_appc\] is: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu&=&0.662 kT_0 n^{5.8} \Delta n^{-4.6} (\mathrm{s^{-1}}).\end{aligned}$$ Other relevant values are for an optically thick thermal source $\alpha_{pl}=0$ and an optically thin thermal source $\alpha_{pl}=-2.1$.
The broadening due to a radiation field in terms of the FWHM is: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu_{rad}(FWHM)&=&\frac{2}{\pi} \sum_{\Delta n} B_{n+\Delta n,n} I_\nu,\\
&\approx& 5.819\times10^{-17} T_0 n^{5.8}(1+2^{-4.6}+3^{-4.6}),\\
&=& 6.096\times10^{-17} T_0 n^{5.8}~(\mathrm{s^{-1}}).\end{aligned}$$
The FIR fine structure line of $\mathrm{C+}$ {#appendix_firline}
--------------------------------------------
The beam averaged optical depth of the fine structure line of carbon ions for the transition ${^2}P_{1/2}-{^2}P_{3/2}$ is given by @crawford1985 [@sorochenko2000]: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{158} &=& \frac{c^2}{8 \pi \nu^2} \frac{A_{3/2,1/2}}{1.06 \Delta \nu} 2 \alpha_{1/2} \beta_{158} N_{\mathrm{C^+}} L,\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{3/2,1/2}=2.4\times10^{-6}~\mathrm{s^{-1}}$, $\nu$ is the frequency of the ${^2}P_{1/2}-{^2}P_{3/2}$ transition and $\Delta \nu$ is the FWHM of the line. The $\alpha_{1/2}$ and $\beta_{158}$ defined by @sorochenko2000 are: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{1/2} &=& \frac{1}{1+2 \exp(-92/T_e) R},\\
\beta_{158} &=& 1-\exp(-92/T_e)R.\end{aligned}$$ The definition of $R$ is (@ponomarev1992 [@payne1994]; see also Paper I): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_payner_app}
R = \frac{N_e\gamma_e+N_H\gamma_H}{N_e\gamma_e+N_H\gamma_H+A_{3/2,1/2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_e~\mathrm{and}~\gamma_H$ are the de-excitation rates due to electrons and hydrogen atoms, respectively. For consistency we used the same values as in Paper I and neglected collisions with $\mathrm{H_2}$.
For the physical conditions considered here, we note that the FIR \[CII\] line is optically thin for hydrogen column densities of $\sim1.2\times10^{21}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$. This corresponds to hydrogen densities of about $400~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ and electron densities $6\times10^{-2}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, assuming a length of the cloud of 1 pc and width of $2~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$. The intensity of the \[CII\] 158 $\mu\mathrm{m}$ line in the optically thin limit is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{158}&=& \frac{h\nu}{4 \pi} A_{3/2,1/2} N^+_{3/2}\times L, \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{h\nu}{4 \pi} \frac{A_{3/2,1/2} 2\exp(-92/T_e) R}{1+2 \exp(-92/T_e) R}\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{C^+}},\end{aligned}$$ with $N^+_{3/2}$ the number density of carbon ions in the $3/2$ state, $L$ the pathlength through the cloud along the line of sight and $\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{C^+}}$ the column density of carbon ions. Considering radiative transfer effects, the intensity of the line is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{158}&=& \frac{2h\nu_0}{\lambda^2} \frac{1.06 \Delta \nu(FWHM)}{e^{92/T_{158}}-1},\end{aligned}$$ with $T_{158}$ defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{158}=\frac{92}{\mathrm{ln}\left[(e^{92/T_e} e^{\tau_{158}}/R-1)/(e^{\tau_{158}}-1) \right]}.\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: As in @salgado2015, following common usage in the astronomical literature, we refer to this process as dielectronic recombination rather than the more appropriate dielectronic capture.
[^2]: Throughout this article we assume a filling factor of unity.
[^3]: In Appendix A, we provide a comprehensive list of the symbols used in this article.
[^4]: Some values for $M(\Delta n)=0.1908,~0.02633,~0.008106,~0.003492,~0.001812$, for $\Delta n =1,~2,~3,~4,~5$, respectively [@menzel1968].
[^5]: We will refer to electron transitions in carbon from levels $n+1\rightarrow n$ as $\mathrm{C}n\alpha$, $n+2\rightarrow n$ as $\mathrm{C}n\beta$ and $n+3\rightarrow n$ as $\mathrm{C}n\gamma$ [@gordon2009].
[^6]: We quote the integrated line to continuum ratio in units of Hz as opposed to $\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$.
[^7]: We use the $n=270$ data from @kantharia1998 and estimate the data at $n=600$ from @payne1994 and analogous plots as in Figure \[fig\_integtauratio\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $c$ be fixed with $1<c<35/34$. In this paper we prove that for every sufficiently large real number $N$ and a small constant $\varepsilon>0$, the diophantine inequality $$|p_1^c+p_2^c+p_3^c-N|<\varepsilon$$ is solvable in primes $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$ near to squares.\
\
**Keywords**: Diophantine inequality; exponential sum; prime.\
\
[**2010 Math. Subject Classification**]{}: 11P55 $\cdot$ 11J25
author:
- '**S. I. Dimitrov**'
date: 2019
title: '**A ternary diophantine inequality by primes near to squares**'
---
Introduction and statement of the result
========================================
In 1952 I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro [@Shapiro] investigated the inequality $$\label{Shapiro}
|p_1^c+p_2^c+\cdot\cdot\cdot+p_r^c-N|<\varepsilon$$ where $c>1$ is not an integer, $\varepsilon$ is a fixed small positive number, and $p_1,...,p_r$ are primes. He proved the existence of an $H(c)$, depending only on $c$, such that for all sufficiently large real $N$, (\[Shapiro\]) has a solution for $H(c)\leq r$. He established that $$\limsup\limits_{c\rightarrow\infty}\frac{H(c)}{c\log c}\leq4$$ and also that $H(c)\leq5$ if $1<c<3/2$.
In 1992 Tolev [@Tolev2] showed that (\[Shapiro\]) has a solution for $r=3$ and $1<c<15/14$. The interval $1<c<15/14$ was subsequently improved by several authors [@Baker-Weingartner], [@Cai1], [@Cai2], [@Cai3], [@Cao-Zhai], [@Ku-Ne], [@Kumchev]. The best result up to now belongs to Cai [@Cai3] with $1<c<43/36$.
On the other hand in 1991 Tolev [@Tolev1] solved the diophantine inequality $$|\lambda_1p_1+\lambda_2p_2+\lambda_3p_3+\eta|<\varepsilon$$ in primes $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$ near to squares. Here $\eta$ is real, the constants $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$ satisfy some necessary conditions and $\varepsilon>0$ is a small constant.
More precisely Tolev proved the following theorem
Suppose that $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3$ are non-zero real numbers, not all of the same sign, that $\eta$ is real, $\lambda_1/\lambda_2$ is irrational and $0<\tau<1/8$. Then there exist infinitely many triples of primes $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$ such that $$|\lambda_1p_1+\lambda_2p_2+\lambda_3p_3+\eta|<(\max p_j)^{-\tau}$$ and $$\|\sqrt{p_1}\|,\; \|\sqrt{p_2}\|,\; \|\sqrt{p_3}\|<(\max p_j)^{-(1-8\tau)/26}\log^5(\max p_j)$$ (as usual, $\|\alpha\|$ denotes the distance from $\alpha$ to the nearest integer).
See [@Tolev1].
Motivated by these results and following the method of Tolev [@Tolev1] we shall prove the following theorem
\[MyTheorem\] Let $c$ and $\tau$ be fixed with $1<c<\tau<35/34$ and $\delta>0$ be a fixed sufficiently small number. Then for every sufficiently large real number $N$, the diophantine inequality $$|p_1^c+p_2^c+p_3^c-N|<N^{-\frac{1}{c}(\tau-c)}\log N$$ is solvable in primes $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$ such that $$\|\sqrt{p_1}\|,\; \|\sqrt{p_2}\|,\; \|\sqrt{p_3}\|<N^{-\frac{17}{48c}\big(\frac{35}{34}-\tau\big)+\delta}.$$
Notations and lemmas
====================
Let $N$ be a sufficiently large positive number. By $\eta$ we denote an arbitrary small positive number, not the same in all appearances. For positive $A$ and $B$ we write $A\asymp B$ instead of $A\ll B\ll A$. As usual $\mu(n)$ is Möbius’ function and $\tau(n)$ denotes the number of positive divisors of $n$. The letter $p$ with or without subscript will always denote prime number. We denote by $\Lambda(n)$ von Mangoldt’s function. Moreover $e(y)=e^{2\pi \imath y}$. As usual, $[y]$ denotes the integer part of $y$. Let $c$ and $\tau$ be fixed with $1<c<\tau<35/34$. By $\delta$ we denote an fixed sufficiently small positive number.\
Denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{X}
&X=(N/2)^{1/c}\,;\\
\label{varepsilon}
&\varepsilon=X^{c-\tau}\,;\\
\label{r}
&r=[\log X]\,;\\
\label{Y}
&Y=X^{-\frac{17}{48}\big(\frac{35}{34}-\tau\big)+\delta}\,;\\
\label{Delta}
&\Delta=Y/5\,;\\
\label{M}
&M=\Delta^{-1}r\,;\\
\label{Salpha}
&S(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{X/2<p\leq X} e(\alpha p^c)\log p\,;\\
\label{Ualpha}
&U(\alpha, m)=\sum\limits_{X/2<p\leq X} e(\alpha p^c+m\sqrt{p})\log p.\end{aligned}$$
\[Periodicfunction\] Let $r\in \mathbb{N}$. There exists a function $\chi(t)$ which is $r$-times continuously differentiable and 1-periodic with a Fourier series of the form $$\label{Fourierseries}
\chi(t)=\frac{9}{5}Y+\sum\limits_{m=-\infty\atop{m\neq0}}^\infty g(m) e(mt),$$ where $$\label{gmest}
|g(m)|\leq\min\bigg(\frac{1}{\pi|m|},\frac{1}{\pi |m|}
\bigg(\frac{r}{\pi |m|\Delta}\bigg)^r\bigg)$$ and $$\label{chit}
\chi(t) =
\begin{cases}
1 \quad \text{ if } &\|t\|\leq Y-\Delta,\\
0 \quad \text{ if } &\|t\|\geq Y,\\
\text{between} &0 \, \text{ and }\, 1 \text{ for the other t }.
\end{cases}$$
See ([@Karatsuba], p. 14).
We also denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Halpha}
&H(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{X/2<p\leq X} \chi(\sqrt{p}) e(\alpha p^c)\log p\,;\\
\label{Valpha}
&V(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{m=-\infty\atop{m\neq0}}^\infty g(m) U(\alpha, m).\end{aligned}$$ Further we need the function $A(x)$ used by Baker and Harman [@Baker-Harman]. It is continuous and integrable on the real line such that $$\label{Achi}
A(x)\leq\chi_{[-1, 1]}(x).$$ Further, if we write $$\hat{A}(\alpha)=\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty A(x) e(-\alpha x) dx,$$ then $$\hat{A}(\alpha)=0 \quad \text{ for } \quad |\alpha|\geq\mu,$$ where $\mu$ is a constant. Therefore if $$\label{P}
P=\frac{\mu}{\varepsilon},$$ then $$\label{hatA0}
\hat{A}(\varepsilon\alpha)=0 \quad \text{ for } \quad |\alpha|\geq P.$$
\[Lowerbound\] Let $1<c<15/14$. Then $$\label{lowerbound}
\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty S^3(\alpha) e(-N\alpha) \hat{A}(\varepsilon\alpha)\, d\alpha\gg X^{3-c}\,.$$
Arguing as in [@Baker-Harman] and [@Tolev2] we obtain the lower bound .
\[Korput\] (Van der Corput) Let $k \geq 2$, $K = 2^{k-1}$ and $f(x)$ be a real-valued function with $k$ continuous derivatives in $[a, b]$ such that $$|f^{(k)}(x)|\asymp\lambda, \mbox{ uniformly in } x\in[a,b].$$ Then $$\bigg|\sum_{a<n\le b}e(f(n))\bigg|
\ll(b-a)\lambda^{\frac{1}{2K-2}}+(b-a)^{1-\frac{2}{K}}\lambda^{-\frac{1}{2K-2}}.$$
See ([@Karatsuba], Ch. 1, Th. 5).
\[Iwaniec-Kowalski\] For any complex numbers $a(n)$ we have $$\bigg|\sum_{a<n\le b}a(n)\bigg|^2
\leq\bigg(1+\frac{b-a}{Q}\bigg)\sum_{|q|\leq Q}\bigg(1-\frac{|q|}{Q}\bigg)
\sum_{a<n,\, n+q\leq b}a(n+q)\overline{a(n)},$$ where $Q$ is any positive integer.
See ([@Iwaniec-Kowalski], Lemma 8.17).
\[IntSalpha\] For the sum denoted by we have $$\int\limits_{-P}^P|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\ll PX\log^3X.$$
See( [@Tolev2], Lemma 7).
\[IntValpha\] For the sum denoted by we have $$\int\limits_{-P}^P|V(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\ll PX\log^5X.$$
On the one hand $$\label{IntValphaest1}
\int\limits_{-P}^P|V(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\ll P\int\limits_0^1|V(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha.$$ On the other hand arguing as in ([@Tolev1], Lemma 5), ([@Tolev2], Lemma 7) and using , , , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\int\limits_0^1|V(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha=\\
&=\sum_{|m_1|,\,|m_2|>0}
g(m_1)\overline{g(m_2)}\\
&\times\sum\limits_{X/2<p_1, p_2\leq X}
e(m_1\sqrt{p_1}-m_2\sqrt{p_2})
\log p_1\log p_2\int\limits_0^1\alpha(p_1^c-p_2^c)\,d\alpha\\
&\ll\sum_{|m_1|,\,| m_2|>0}|g(m_1)|. |g(m_2)|
\sum\limits_{X/2<p_1, p_2\leq X}
\log p_1\log p_2\Bigg|\int\limits_0^1\alpha(p_1^c-p_2^c)\,d\alpha\Bigg|\\
&\ll X\log^3X
\sum_{|m_1|,\,|m_2|>0}|g(m_1)|. | g(m_2)|\\
&=X\log^3X\bigg( \sum_{|m|>0}|g(m)|^2
+\sum_{|m_1|,\,|m_2|<M}| g(m_1)|. |g(m_2)|\\
&\quad\quad\quad+\sum_{0<m_1\leq M,\,|m_2|>M}| g(m_1)| .|g(m_2)|
+\sum_{|m_1|,\,|m_2|>M}|g(m_1)| . |g(m_2)|\bigg)\\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{IntValphaest2}
&\ll X\log^3X\bigg( \sum_{|m|>0}\frac{1}{m^2}
+\sum_{0<|m_1|,\,|m_2|<M}
\frac{1}{|m_1|.|m_2|}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad+\sum_{0<m_1\leq M,\,|m_2|>M}
\frac{1}{|m_1|}|g(m_2)|
+\sum_{|m_1|,\,|m_2|>M}|g(m_1)|.|g(m_2)|\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\ll X\log^3X\bigg( \log^2X+\bigg(\frac{r}{\pi M\Delta}\bigg)^r\log X
+\bigg(\frac{r}{\pi M\Delta}\bigg)^{2r}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\ll X\log^3X\bigg( \log^2X+\frac{\log X}{X}
+\frac{1}{X^2}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\ll X\log^5X.\end{aligned}$$
From and it follows the assertion in the lemma.
\[Valphaest\] For the sum denoted by the upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Valphaestimation}
\max\limits_{|\alpha|\leq P} |V(\alpha)|\ll
&\Big( M^{1/2}X^{7/12} + M^{1/6} X^{3/4}+X^{11/12}+P^{1/16}X^{\frac{2c+29}{32}}\nonumber\\
&+P^{-3/16}M^{1/4}X^{\frac{33-6c}{32}}+P^{-1/16}M^{1/12}X^{\frac{31-2c}{32}}\Big)X^\eta\end{aligned}$$ holds.
Bearing in mind , , , , and we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Valphaest1}
|V(\alpha)|&\ll\sum_{0<|m|\leq M}\frac{1}{|m|}|U(\alpha, m)|
+X\sum_{|m|>M}|g(m)|\nonumber\\
&\ll\sum_{0<|m|\leq M}\frac{1}{|m|}|U(\alpha, m)| +\bigg(\frac{r}{\pi M\Delta}\bigg)^rX\nonumber\\
&\ll \sum_{0<|m|\leq M}\frac{1}{|m|}|U(\alpha, m)|+1.\end{aligned}$$ In order to prove the lemma we have to find the upper bound of the sum $U(\alpha, m)$ denoted by . Our argument is a modification of Petrov’s and Tolev’s [@Petrov-Tolev] argument.
Assume that $m>0$. For $m<0$ the proof is analogous.
We denote $$\label{psit}
\psi(t)=\alpha t^c+m\sqrt{t}.$$ $$\label{fdl}
f(d,l)=\psi(dl)=\alpha (dl)^c+m\sqrt{dl}.$$ It is clear that $$U(\alpha, m)=\sum\limits_{X/2<n\leq X}\Lambda(n)e(\alpha n^c+m\sqrt{n})
+\mathcal{O}( X^{1/2}).$$ Using Vaughan’s identity (see [@Vaughan]) we get $$\label{Ualphadecomp}
U(\alpha, m)=U_1-U_2-U_3-U_4+\mathcal{O}( X^{1/2}),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U1}
&U_1=\sum_{d\le X^{1/3}}\mu(d)\sum_{X/2d<l\le X/d}(\log l)e(f(d,l)),\\
\label{U2}
&U_2=\sum_{d\le X^{1/3}}c(d)\sum_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d,l)),\\
\label{U3}
&U_3=\sum_{X^{1/3}<d\le X^{2/3}}c(d)\sum_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d,l)),\\
\label{U4}
&U_4= \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{X/2<dl\le X \\d>X^{1/3},\,l>X^{1/3} }}
a(d)\Lambda(l) e(f(d,l)),\end{aligned}$$ and where $$\label{cdad}
|c(d)|\leq\log d,\quad | a(d)|\leq\tau(d).$$
**Estimation of $U_1$ and $U_2$**
Consider first $U_2$ defined by . Bearing in mind we find $$\label{f''}
f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)=\gamma_1-\gamma_2,$$ where $$\label{gamma12}
\gamma_1=d^2\alpha c(c-1)(dl)^{c-2}, \quad \gamma_2=\frac{1}{4}md^2(dl)^{-3/2}.$$ From and the restriction $$\label{restriction}
X/2<dl\le X$$ we obtain $$\label{gamma12est}
|\gamma_1|\asymp |\alpha| d^2X^{c-2},
\quad |\gamma_2|\asymp md^2X^{-3/2}.$$ On the one hand from and we conclude that there exists sufficiently small constant $h_0>0$ such that if $|\alpha|\leq h_0mX^{1/2-c}$, then $|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\asymp md^2X^{-3/2}$.
On the other hand from and it follows that there exists sufficiently large constant $H_0>0$ such that if $|\alpha|\geq H_0mX^{1/2-c}$, then $|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\asymp |\alpha| d^2X^{c-2}$.
Consider several cases.
**Case 1a.** $$\label{Case1a}
H_0mX^{1/2-c}\leq|\alpha|\leq P.$$ We remind that in this case $|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\asymp |\alpha| d^2X^{c-2}$ and using Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=2$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case1aest}
\sum\limits_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d, l))
&\ll\frac{X}{d}\big(|\alpha|d^2X^{c-2}\big)^{1/2}+\big(|\alpha|d^2X^{c-2}\big)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\
&= |\alpha|^{1/2} X^{c/2}+|\alpha|^{-1/2} d^{-1}X^{1-c/2}.\end{aligned}$$ From , , and it follows $$\label{U2est1}
U_2\ll \big(P^{1/2} X^{\frac{3c+2}{6}}+m^{-1/2}X^{3/4}\big)\log^2X.$$
**Case 2a.** $$\label{Case2a}
h_0mX^{1/2-c}<\alpha< H_0mX^{1/2-c}.$$ By we find $$\label{f'''}
f^{\prime\prime\prime}_{lll}(d,l)=d^3\alpha c(c-1)(c-2)(dl)^{c-3}
+\frac{3}{8}d^3m(dl)^{-5/2}.$$ The formulas , and give us $$\label{f''f'''}
(c-2)f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)-lf^{\prime\prime\prime}_{lll}(d,l)
=\frac{1-2c}{8}d^2(dl)^{-3/2}m.$$ From and we obtain $$|(c-2)f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)-lf^{\prime\prime\prime}_{lll}(d,l)|
\asymp md^2X^{-3/2}.$$ The above implies that there exists $\alpha_0 > 0$, such that for every $l\in(X/2d, X/d]$ at least one of the following inequalities is fulfilled: $$\label{f''est1}
|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\geq \alpha_0 md^2X^{-3/2}.$$ $$\label{f'''est1}
|f^{\prime\prime\prime}_{lll}(d,l)|\geq \alpha_0 md^3X^{-5/2}.$$ Let us consider the equation $$\label{f'''equation1}
f^{\prime\prime\prime}_{lll}(d,l)=0.$$ From it is tantamount to $$\label{f'''equation2}
3m(dl)^{1/2-c}-8\alpha c(c-1)(c-2)=0.$$ It is easy to see that the equation has at most 1 solution $Z\in(X^{1/2-c}, (X/2)^{1/2-c}]$. Consequently the equation has at most 1 solution in real numbers $l\in(X/2d, X/d]$. According to Rolle’s Theorem if $C$ does not depend on $l$ then the equation $f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)=C$ has at most 2 solution in real numbers $l\in(X/2d, X/d]$. Therefore the equation $|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|=\alpha_0 md^2X^{-3/2}$ has at most 4 solution in real numbers $l\in(X/2d, X/d]$. From these consideration it follows that the interval $(X/2d, X/d]$ can be divided into at most 5 intervals such that if $J$ is one of them, then at least one of the following assertions holds: $$\label{f''estJ}
\mbox{The inequality } \eqref{f''est1} \mbox{ is fulfilled for all } l\in J.$$ $$\label{f'''estJ}
\mbox{The inequality } \eqref{f'''est1} \mbox{ is fulfilled for all } l\in J.$$ On the other hand from , , , and we get $$\label{f''f'''upper}
|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\ll md^2X^{-3/2}, \quad
|f^{\prime\prime\prime}_{lll}(d,l)|\ll md^3X^{-5/2}.$$ Bearing in mind – we conclude that the interval $(X/2d, X/d]$ can be divided into at most 5 intervals such that if $J$ is one of them, then at least one of the following statements is fulfilled: $$\label{f''est2}
|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\asymp md^2X^{-3/2} \quad \mbox{ uniformly for } \quad l\in J.$$ $$\label{f'''est2}
|f^{\prime\prime\prime}_{lll}(d,l)|\asymp md^3X^{-5/2} \quad \mbox{ uniformly for } \quad l\in J.$$ If holds, then we use Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=2$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case2aest1}
\sum\limits_{l\in J}e(f(d, l))
&\ll\frac{X}{d}\big(md^2X^{-3/2}\big)^{1/2}+\big(md^2X^{-3/2}\big)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\
&\ll m^{1/2} X^{1/4}+m^{-1/2} d^{-1}X^{3/4}.\end{aligned}$$ If is fulfilled, then we use Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=3$ and find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case2aest2}
\sum\limits_{l\in J}e(f(d, l))
&\ll\frac{X}{d}\big(md^3X^{-5/2}\big)^{1/6}+\bigg(\frac{X}{d}\bigg)^{1/2}
\big(md^3X^{-5/2} \big)^{-1/6}\nonumber\\
&=m^{1/6} d^{-1/2}X^{7/12}+m^{-1/6} d^{-1}X^{11/12}.\end{aligned}$$ From and it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case2aest3}
\sum\limits_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d, l))&\ll m^{1/2} X^{1/4}+m^{-1/2} d^{-1}X^{3/4}\nonumber\\
&+m^{1/6} d^{-1/2}X^{7/12}+m^{-1/6} d^{-1}X^{11/12}.\end{aligned}$$ Bearing in mind and we get $$\label{U2est2}
U_2\ll \big(m^{1/2}X^{7/12}+m^{1/6} X^{3/4}+m^{-1/6}X^{11/12}\big)\log^2X.$$
**Case 3a.** $$\label{Case3a}
|\alpha|\leq h_0mX^{1/2-c}.$$ We recall that in this case $|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\asymp md^2X^{-3/2}$ and using Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=2$ we obtain $$\label{Case3aest}
\sum\limits_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d, l))\ll m^{1/2} X^{1/4}+m^{-1/2} d^{-1}X^{3/4}.$$ Using and we find $$\label{U2est3}
U_2\ll \big(m^{1/2}X^{7/12}+m^{-1/2}X^{3/4}\big)\log^2X.$$
**Case 4a.** $$\label{Case4a}
-H_0mX^{1/2-c}<\alpha< -h_0mX^{1/2-c}.$$ In this case again $|f^{\prime\prime}_{ll}(d,l)|\asymp md^2X^{-3/2}$. Consequently $$\label{U2est4}
U_2\ll \big(m^{1/2}X^{7/12}+m^{-1/2}X^{3/4}\big)\log^2X.$$ From , , and it follows $$\label{U2estimation}
U_2\ll \big(m^{1/2}X^{7/12}+m^{1/6} X^{3/4}+m^{-1/6}X^{11/12}+P^{1/2} X^{\frac{3c+2}{6}}\big)\log^2X.$$ In order to estimate $U_1$ defined by we apply Abel’s transformation. Then arguing as in the estimation of $U_2$ we get $$\label{U1estimation}
U_1\ll \big(m^{1/2}X^{7/12}+m^{1/6} X^{3/4}+m^{-1/6}X^{11/12}+P^{1/2} X^{\frac{3c+2}{6}}\big)\log^2X.$$
**Estimation of $U_3$ and $U_4$**
Consider first $U_4$ defined by . We have $$\label{U4U5}
U_4\ll|U_5|\log X,$$ where $$\label{U5}
U_5=\sum_{L<d\le 2L}b(l)\sum_{D<d\le 2D\atop{X/2l<d\leq X/l}}a(d)e(f(d,l))$$ and where $$\label{ParU5}
a(d)\ll X^\eta, \quad b(l)\ll X^\eta, \quad
X^{1/3}\ll D\ll X^{1/2}\ll L\ll X^{2/3}, \quad DL\asymp X.$$ Using , and Cauchy’s inequality we obtain $$\label{U52est1}
|U_5|^2\ll X^\eta L \sum_{L<d\le 2L}\bigg|\sum_{D_1<d\le D_2}a(d)e(f(d,l))\bigg|^2,$$ where $$\label{maxmin1}
D_1=\max{\bigg\{D,\frac{X}{2l}\bigg\}},\quad
D_2=\min{\bigg\{\frac{X}{l},2D\bigg\}}\,.$$ Now from – and Lemma \[Iwaniec-Kowalski\] with $Q$ such that $$\label{QD}
Q\leq D$$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U52est2}
|U_5|^2&\ll X^\eta L \sum_{L<d\le 2L}\frac{D}{Q}
\sum_{|q|\leq Q}\bigg(1-\frac{|q|}{Q}\bigg)
\sum_{D_1<d\le D_2\atop{D_1<d+q\le D_2}}a(d+q)\overline{a(d)}e(f(d+q,l)-f(d,l))\nonumber\\
&\ll \Bigg(\frac{(LD)^2}{Q}+\frac{LD}{Q}\sum_{0<|q|\leq Q}
\sum_{D<d\le 2D\atop{D<d+q\le 2D}}\bigg|\sum_{L_1<l\le L_2}e\big(g_{d,q}(l)\big)\bigg|\Bigg)X^\eta,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{maxmin2}
L_1=\max{\bigg\{L,\frac{X}{2d},\frac{X}{2(d+q)}\bigg\}},\quad
L_2=\min{\bigg\{2L,\frac{X}{d},\frac{X}{d+q}\bigg\}}$$ and $$\label{gl}
g(l)=g_{d,q}(l)=f(d+q,l)-f(d,l).$$ It is not hard to see that the sum over negative $q$ in formula is equal to the sum over positive $q$. Thus $$\label{U52est3}
|U_5|^2\ll\Bigg(\frac{ (LD)^2}{Q}+\frac{LD}{Q}\sum_{1\leq q\leq Q}
\sum_{D<d\le 2D-q}\bigg|\sum_{L_1<l\le L_2}e(g_{d,q}(l))\bigg|\Bigg)X^\eta.$$ Consider the function $g(l)$. From , and it follows $$g(l)=\int\limits_{d}^{d+q}f_t^\prime(t,l)\,dt=\int\limits_{d}^{d+q}l\psi^\prime(tl)\,dt.$$ Hence $$\label{g''lint1}
g^{\prime\prime}(l)=\int\limits_{d}^{d+q}2t\psi^{\prime\prime}(tl)
+lt^2\psi^{\prime\prime\prime}(tl)\,dt.$$ Bearing in mind and we obtain $$\label{g''lint2}
g^{\prime\prime}(l)=\int\limits_{d}^{d+q} \Big(\Psi_1(t, l)-\Psi_2(t, l)\Big)\,dt,$$ where $$\label{Psi1Psi2}
\Psi_1(t, l)=\alpha c^2(c-1)t^{c-1}l^{c-2}, \quad
\Psi_2(t, l)=\frac{m}{8}t^{-1/2}l^{-3/2}.$$ If $t\in[d, d+q]$, then $$\label{tl}
tl\asymp X.$$ From and we get $$\label{Psi1Psi2est}
|\Psi_1(t, l)|\asymp |\alpha| d^2X^{c-2},
\quad |\Psi_2(t, l)|\asymp md^2X^{-3/2}.$$ On the one hand from and we conclude that there exists sufficiently small constant $h_1>0$ such that if $|\alpha|\leq h_1mX^{1/2-c}$, then $|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp qmdX^{-3/2}$.
On the other hand from and it follows that there exists sufficiently large constant $H_1>0$ such that if $|\alpha|\geq H_1mX^{1/2-c}$, then $|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp q|\alpha| dX^{c-2}$.
Consider several cases.
**Case 1b.** $$\label{Case1b}
H_1mX^{1/2-c}\leq|\alpha|\leq P.$$ We recall that the constant $H_1$ is chosen in such a way, that if $|\alpha|\geq H_1mX^{1/2-c}$, then uniformly for $l\in(L_1, L_2]$ we have $|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp q|\alpha| dX^{c-2}$. Using , and applying Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=2$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case1best}
\sum_{L_1<l\le L_2}e(g(l))
&\ll L\big(q|\alpha|dX^{c-2}\big)^{1/2}+\big(q|\alpha|dX^{c-2}\big)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\
&= Lq^{1/2}|\alpha|^{1/2}d^{1/2} X^{c/2-1}+q^{-1/2}|\alpha|^{-1/2} d^{-1/2}X^{1-c/2}.\end{aligned}$$ From , , and it follows $$\label{U5est1}
U_5\ll \big(XQ^{-1/2}+P^{1/4}X^{\frac{2c+5}{8}}Q^{1/4}+m^{-1/4}XQ^{-1/4}\big)X^\eta.$$
**Case 2b.** $$\label{Case2b}
h_1mX^{1/2-c}<\alpha< H_1mX^{1/2-c}.$$ The formulas and give us $$\label{g'''lint}
g^{\prime\prime\prime}(l)=\int\limits_{d}^{d+q} \Big(\Phi_1(t, l)+\Phi_2(t, l)\Big)\,dt,$$ where $$\label{Phi1Phi2}
\Phi_1(t, l)=\alpha c^2(c-1)(c-2)t^{c-1}l^{c-3}, \quad
\Phi_2(t, l)=\frac{3m}{16}t^{-1/2}l^{-5/2}.$$ From , , and it follows $$\label{g''g'''}
(c-2)g^{\prime\prime}(l)-lg^{\prime\prime\prime}(l)
=\frac{7-2c}{16}m\int\limits_{d}^{d+q}t(tl)^{-3/2}\,dt.$$ Using and we obtain $$|(c-2)g^{\prime\prime}(l)-lg^{\prime\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp qmdX^{-3/2}.$$ Consequently there exists $\alpha_1 > 0$, such that for every $l\in(L_1, L_2]$ at least one of the following inequalities holds: $$\label{g''est1}
|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\geq \alpha_1 qmdX^{-3/2}.$$ $$\label{g'''est1}
|g^{\prime\prime\prime}(l)|\geq \alpha_1 qmd^2X^{-5/2}.$$ Consider the equation $$\label{g'''equation1}
g^{\prime\prime\prime}(l)=0.$$ From and we get $$\label{g'''equation2}
\alpha c(c-1)(c-2)[(d+q)^c-d^c]l^{c-3}-\frac{3m}{8}[(d+q)^{1/2}-d^{1/2}]l^{-5/2}=0$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{g'''equation3}
l^{c-1/2}=\frac{3m[(d+q)^{1/2}-d^{1/2}]}{8\alpha c(c-1)(c-2)[(d+q)^c-d^c]}.$$ It is not hard to see that the equation has at most 1 solution $Z\in(L^{c-1/2}_1, L^{c-1/2}_2]$. Therefore the equation has at most 1 solution in real numbers $l\in(L_1, L_2]$. According to Rolle’s Theorem if $C$ does not depend on $l$ then the equation $g^{\prime\prime}(l)=C$ has at most 2 solution in real numbers $l\in(L_1, L_2]$. Therefore the equation $|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|=\alpha_1q md^2X^{-3/2}$ has at most 4 solution in real numbers $l\in(L_1, L_2]$. From these consideration it follows that the interval $(L_1, L_2]$ can be divided into at most 5 intervals such that if $J$ is one of them, then at least one of the following statements holds: $$\label{g''estJ}
\mbox{The inequality } \eqref{g''est1} \mbox{ is fulfilled for all } l\in J.$$ $$\label{g'''estJ}
\mbox{The inequality } \eqref{g'''est1} \mbox{ is fulfilled for all } l\in J.$$ Using , , , , and we find $$\label{g''g'''upper}
|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\ll qmdX^{-3/2}, \quad
|g^{\prime\prime\prime}(l)|\ll qmd^2X^{-5/2}.$$ From – it follows that the interval $(L_1, L_2]$ can be divided into at most 5 intervals such that if $J$ is one of them, then at least one of the following assertions is fulfilled: $$\label{g''est2}
|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp qmdX^{-3/2} \quad \mbox{ uniformly for } \quad l\in J.$$ $$\label{g'''est2}
|g^{\prime\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp qmd^2X^{-5/2} \quad \mbox{ uniformly for } \quad l\in J.$$ If is fulfilled, then we use Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=2$ and get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case2best1}
\sum\limits_{l\in J}e(g(l))
&\ll L\big(qmdX^{-3/2}\big)^{1/2}+\big(qmdX^{-3/2}\big)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\
&=Lq^{1/2} m^{1/2} d^{1/2} X^{-3/4}+q^{-1/2} m^{-1/2} d^{-1/2}X^{3/4}.\end{aligned}$$ If holds, then we use Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=3$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case2best2}
\sum\limits_{l\in J}e(g(l))
&\ll L\big(qmd^2X^{-5/2}\big)^{1/6}+L^{1/2} \big(qmd^2X^{-5/2} \big)^{-1/6}\nonumber\\
&=Lq^{1/6} m^{1/6} d^{1/3} X^{-5/12}+L^{1/2} q^{-1/6} m^{-1/6} d^{-1/3}X^{5/12}.\end{aligned}$$ From and it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Case2best3}
\sum\limits_{L_1<l\le L_2}e(g(l))
&\ll Lq^{1/2} m^{1/2} d^{1/2} X^{-3/4}+q^{-1/2} m^{-1/2} d^{-1/2}X^{3/4}\nonumber\\
&+Lq^{1/6} m^{1/6} d^{1/3} X^{-5/12}+L^{1/2} q^{-1/6} m^{-1/6} d^{-1/3}X^{5/12}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account , and we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U5est2}
U_5\ll&\big( XQ^{-1/2} +m^{1/4}X^{3/4}Q^{1/4}+m^{-1/4}XQ^{-1/4}\nonumber\\
&+m^{1/12}X^{7/8}Q^{1/12}+m^{-1/12}XQ^{-1/12}\big)X^\eta.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 3b.** $$\label{Case3b}
|\alpha|\leq h_1mX^{1/2-c}.$$ We have chosen the constant $h_1$ in such a way, that from , , and it follows that $|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp qmdX^{-3/2}$ uniformly for $l\in(L_1, L_2]$. Applying Lemma \[Korput\] for $k=2$ we get $$\label{Case3best}
\sum\limits_{L_1<l\le L_2}e(g(l))
\ll Lq^{1/2} m^{1/2} d^{1/2} X^{-3/4}+q^{-1/2} m^{-1/2} d^{-1/2}X^{3/4}.$$ From and we obtain $$\label{U5est3}
U_5\ll \big( XQ^{-1/2} +m^{1/4}X^{3/4}Q^{1/4}+m^{-1/4}XQ^{-1/4}\big)X^\eta.$$
**Case 4b.** $$\label{Case4b}
-H_1mX^{1/2-c}<\alpha< -h_1mX^{1/2-c}.$$ In this case $|g^{\prime\prime}(l)|\asymp qmdX^{-3/2}$. Arguing in a similar way we find $$\label{U5est4}
U_5\ll \big( XQ^{-1/2} +m^{1/4}X^{3/4}Q^{1/4}+m^{-1/4}XQ^{-1/4}\big)X^\eta.$$ From , , , and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U4estimation}
U_4\ll&\Big( XQ^{-1/2} +P^{1/4}X^{\frac{2c+5}{8}}Q^{1/4}+m^{1/4}X^{3/4}Q^{1/4}
+m^{-1/4}XQ^{-1/4}\nonumber\\
&+m^{1/12}X^{7/8}Q^{1/12}+m^{-1/12}XQ^{-1/12}\Big)X^\eta.\end{aligned}$$ Arguing as in the estimation of $U_4$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U3estimation}
U_3\ll&\Big( XQ^{-1/2} +P^{1/4}X^{\frac{2c+5}{8}}Q^{1/4}+m^{1/4}X^{3/4}Q^{1/4}
+m^{-1/4}XQ^{-1/4}\nonumber\\
&+m^{1/12}X^{7/8}Q^{1/12}+m^{-1/12}XQ^{-1/12}\Big)X^\eta.\end{aligned}$$ Summarizing , , , and we conclude that for $|\alpha|\leq P$ and any integer $m\neq0$ the estimation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ualphaestimation}
|U(\alpha, m)|\ll&\Big( m^{1/2}X^{7/12} + m^{1/6}X^{3/4} + m^{-1/6}X^{11/12}+XQ^{-1/2} \nonumber\\
&+P^{1/4}X^{\frac{2c+5}{8}}Q^{1/4}+m^{1/4}X^{3/4}Q^{1/4}+m^{-1/4}XQ^{-1/4}\nonumber\\
&+m^{1/12}X^{7/8}Q^{1/12}+m^{-1/12}XQ^{-1/12}\Big)X^\eta\end{aligned}$$ holds.
We substitute the expression for $U(\alpha, m)$ in and find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Valphaest2}
\max\limits_{|\alpha|\leq P}|V(\alpha)|\ll&\Big( M^{1/2}X^{7/12} + M^{1/6}X^{3/4} + X^{11/12}+XQ^{-1/2} \nonumber\\
&+P^{1/4}X^{\frac{2c+5}{8}}Q^{1/4}+M^{1/4}X^{3/4}Q^{1/4}+XQ^{-1/4}\nonumber\\
&+M^{1/12}X^{7/8}Q^{1/12}+XQ^{-1/12}\Big)X^\eta.\end{aligned}$$ We choose $$\label{Qchoose}
Q=\big[P^{-3/4}X^{\frac{9-6c}{8}}\big].$$ The direct verification assures us that the condition is fulfilled.
Bearing in mind and we obtain the estimation .
Proof of the Theorem
====================
Consider the sum $$\label{Gamma}
\Gamma(X)= \sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2,p_3\leq X\atop{|p_1^c+p_2^c+p_3^c-N|<\varepsilon
\atop{\|\sqrt{p_i}\|<Y,\,i=1,2,3}}}\log p_1\log p_2\log p_3\,.$$ The theorem will be proved if we show that $\Gamma(X)\rightarrow\infty$ as $X\rightarrow\infty$.
Consider the integrals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I1def}
&I_1=\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty H^3(\alpha) e(-N\alpha) \hat{A}(\varepsilon\alpha)\, d\alpha\\
\label{Idef}
&I=\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty S^3(\alpha) e(-N\alpha) \hat{A}(\varepsilon\alpha)\, d\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ On the one hand from , , , and it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I1est1}
I_1&= \sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2,p_3\leq X} \prod_{j=1}^{3} \chi(\sqrt{p_j})\log p_j
\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty e((p_1^c+p_2^c+p_3^c-N)\alpha)\hat{A}(\varepsilon\alpha)\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&= \sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2,p_3\leq X} \prod_{j=1}^{3} \chi(\sqrt{p_j})(\log p_j)\varepsilon^{-1}
A((p_1^c+p_2^c+p_3^c-N)\varepsilon^{-1})\leq\varepsilon^{-1}\Gamma(X).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand , , , , , and give us $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I1est2}
I_1&= \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty \bigg(\frac{9}{5}YS(\alpha) +V(\alpha) \bigg)^3
e(-N\alpha)\hat{A}(\varepsilon\alpha)\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&= \bigg(\frac{9}{5}Y\bigg)^3I
+\mathcal{O}\Bigg(Y^2\int\limits_{-P}^P |S^2(\alpha) V(\alpha)| \,d\alpha \Bigg)\nonumber\\
&+\mathcal{O}\Bigg(Y\int\limits_{-P}^P |S(\alpha) V^2(\alpha)| \,d\alpha \Bigg)
+\mathcal{O}\Bigg(\int\limits_{-P}^P |V^3(\alpha)| \,d\alpha \Bigg).\end{aligned}$$ We write $$\label{Firstint}
\int\limits_{-P}^P |S^2(\alpha) V(\alpha)| \,d\alpha
\ll\max\limits_{|\alpha|\leq P} |V(\alpha)|\int\limits_{-P}^P |S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha.$$ Applaying Cauchy’s inequality we get $$\label{Secondint}
\int\limits_{-P}^P |S(\alpha) V^2(\alpha)| \,d\alpha
\ll\max\limits_{|\alpha|\leq P} |V(\alpha)|
\left(\int\limits_{-P}^P |S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\right)^{1/2}
\left(\int\limits_{-P}^P |V(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\right)^{1/2}.$$ Similarly $$\label{Thirdint}
\int\limits_{-P}^P |V(\alpha)|^3\,d\alpha
\ll\max\limits_{|\alpha|\leq P} |V(\alpha)|\int\limits_{-P}^P |V(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha.$$ Using Lemmas \[IntSalpha\], \[IntValpha\], \[Valphaest\] and – we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I1est3}
I_1=\bigg(\frac{9}{5}Y\bigg)^3I &+\mathcal{O} \Big( \big(PM^{1/2}X^{19/12}
+ PM^{1/6} X^{7/4}+PX^{23/12}+P^{17/16}X^{\frac{2c+61}{32}}\nonumber\\
&+P^{13/16}M^{1/4}X^{\frac{65-6c}{32}}+P^{15/16}M^{1/12}X^{\frac{63-2c}{32}}\big)X^\eta\Big).\end{aligned}$$ From , , , , , , , Lemma \[Lowerbound\] and choosing $\eta<\delta$ we find $$\label{I1est4}
I_1\gg Y^3X^{3-c}.$$ Finally and give us $$\label{Gammaest}
\Gamma(X)\gg\varepsilon Y^3X^{3-c}.$$ Bearing in mind , and we establish that $\Gamma(X)\rightarrow\infty$ as $X\rightarrow\infty$.
The proof of the Theorem \[MyTheorem\] is complete.
[100]{}
R. Baker, G. Harman, [*Diophantine approximation by prime numbers*]{}, J. Lond. Math. Soc., [**25**]{}, (1982), 201 – 215.
R. Baker, A. Weingartner, [*A ternary diophantine inequality over primes*]{}, Acta Arith., [**162**]{}, (2014), 159 – 196.
Y. Cai, [*On a diophantine inequality involving prime numbers*]{} (in Chinese), Acta Math Sinica, [**39**]{}, (1996), 733 – 742.
Y. Cai, [*On a diophantine inequality involving prime numbers III*]{}, Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series, [**15**]{}, (1999), 387 – 394.
Y. Cai, [*A ternary Diophantine inequality involving primes*]{}, Int. J. Number Theory, [**14**]{}, (2018), 2257 – 2268.
X. Cao, W. Zhai, [*A Diophantine inequality with prime numbers*]{}, Acta Math. Sinica, Chinese Series, [**45**]{}, (2002), 361 – 370.
H. Iwaniec, E. Kowalski, [*Analytic number theory*]{}, Colloquium Publications, **53**, Amer. Math. Soc., (2004).
A. Karatsuba, [*Principles of the Analytic Number Theory*]{}, Nauka, Moscow, (1983), (in Russian).
A. Kumchev, T. Nedeva, [*On an equation with prime numbers*]{}, Acta Arith., [**83**]{}, (1998), 117 – 126.
A. Kumchev, [*A diophantine inequality involving prime powers*]{}, Acta Arith., [**89**]{}, (1999), 311 – 330.
Z. Petrov, D. Tolev, [*On an equation involving fractional powers with one prime and one almost prime variables*]{}, Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, **298**, (2017), 38 – 56.
I. Piatetski-Shapiro, [*On a variant of the Waring-Goldbach problem*]{}, Mat. Sb., [**30**]{}, (1952), 105 – 120, (in Russian).
D. Tolev, [*Diophantine approximations involving primes near squares*]{}, Mathematical Notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, [**50**]{}, (1991), 966 – 969.
D. Tolev, [*On a diophantine inequality involving prime numbers*]{}, Acta Arith., [**61**]{}, (1992), 289 – 306.
R. C. Vaughan, [*An elementary method in prime number theory*]{}, Acta Arithmetica, **37**, (1980), 111 – 115.
S. I. Dimitrov\
Faculty of Applied Mathematics and Informatics\
Technical University of Sofia\
8, St.Kliment Ohridski Blvd.\
1756 Sofia, BULGARIA\
e-mail: [email protected]\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '3D Magnetohydrodynamic simulations show that when matter accretes onto neutron stars, in particular if the misalignment angle is small, it does not constantly fall at a fixed spot. Instead, the location at which matter reaches the star moves. These moving hot spots can be produced both during stable accretion, where matter falls near the magnetic poles of the star, and unstable accretion, characterized by the presence of several tongues of matter which fall on the star near the equator, due to Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities. Precise modeling with Monte Carlo simulations shows that those movements could be observed as high frequency Quasi Periodic Oscillations. We performed a number of new simulation runs with a much wider set of parameters, focusing on neutron stars with a small misalignment angle. In most cases we observe oscillations whose frequency is correlated with the mass accretion rate $\dot{M}$. Moreover, in some cases double QPOs appear, each of them showing the same correlation with $\dot{M}$.'
author:
- Matteo Bachetti
- 'Marina M. Romanova'
- Akshay Kulkarni
- Luciano Burderi
- Tiziana di Salvo
title: '3D MHD Simulations of accreting neutron stars: evidence of QPO emission from the surface.'
---
[ address=[Università degli Studi di Cagliari]{} ]{}
[ address=[Cornell University]{} ]{}
[ address=[Cornell University]{} ]{}
[ address=[Università degli Studi di Cagliari]{} ]{}
[ address=[Università degli Studi di Palermo]{} ]{}
[****]{}
In the last few years 3D MHD simulations have shown that in many cases, in particular if the misalignment angle is small ($\lesssim 15^{\circ}$), matter falls in a ring around the magnetic pole. The brightest spot (the hot spot) of the ring is not fixed, but moves with an angular velocity related to the Keplerian velocity in a zone of the disk outside the magnetospheric radius. This is observed both in the case of stable accretion (e.g. [@Romanova:2004]) and in the case of unstable accretion (e.g. [@Kulkarni:2008],[@Romanova:2008]). During unstable accretion the hot spots produced by instabilities in the equatorial region move, with a velocity similar to that of the inner disk ([@Bachetti:2009],[@Romanova:2009]). The motion in this case is less regular and shorter. We studied the effects of these movements in detail with Monte Carlo techniques and showed that the features produced by those movements are quasi periodic oscillations.
[**Correlations with the mass accretion rate**]{}
$ \begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{./img/c1_5-a0_03-theta-2_mdot_c1_5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{./img/c1_8-a0_03-theta-2_mdot_c1_8.jpg}
\end{array} $
We performed a number of simulations in which the only parameter changed was the mass accretion rate. All the systems reproduced in the simulations have $M=1.4M_{\odot}$, $R=10$km and misaligment angle $\theta=2^{\circ}$. One system has a rotational period $\tau=4.1$ms, the other $\tau=5.4$ms. In Fig. \[fig:numdot\] we see the rotational frequency of the hot spots plotted against the mass accretion rate $\dot{M}$. In one case the accretion is only on the poles, in the other both in the poles and in the equatorial zones due to instabilities. In the latter case, the hot spots appearing in the two accretion zones move together with the accretion rate. This result is, of course, extremely interesting to interpret the presence of multiple QPOs in accreting neutron stars. We have a mechanism to produce very bright [*pairs*]{} of QPOs, whose spectrum can easily be different from the background emission from the disk, and whose characteristic frequencies change together with $\dot{M}$. Moreover, the quality factors of the two peaks show a different behavior, as observed in many works (e.g. [@diSalvo:2003],[@Barret:2006]). Submitted to MNRAS. A preprint is available [@Bachetti:2009].
Research supported by INFN (MB) and the contract ASI-INAF I/088/06/0 for High Energy Astrophysics (MB, LB and TD). MMR and AK were supported in part by NASA grant NNX08AH25G and by NSF grant AST-0807129. Simulations performed on supercomputers by NASA (Pleiades, Columbia), and by CINECA (BCX, under the 2008-2010 INAF/CINECA agreement).
[7]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][“\#1”]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
M. M. Romanova, G. V. Ustyugova, A. V. Koldoba, and R. V. E. Lovelace, *ApJ* **610**, 920 (2004)
A. K. Kulkarni, and M. M. Romanova, *MNRAS* **386**, 673 (2008)
M. M. Romanova, A. K. Kulkarni, and R. V. E. Lovelace, *ApJ* **673**, L171 (2008)
M. Bachetti, M. M. Romanova, A. K. Kulkarni, L. Burderi, and T. di Salvo, arXiv:0911.4493 (2009)
M. M. Romanova, and A. K. Kulkarni, *MNRAS* **398**, 1105 (2009)
T. di Salvo, M. M[é]{}ndez, and M. van der Klis, *A&A* **406**, 177 (2003)
D. Barret, J.-F. Olive, and M. C. Miller, *MNRAS* **370**, 1140 (2006)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Alessandra S. Lanotte[^1]'
- Shiva Kumar Malapaka
- Luca Biferale
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
title: On the Vortex Dynamics in Fractal Fourier Turbulence
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
A distinctive feature of three-dimensional fully developed turbulent flows is the presence of bursty fluctuations in the velocity increment statistics over a wide range of scales, a phenomenon called [ *intermittency*]{} [@frisch]. The statistical signature of such fluctuations is the violation of the self-similar Kolmogorov theory in the inertial range of scales.\
While Eulerian [@frisch; @Arneodo1996; @Sreeni1997] and Lagrangian [@Mo2001; @PoF2005; @Xu2006; @PRL2008; @rev_toschi_bode] observations leave no doubt about the existence of intermittency, a theoretical framework explaining its origin and its relation to the direct cascade of kinetic energy is still lacking. The question is fundamental [@frisch; @Kr71; @Kr74] and practical since modeling relies on assumptions invoking scaling invariance and scale-by-scale energy budgets [@MK00; @SreFa06]. During the formation of strong fluctuations, large spatial structures create thin vorticity layers or filaments under both the action of shearing and stretching. Vortex stretching is essentially a process of interaction of vorticity and strain and is an important mechanism for understanding both intermittency as well as energy cascade in a turbulent flow [@frisch; @T99]. Its role can be quantified in experiments and numerical simulations, while closure approximations [@K61; @orszag77] as well as phenomenological models [@frisch] for homogeneous and isotropic turbulence fail to account for vortex structures.\
In this paper, we propose to further investigate the relation between intermittency and vortex stretching by a novel approach to three dimensional turbulence. This consists in numerically solving the Navier-Stokes equations on a multiscale sub-set of Fourier modes (also dubbed Fourier skeleton), belonging to a fractal set of dimension $D \le 3$ [@frisch2012; @LBBMT2015]. For $D=3$, the original problem is recovered. This implies that the velocity field is embedded in a three dimensional space, but effectively possesses a number of Fourier modes that grows slower as $D$ decreases: in particular, in the Fourier space the number degrees of freedom inside a sphere of radius $k$ goes as $\#_{dof}(k) \sim k^{D}$.\
Attempts to study homogeneous and isotropic $D$-dimensional turbulence, with $2 \le D \le 3$, are not new (see [@FF1978]), and were mostly inspired by statistical mechanics approaches to hydrodynamics: the idea is to find non-integer dimensions where closures, compatible with Kolmogrov 1941 theory, can be satisfactorily used. Equilibrium statistical mechanics in relation to Galerkin-truncated, three-dimensional Euler equations has been also used to study three-dimensional turbulence (see pioneering works by Lee [@Lee] and Hopf [@Hopf]). In particular, recent numerics [@brachet2005]) of the Euler eq. with a large but finite number of Fourier modes has interestingly shown that in the relaxation towards the equilibrium spectrum, large-scale dynamics exhibits a Kolmogorov spectrum. This suggests that relevant features of the [*turbulent cascade*]{} can be studied in terms of the [*thermalization mechanism*]{} [@ray2015].\
In [@frisch2012], the idea of Galerkin truncation was adopted to investigate, in two-dimensional turbulence, the link between the inverse energy cascade and quasi-equilibrium Gibbs states with Kolmogorov spectrum, when the dynamics is restricted on a fractal set with $D=4/3$ [@lvov]. Finally, the idea of changing the "effective dimension” between $D=2$ and $D=3$ has been explored within shell models of turbulence, by modifying the conserved quantities of the system [@GJY2002].\
More recently, in [@LBBMT2015], fractally Fourier decimated Navier-Stokes equations were studied for the first time in the range $2.5 \le D \le 3$. Two main results emerged: (i) average fluctuations are mildly affected by the decimation, since the kinetic energy spectrum exponent gets a correction linear in the codimension $3-D$, i.e. $E^{D}(k) \propto k^{-5/3 + (3-D)}$; (ii) differently, large fluctuations are severely modified, since the probability density function (PDF) of the vorticity becomes almost Gaussian already at $D=2.8$.\
Here, we study more extensively the velocity increment statistics, and the vortex streching mechanism, as quantified by the statistics of second and third order invariants of the velocity gradients tensor. We show that it is significantly changed as we move from $D=3$ to $D=2.5$, with the evidence of the intermittent behaviour almost vanishing even for a tiny decimation, i.e., for $D \simeq 2.98$. This leaves a distictive mark on the vorticity field: the filamentary structure at $D=3$ is replaced by a proliferation of small grains of vorticity populating all regions of the flow (as shown in Figure \[fig:1\]).\
In Section \[sec:2\], we describe the equations and numerical methods used to generate the dataset, as well the statistical approach adopted to analyse it. In Section \[sec:3\], we first discuss few results about the statistical behaviour of velocity fluctuations and the spectral properties of Fourier decimated turbulence. Then, we focus on the small-scale statistics by analysing the velocity gradient tensor statistics. Finally we provide some conclusions in Section \[sec:4\].
Model Equations and Methods {#sec:2}
===========================
The Navier-Stokes equations on a Fractal Fourier set {#sec:2.1}
----------------------------------------------------
Let us define $\bv(\bx,t)$ and $\hat{\bu}(\bk,t)$ as the real and Fourier space representation of the velocity field in $D=3$, respectively. We then introduce a decimation operator ${\cal P}^{D}$ that acts on the velocity field as: $$\label{eq:decimOper}
{\bf v}^{D}(\bx,t)= {\cal P}^{D}{\bf v}(\bx,t)=\hspace{-1mm}
\sum_{{\bf k}\in {\cal Z}^3}\hspace{-1mm} e^{i {\bf k \cdot x}}\,\gamma_{\bf k}\hat{\bu}(\bk,t)\,.$$ Here $\bv^{D}(\bx,t)$ is the decimated velocity field.\
In this equation $\gamma_{\bk}$ represent random numbers that are quenched in time and are determined as : $$\label{eq:theta}
\gamma_{\bf k} =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{with probability}\ h_k\,, \\
0, & \text{with probability}\ 1-h_k, k\equiv|{\bf k}|\,.
\end{cases}$$ The choice for the probability $h_k \propto (k/k_0)^{D-3}$, with $0< D
\le 3$ and $k_0$ a reference wavenumber, ensures that the dynamics is isotropically decimated to a $D$-dimensional Fourier set. The factors $h_k$ are chosen independently and preserve Hermitian symmetry $\gamma_k= \gamma_{-k}$ so that ${\cal P}^{D}$ is self-adjoint as was described in [@frisch2012]. The Navier-Stokes equations for the decimated velocity field $\bv^{D}(\bx,t)$ are then defined as: $$\label{eq:decimNS}
\partial_t {\bf v}^{D} = {\cal P}^{D}N({\bf v}^{D},{\bf v}^{D}) +
\nu \,\nabla^2 \bv^{D} + {\bf F}^{D}\,.$$ Here $N({\bf v},{\bf v})= -{\bf v}\cdot {\bf {\nabla v}} + {\bf
\nabla}p$ is the non-linear term of the NS equation. Equation \[eq:decimNS\] conserves both energy and helicity in the inviscid and unforced limit, exactly as in the original (non decimated) problem with $D=3$; ${\bf F}^{D}$ is the large-scale forcing, injecting kinetic energy in the system. The notation above, ${\cal P}^{D}N({\bf
v}^{D},{\bf v}^{D})$, is to imply the fact that the non-linear term is projected, at every time iteration, on the quenched fractal set, so that its dynamical evolution remains on the same Fourier skeleton at all times. Similarly, the initial condition and the external forcing are defined on the same fractal set of Fourier modes.\
In the sequel, for the sake of simplicity, we shortly refer to $\bv(\bx)$ and $\hat{\bv}(\bk)$ as the real and Fourier space representation of the solution of the decimated Navier-Stokes equations (\[eq:decimNS\]).
\
Direct Numerical Simulations Set-up {#sec:2.2}
-----------------------------------
We solved equations (\[eq:decimNS\]) on a regular, periodic volume with $N=1024^3$ and $2048^3$ grid points, by adopting a standard pseudo-spectral approach fully dealiased with the two-thirds rule; time stepping is done with a second-order Adams-Bashforth scheme. A large-scale forcing ${\bf F}$ keeps the total kinetic energy constant in a range of shells, $ 0.7 \le |{\bf k}| < 1.7$, leading to a statistically stationary, homogeneous and isotropic flow [@pope]. For each run, we generated a [*mask*]{}, that is kept quenched throughout the numerical simulation. We performed several runs at changing the fractal dimension $2.5 \le D \le 3$, the spatial resolution, the viscosity and also the realization of the fractal quenched mask. The case for $D=3$ is also referred as standard case. We summarise in Table\[table:param\] the relevant parameters of the numerical experiments performed.\
We mention that an [*a posteriori*]{} projection on a set of fractal dimension $D$ can also be obtained by applying, in Fourier space, the mask on snapshots of the velocity field which is solution of the original three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations. This is a [*static*]{} fractal Fourier decimation, whose effect can be compared to that of the [*dynamical*]{} decimation, in the statistical analysis.
Results and Discussion {#sec:3}
======================
We start our analysis by considering a visualisation of the most intense vortical structures, revealing the effect of decimation on turbulent flows. In Figure \[fig:1\], we plot isosurfaces of the $Q =
Tr[{\bf A}^2]$ invariant of the velocity gradient tensor, $A_{ij} =
\partial_i v_j$. The Q-criterion is based on the observation that $$Q= \frac{1}{2}(\Omega_{ij}\Omega_{ij} - S_{ij}S_{ij});$$ where the vorticity tensor is $\Omega_{ij} = 1/2 (\partial_i v_j
-\partial_j v_i)$ and the rate-of-strain tensor is $S_{ij} = 1/2
(\partial_i v_j +\partial_j v_i)$. Therefore, flow regions where $Q$ is positive identify positions where the strength of rotation overcomes strain. These are the best candidates to be considered as vortex iso-surfaces [@Dubief]. From Figure \[fig:1\], we see that the $D = 3$ case shows a large number of structures of both large and small-scale vortex filaments. The decimated case with $D = 2.98$ clearly differs because structures are smaller and less elongated, also they are much less abundant, indicating a less intermittent spatial distribution of structures. We stress that fractal decimation has non-trivial dynamical effect, which differs from the simple action of a vector projection in Fourier space. To make this immediately clear, we plot in Figure \[fig:1bis\] the $Q$ isosurfaces obtained after applying the [*a posteriori*]{}, [*static*]{} mask of dimension $D=2.98$ on the $D=3$ turbulent velocity field. While the [*static*]{} decimation [*simply*]{} removes velocity fluctuations at specific wavenumbers, the dynamical action of the Fourier decimation provokes a complete reorganization of the flow structures.
![(Main body) The lin-log plot of the probability density function of the spectral flux $P(\Pi(k))$, normalised to unitary area, for runs with different $D$; resolution is $N=1024$. (Inset) the comparison of the spectral fluxes obtained at the two resolutions, $N=1024$ and $N=2048$, and for different fractal dimensions $D$.[]{data-label="fig:flux"}](figflux_epje){width="8cm"}
Velocity field statistics {#sec:3.1}
-------------------------
We consider the statistics of mean turbulent fluctuations by analysing the spectral behaviour of the kinetic energy spectrum and energy flux, when the fractal dimension $D$ is varied.
![Log-log plot of the compensated kinetic energy spectra, $E(k)\,
k^{5/3 - (3 -D)}$, obtained at the two resolutions, $N=1024$ and $N=2048$, and for different fractal dimensions $D$. We only report those cases for which the linear correction to the exponent, due to the fractal decimation, is appreciable. At resolution $N=1024$, for $D=2.5$ label $m1$ and $m2$ indicate two sets of numerical simulations with different masks. At resolution $N=1024$, for $D=2.8$, label $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ indicate runs with different viscosities equal to $6.e-4$ and $8.e-4$, respectively: for these runs the masks are also different.[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](figspectra_epje){width="8cm"}
From the DNS data, the energy spectrum is measured by angular averages on Fourier-space unitary shells, $$E^{D}(k) \equiv \sum_{k\le|\bk|\le k+1} \langle v_i(\bk) v_i(\bk)^*\rangle\,,
\label{eq:spectrum_discrete}$$ where the asterisk is for complex conjugation. The energy flux $\Pi^{D}(k)$ through wavenumber $k$ due to the nonlinear transfer is measured as $$\Pi^{D}(k) \equiv \sum_{|\bq|< k} \sum_{\bp}\langle \bv^*(-\bq -\bp) \cdot \left[\bq \cdot (\bv(\bq) \bv(\bp))\right]\rangle\,.
\label{eq:flux_discrete}$$ As reported in [@LBBMT2015], a dimensional argument can be built up to quantify possible modification of the exponent of the kinetic energy spectrum due to fractal decimation. It relies on two assumptions: (i) scaling invariance of the velocity fluctuations in the inertial range of scales; (ii) the existence of a constant (k-independent) spectral energy flux in the inertial range. We give the former for granted, since intermittency manifests only in terms of a tiny anomalous correction in the energy spectrum of three-dimensional turbulence [@IsGoKa09].
![(Main body) Log-log plot of the longitudinal second order structure function for different fractal dimensions $D$. Data are at resolution $N=1024$. (Inset) Log-lin plot of the local slopes in ESS of the 4th-order longitudinal (filled circles) and transverse (filled boxes) structure functions in terms of the second order one, versus the separation scale $r$. Color symbols are the same of the main body: lower curves are for $D=3$, middle curves for $D=2.99$ and upper curves for $D=2.98$.[]{data-label="fig:S2"}](figS2_epje){width="8cm"}
As for the latter, we plot in the inset Figure \[fig:flux\], the kinetic energy flux $\Pi(k)$ through wavenumber $k$ for DNS with different fractal decimation $D$, and for both resolutions. It is clear that even in the presence of a strong reduction of degrees of freedom, an average constant flux in Fourier space is observed and a cascade of kinetic energy takes place.\
We also quantify the fluctuations in the Fourier space energy transfer, by plotting in Figure \[fig:flux\] the probability density function of the spectral flux. The PDF is calculated measuring the fluctuations of $\Pi(k)$ for wave-numbers in a limited range $k\in[3:30]$, corresponding to the constant transfer region where the flux has a plateau. We can observe that the fluctuations of the spectral transfer tend to be of the same amplitude, when $D$ is changed. Only for the case of a very strong decimation with $D=2.5$, we notice the presence of slightly larger fluctuations due to the fact the number of triads in the dynamical process are less and less as $D$ increases.\
![Log-lin plot of the normalised drag reduction coefficient $f/f_{D=3}$ versus the dimension deficit $3-D$. Error bars are estimated from statistical fluctuations. []{data-label="fig:friction"}](figdrag_epje){width="8cm"}
Figure \[fig:spectra\] shows the compensated kinetic energy spectra, $E(k) k^{5/3-(3-D)}$: fractal decimation acts to make the spectrum shallower, and the correction is small, being linear in the dimension deficit $3-D$ [@LBBMT2015]. Such correction is clearly negligible for those runs at $D \in [2.98,3)$, but starts to be appreciable at $D=2.8$. At $D=7/3$ the spectrum would in principle become divergent at small wavenumbers. However at such fractal dimension, about less than $1\%$ of the modes would survive for the present resolutions, almost annihilating the role of the non-linear transfer and making the energy dissipation almost in a direct balance with the energy injection. We note that, recently, the Burgers equation decimated on a fractal Fourier set of dimension $D \le 1$ was numerically studied [@BBFR2016]. Results obtained at fixed $D$ and for larger and larger values of the Reynolds number, suggest that Fourier decimation is a singular perturbation for the spectral scaling properties. Should this happen for the Navier-Stokes equations also, it is something to explore.\
It is also important to notice that fractal Fourier decimation has a strong effect on the vortex stretching mechanism: this implies that the energy bottlenecks [@F1994; @Lohse1995; @Frisch2008], generally observed at high Reynolds numbers in $D=3$ turbulence, might become less and less important for $D<3$.\
We now consider the Fourier transform of the energy spectrum, giving the second order velocity longitudinal structure function $S^{(2)}_L\equiv \langle [(\bv(\bx + \br) - \bv(x))\cdot
\hat{\br}]^2 \rangle$. This is plotted in Figure \[fig:S2\]. By decreasing the fractal dimension $D$, the curves become less and less steep approaching the Kolmogorov dimensional scaling $S^{(2)}_L
\simeq (r/L)^{\zeta_2}$, linearly corrected by the dimension deficit $\zeta_2=2/3-(3-D)$. Note that the run at $D=2.5$ has a smaller kinematic viscosity, hence a larger kinetic energy.\
{width="14cm"}
It is interesting to check how longitudinal and trasversal structure functions approach the dimensional scaling. Indeed it has been observed that, in statistically homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, longitudinal and trasversal structure functions do have different anomalous corrections [@PhysD2008], contrary to what would be expected on the basis of symmetry arguments [@BifProc2005]. Whether this is an effect due to finite-Reynolds numbers or not remains an open issue. In the inset of Figure \[fig:S2\], we plot the local slopes of the longitudinal and transverse fourth order structure functions, by using the so-called extended self-similarity technique (ESS)[@ess] (see also [@ray2010] for a recent discussion of the topic). To be more precise, we consider the ratio of the scaling exponent of the fourth order longitudinal (transverse) structure function to that of the second order longitudinal (transverse) one: $$\frac{\zeta_4}{\zeta_2}(r)= \frac{d\log S^{(4)}_{L,T}(r)}{d\log S^{(2)}_{L,T}(r)}\,,
\label{eq:ess}$$ where the longitudinal structure functions are $S^{(n)}_L(r) \equiv
\langle [\delta_r {\bv} \cdot \hat {\bf r}]^n \rangle$ with $\delta_r
{\bv} = {\bv}({\br}) - {\bv}(0)$, and the purely transverse structure functions are $S^{(n)}_T(r) \equiv \langle [\delta_r
v(\hat{\br}_T)]^n \rangle$ and $\hat{\br}_T \cdot \bv
=0$. For $D=3$, the curve for the transverse structure function is well below that of the longitudinal one, hence the anomalous correction is larger for the former than for the latter [@Gotoh2002; @Benzi2010]. When the fractal dimension is decreased, $D<3$, such difference also diminishes but the two curves remain separated even when approaching Gaussianity. This might suggest that such difference in the standard $D=3$ turbulence is not due to finite Reynolds effects but it is genuine, and different anomalous corrections characterize longitudinal and transverse structure functions.\
A different way to quantify the effects of fractal decimation, beyond scaling properties, is to look at the ratio of the kinetic energy input to the resulting kinetic energy throughput in the turbulent flow. An adimensional measure can be defined as [@BCM2005] $$f_{d}\equiv \frac{F\,L}{\langle v \rangle^2} = \frac{2 \epsilon L}{v^3_{rms}} \,$$ where $F$ quantifies the amplitude of the external forcing and $L$ is the large-scale of the flow; moreover from the definition of the energy input $\epsilon \equiv 1/2 \langle {\bf F} \cdot \bv \rangle$ we have the dimensional relation $F\simeq 2 \epsilon /\langle
v^2\rangle^{1/2}$. In this terms, $f_{d}$ is a drag coefficient which can be measured when the fractal dimension is varied. From the results plotted in Figure \[fig:friction\], it appears that fractal decimation reduces the drag in the flow with respect to the standard case with $D=3$. Moreover there is a Reynolds dependence: we observe a larger reduction for larger Reynolds numbers. This sort of drag reduction is accompanied, as we will see below, by a restructuring of the flow, since regions characterised by intense vortical stretching almost disappear as $D$ is decreased.
Velocity gradient tensor statistics {#sec:3.2}
-----------------------------------
As discussed before, the vortex stretching mechanism can be quantified by measuring the statistical behaviour of the invariants of velocity gradient tensor ${\cal{\bf A}}_{ij}= \partial v_i/\partial x_j$ (for a detailed discussion, see [@CPC; @BMC]). The characteristic equation $det ({\cal{\bf A}} - \lambda {\cal {\bf I}})=0$ can be written as: $$\lambda^3 + P \lambda^2 + Q \lambda + R=0\,.
\label{eq:char}$$ For an incompressible flow, of the three tensor invariants only two are different from zero: $Q = - 1/2 tr[{\cal {\bf A}}^2]$ and $R= -
1/3 tr [{\cal {\bf A}}^3]$.\
From previous experimental [@Tao2002; @Luthi2005] and numerical [@Martin1998] studies in three-dimensional homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, some general geometric features of the tensor have been highlighted. These are: the vorticity vector is preferentially aligned with the eigenvector associated to the intermediate eigenvalue of the strain-rate tensor ${\cal {\bf S}}$; there are two positive and one negative eigenvalues of the rate-of-strain, ${\cal {\bf S}}$, such that the associated local flow structure is an axisymmetric extension; the joint probability distribution of the two invariants, $P(Q,R)$, has a typical teardrop shape extending around the so-called zero-discriminant or Vieillefosse line $L \equiv 27/4 R^2 + Q^3 = 0$ [@viellefosse]. The Viellefosse line divides the $Q-R$ plane in two different regions depending whether the velocity gradient tensor has three real eigenvalues with $L<0$, or two complex-conjugate and one real eigenvalues, with $L>0$. This means that $L> 0$ is the region where vorticity is dominant; the region $L<0$ is strain-dominated region. The upper left region (with $L> 0$, and one positive real eingenvalue and two complex-conjugates ones) is the statistical signature of the vortex stretching dominating the turbulent flow, while long right tail in the lower right side ($L<0$ and two positive and one negative real eingenvalues) is associated with intense elongational strain.\
In the original $D=3$ problem, the temporal evolution of the velocity gradient tensor is also of particular interest beyond the geometrical properties. Indeed a set of exact equations [@viellefosse; @cantwell1992], although not closed, can be derived taking the gradient of Navier-Stokes equations. By doing so, the equations for the Lagrangian evolution of the gradient tensor components is $$\label{eq:gradevol}
d{\cal A}_{ij}/dt = - {\cal A}_{ik}{\cal A}_{kj} - \partial_{ij}p +
\nu \partial^2 {\cal A}_{ij}\,,$$ where $p$ is the pressure divided by the fluid density. The need of a closure comes from the fact that both the pressure hessian and the viscous terms are not simply known in terms of ${\bf A}$. Such a set of equations, which gives insight on the small-scale intermittency, has been largely investigated, and different model closures have been proposed [@viellefosse; @Girimaji1990; @CPS1999; @Chevillard2006; @Chevillard2008].\
In the case of fractal Fourier Navier-Stokes equations, the situation is however different. Because of the presence of the decimation projector in the non-linear term, the structure of the equation of motion in terms of the material derivative is broken. Hence, any closure model based on the lagrangian evolution of the velocity gradient tensor is ruled out.\
In Figure\[fig:2\], we plot the joint distribution of the velocity gradient tensor invariants, $P(Q,R)$ for data at $N=1024$, since the dataset is richer. As the fractal dimension $D$ decreases, the joint probability looses its asymmetric shape, and become more and more centered. Moreover extreme fluctuations becomes less and less important: tails are reduced in particular for what concerns the vortex stretching mechanism ($R<0$ and $Q>0$, with $L>0$) and the region around the Viellefosse tail $R =
(-\frac{4}{27}Q^3)^{1/2}$. On the other hand, small fluctuations for $Q$ and $R$ become more and more probable. At $D=2.8$, the PDF is close to the one of Gaussian variables [@VanderBos2002; @CPS1999], and the vortex stretching region is strongly depleted.
Conclusions {#sec:4}
===========
In this paper, we have further investigated the effect of random (but quenched in time) fractal Fourier decimation of the Navier-Stokes equations in the turbulent regime of direct cascade of energy. This is a recently introduced technique that allows to study modifications of the non-linear transfer and vortex stretching mechanisms, by varying the number of degrees of freedom with a single tuning parameter, i.e., the fractal set dimension $D$. Here we have focused on the range $D
\in[2.5:3]$. For specific values of $D$, we have also explored the dependency on the Reynolds number and on the realization of the fractal mask. Results here presented do depend on the former, while they are insensitive to tha letter, within statistical accuracy. Note that at fixed fractal dimension $D$, in the limit of large Reynolds numbers, even a small dimension deficit $(3-D)<<1$ would result in an effective strong decimation at small scales, being $h_k \propto
(k/k_0)^{D-3}$ the probability associated to wavenumbers $k$. This suggests that the effect of fractal decimation is singular in the limit $D\rightarrow 3$.\
Decimation does not alter the energy cascade of three-dimensional turbulence, meaning that the kinetic energy flux in Fourier space is independent of the wave-numbers in the inertial range of scales. Also, fluctuations of the energy flux stay almost unchanged except for $D=2.5$ where we observe a (mild) increase in the width of the PDF tails. We interpret this as a manifestation of the fact that at in such case a very small number of triads is able to drain the (same) large-scale energy towards small scales: the transfer hence becomes more [*difficult*]{} and bursty.\
The second order moment of velocity increment statistics is weakly affected by fractal decimation, the correction in the kinetic energy spectrum exponent being linear in $3-D$. However small-scale statistics is drastically modified. By studying the velocity gradient tensor statistics, we have shown that the vortex stretching mechanism is very sentitive to fractal decimation: it is strogly depleted already for $D$ very close to three. At $D=2.8$, the statistical signature of vortex stretching and intense elongational strain disappear from the joint distribution $P(Q,R)$, which become Gaussian. This implies that high order structure functions of the velocity field scale dimensionally with the structure function of order two, whose exponent is possibly modified by the dimension deficit. Let us notice however that the statistics cannot follow an exact self-similar behaviour, because some correlation functions are anchored to the kinetic energy flux, in particular the third order longitudinal structure function must scale linearly.\
From the results here discussed, many questions arise. Modifications in the triad-to-triad nonlinear energy transfer mechanism are to be further investigated.\
As pointed out in [@Waleffe1992], the energy transfer mechanism of individual triads might strongly depend on the helical contents of each interacting mode and on the triad shape, if this is local or non-local. Fractal Fourier decimation introduces a systematic change in the relative ratio of local to non-local triads, tending to deplete the presence of local Fourier interactions for high wavenumbers. Understanding if the restoration of a non-anomalous scaling, due to the disappearence of intermittency, and the depletion of the vortex stretching mechanism are due to this effect needs further analysis. Finally, let us comment on the fact that fractally decimated Navier-Stokes equations might be an interesting playground for more theoretical studies on finite-time singularities. Indeed, by reducing the number of degrees of freedom when lowering $D$, we observe that the dynamics tends to be less singular, since anoumalous fluctuations and events along the Viellefosse tail disappear: this suggests that solutions of the fractally decimated Navier-Stokes equations are more regular and hence a good candidate to assess the presence or not of a blow up at large Reynolds numbers [@constantin; @gallavotti].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge useful discussions with Roberto Benzi, Uriel Frisch, Detlef Lohse, Samriddhi Sankar Ray, and Federico Toschi. SKM wishes to acknowledge COST-Action MP1305 for supporting him to participate in FLOMAT2015. DNS were done at CINECA (Italy), within the EU-PRACE Project Pra04, N.806. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement No. 339032. We thank F. Bonaccorso and G. Amati for technical support. We thank the COST-Action MP1305 for support.
[99]{} U. Frisch, [*Turbulence*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995).
A. Arnèodo at al., EPL [**34**]{}, 411–416 (1996).
K. R. Sreenivasan and R. A. Antonia, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.[**29**]{},435–472 (1997).
N. Mordant, P. Metz, O. Michel, and J.-F. Pinton, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**87**]{}, 214501 (2001).
L. Biferale, G. Boffetta, A. Celani, A. Lanotte, and F. Toschi, Phys. Fluids [**17**]{}, 021701 (2005). Doi: 10.1063/1.1846771.
H. Xu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.[**96**]{}, 024503 (2006).
A. Arnèodo at al, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**98**]{}, 254504 (2008).
F. Toschi and E. Bodenschatz, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**41**]{}, 375–404 (2009).
R. H. Kraichnan, J. Fluid Mech. [**47**]{}, 525–535 (1971).
R. H. Kraichnan, J. Fluid Mech. [**62**]{}, 305–330 (1974).
C. Meneveau and J. Katz, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [ **32**]{}, 1–32 (2000).
G. Falkovich and K.R. Sreenivasan, Phys. Today [ **59**]{}(4), 43 (2006).
A.Tsinober, in [*Turbulence Structure and Vortex Dynamics*]{}, Eds. J. C. R. Hunt and J. C. Vassilicos, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2011).
R. H. Kraichnan, J. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 124 (1961).
S. A. Orszag, [*Lectures on the Statistical Theory of Turbulence*]{}, in Fluid Dynamics, Les Houches 1973, eds. R. Balian and J. L. Peube, Gordon and Breach, New York.
U. Frisch, A. Pomyalov, I. Procaccia, and S. Sankar Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 074501 (2012).
A.S. Lanotte, R. Benzi, L. Biferale, S.K. Malapaka, and F. Toshi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 264502 (2015).
J. D. Fournier and U. Frisch, PHYS. REV A [**17**]{}, 747 (1978).
T. D. Lee, Quart. J. Appl. Math. [**10**]{}, 69 (1952).
E. Hopf, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. [**3**]{}, 201 (1950).
C. Cichowlas, P. Bona[ï]{}ti, F. Debbasch, and M.E. Brachet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 264502 (2005)
S. S. Ray, Pramana [**84**]{}(3), 395 (2015).
V. S. Lvov, A. Pomyalov, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 064501 (2002).
P. Giuliani, M. H. Jensen, and V. Yakhot, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{}, 036305 (2002).
A. G. Lamorgese, D. A. Caughey, and S. B. Pope, Phys. Fluids 17, 015106 (2005).
Y. Dubief and F. Delcayre, Journal of Turbulence, 1, N11 (2000). DOI: 10.1088/1468-5248/1/1/011
T. Ishihara, T. Gotoh, Y. Kaneda, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**41**]{}, 165 (2009).
L. Biferale, A. S. Lanotte, F. Toschi, Physica D 237, 1969–1975 (2008).
L. Biferale and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rep. [ **414**]{}, 43 (2005).
M. Buzzicotti, L. Biferale, U. Frisch, and S. S. Ra. ,Phys. Rev. E [**93**]{}, 033109 (2016).
G. Falkovich, Phys. Fluids [**6**]{}, 1411 (1994). doi: 10.1063/1.868255
D. Lohse and A. M[ü]{}ller-Groeling, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, (10) (1995).
U. Frisch, S. Kurien, R. Pandit, W. Pauls, S. S. Ray, A. Wirth, and J.-Z. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 144501 (2008).
R. Benzi, S. Ciliberto, R. Tripiccione, C. Baudet, F. Massaioli, S. Succi, Phys. Rev. E 48, R29 (1993).
S. Chakraborty, U. Frisch, and S. S. Ray, J. Fluid Mech. [**649**]{}, 275– 285 (2010)
T. Gotoh, D. Fukayama, and T. Nakano, Phys. Fluids [**14**]{}, 1065 (2002).
R. Benzi, L. Biferale, R. Fisher, D.Q. Lamb and F. Toschi Journ. Fluid Mech. [**653**]{}, 221 (2010).
G. Boffetta, A. Celani, A. Mazzino, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 036307 (2005).
M. S. Chong, A. E. Perry, and B. J. Cantwell, Phys. Fluids A [ **2**]{}, 765 (1990).
H.M. Blackburn, N.N. Mansour and B.J. Cantwell, J. Fluid Mech. [**310**]{}, 269–92 (1996).
B. Tao, J. Katz and C. Meneveau, J. Fluid Mech.[**457**]{}, 35–78 (2002).
B. Luthi, A. Tsinober, and W. Kinzelbach, J. Fluid Mech. [**528**]{}, 87 (2005).
J. Martín, A. Ooi, M. S. Chong and J. Soria, Phys. Fluids [**10**]{}, 2336 (1998); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.869752.
P. Viellefosse, Physica A [**125**]{}, 150 (1984).
B. J. Cantwell, Phys. Fluids A [**4**]{}, 782 (1992).
S.S. Girimaji and S. B. Pope, Phys. Fluids A [**2**]{}, 242 (1990).
M. Chertkov, A. Pumir, and B. Shraiman, Phys. Fluids [**11**]{}, 2394 (1999).
L. Chevillard and C. Meneveau, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}. 174501 (2006).
L. Chevillard, C. Meneveau, L. Biferale, and F. Toschi, Phys. Fluids [**20**]{}, 101504 (2008).
F. van der Bos et al., Phys. Fluids 14, 2456 (2002).
F. Waleffe, Phys. Fluids A [**4**]{}, 350 (1992). Doi: 10.1063/1.858309
P. Constantin, “Remarks on the Navier-Stokes equations”, in [*New Perspectives in Turbulence*]{}, 229-261. Ed. L. Sirovich, Springer Berlin (1991).
G. Gallavotti, “Some rigorous results about $3D$ Navier-Stokes”, in [*Turbulence in spatially extended systems*]{}, Les Houches 1992, 45–74, eds. R. Benzi, C. Basdevant and S. Ciliberto, Nova Science, Commack, New York (1993).
[^1]: *Contact author:* [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[\*Corresponding author: [email protected], Ph.+34 633557019]{} We present a simple direct method for calculating Regge trajectories for a multichannel scattering problem. The approach is applied to the case of two coupled Thomas-Fermi type potentials, used as a crude model for electron-atom scattering below the second excitation threshold. It is shown that non-adiabatic interaction may cause formation of loops in Regge trajectories. The accuracy of the method is tested by evaluating resonance contributions to elastic and inelastic integral cross sections.'
author:
- 'D. Sokolovski\*'
- 'Z. Felfli'
- 'A. Z. Msezane'
title: 'Self-intersecting Regge trajectories in multi-channel scattering'
---
0.5cm
Introduction
============
There has long been interest in resonance effects which arise when collision partners form a long-lived intermediate complex [@Tayl]. Recently, this interest was reinforced by experimental progress in cold atomic and molecular collisions (see, for example, [@Cost]). An isolated resonance can be associated with a pole of the scattering matrix either in the complex energy (CE) or the complex angular momentum (CAM) plane. Two types of poles are closely related and contain essentially the same amount of information. However, since observables of interest such as integral (ICS) and differential (DCS) cross sections are given by partial wave sums (PWS) over total angular momentum $J$, the CAM (Regge) poles prove to be more convenient for identifying and quantifying resonance effects. Transforming a PWS into a sum of integrals, [*e.g.*]{}, by means of the Poisson sum formula, and then evaluating contributions from Regge poles often allows to account for the resonance pattern observed in a DCS [@N1]-[@S2] or an ICS [@Mac]-[@SA].
Applications of the CAM approach range from elastic collisions of atoms with protons [@Mac] and electrons [@e],[@AZM] to atom-diatom chemical reactions [@S2],[@S1]. Numerous techniques have been proposed for determination of Regge pole positions and residues in single channel potential scattering (for a review see [@Conn]), among others direct solution of the Schroedinger equation [@Burke] (see also [@e]), or of the corresponding non-linear Milne equation [@Th1; @Th2] for complex values of $J$. For realistic reactive systems the number of open channel is large, root search in the complex $J$ plane is not viable, and one has to resort to Pade’ reconstruction of $S$-matrix elements [@S3]. This leaves a class of systems with a relatively few channels, for which many of the single channel techniques do not work, and yet one wishes to avoid the use of Pade’ approximants.
The purpose of the present paper is to propose a direct method for calculating CAM poles positions and residues for such systems. These include, among others, inelastic and reactive systems at low energies, Feshbach resonances, collisions involving two-level atoms [@Nik], and spin flip scattering [@flip]. We will also look for the evidence of non-adiabatic effects in the behaviour of Regge trajectories. For recent efforts in this direction we refer the reader to Ref.[@Th3], where the amplitude-phase method of Refs.[@Th1; @Th2] has been extended to Dirac electrons. The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Sect. II we give a brief description of the method which generalises the approach of Ref. [@Burke] to a multichannel case. In Sect. III we consider a two-channel case designed to mimic electron-atom scattering below the second excitation threshold. Section IV considers the same problem in the adiabatic approximation. In Sect. V we use the obtained pole positions and residues to evaluate resonance contributions to elastic and inelastic integral cross sections. Section VI contains our conclusions.
Direct calculation of Regge pole positions and residues
=======================================================
Consider a time-independent scattering problem described by $N$ coupled radial equations \[we set to unity the particle’s mass, $\mu=1$, and choose $\hbar=1$, thus converting to atomic units (a.u,)\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\{[-\partial_r^2/2+J(J+1)/2r^2-E]\hat{I}
+{\hat{V}}(r) \} {{\bf \Psi}}(r)=0\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ is the energy, $J$ is the total angular momentum, $\hat{I}$ is the unit matrix, and ${\hat{V}}(r)$ is an $N\times N$ hermitian potential matrix, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
lim_{r\to \infty}{\hat{V}}(r)=diag(V_1,V_2,..., V_{N-1},0).\end{aligned}$$ We will assume that the constant values $V_n$ are arranged in such a way that $V_1\ge V_2\ge...\ge V_{N-1}$, and require that a solution of Eq.(\[1\]), given by a complex vector ${{\bf \Psi}}(r)=[\Psi_1,\Psi_2,...,\Psi_n]^T$, is regular at the origin, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3}
lim_{r\to 0}\Psi_n(r)=0, \quad n=1,2,...,N.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we are interested in scattering solutions ${{\bf \Psi}}_m$, $m=1,2,...N$, which for large $r's$ contain an incoming wave in only the $m$-th channel. Assuming that the potential ${\hat{V}}(r)$ reaches its asymptotic form (\[2\]) sufficiently rapidly, as $r\to \infty$ for the channel wavefunctions we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4}
{({{\bf \Psi}}_m)_n}
\approx (\pi k_nr/2)^{1/2}[\delta_{nm}H^{(2)}_{{\lambda}}(k_nr)+
\\
\nonumber S_{nm} (E,\lambda) H^{(1)}_{{\lambda}}(k_nr)], {\quad}n,m=1,2...N \end{aligned}$$ where $H^{(1)}_{{\lambda}}(z)$ and $H^{(2)}_{{\lambda}}(z)$ are the Hankel functions of the first and second kind, respectively, $\lambda \equiv J+1/2$, and the asymptotic wave vector $k_n$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4a}
k_n\equiv \sqrt{2(E-V_n)},{\quad}n=1,2,...N.\end{aligned}$$ For now we will assume that all channels are open, $E>V_1$ so that all $k_n$ are real valued. For each real value of the energy $E$ we wish to find complex value(s) $\lambda=\bar{\lambda}(E)$ , such that the $S$-matrix elements $S_{nm}$ would diverge, $S_{nm}(E,\bar{\lambda}(E))=\infty$. Thus, the asymptotic of the corresponding solution of Eq.(\[1\]) (Regge state) will contain only outgoing waves generated by the emissive complex centrifugal potential $[\bar{\lambda}(E)^2-1/4]/2r^2$.
In order to obtain Regge trajectory(s) $\bar{\lambda}(E)$ we integrate Eq.(\[1\]) for an arbitrary complex value of the angular momentum $J$ ($\lambda$) sufficiently far into the asymptotic region, evaluate the $S$-matrix elements, and repeat the procedure until a (Regge) pole of the $S$-matrix is found [@e; @Burke]. With possible applications of the theory to electron-atom collisions in mind, we consider a potential matrix which has a Coulomb singularity at the origin, so that its Taylor expansion takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5}
{\hat{V}}(r)=r^{-1}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} {\hat{V}}_jr^j.\end{aligned}$$ As in the one-channel case [@e; @Burke] the singularity of ${\hat{V}}(r)$ prevents imposing the boundary condition (\[3\]) directly at $r=0$. Following [@Burke] we represent the solution of Eq. (1)as a power series, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6}
{{\bf \Psi}}(r)=r^{J+1}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} {{\bf u}}_jr^j.\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bf u}}_j$, $j=0,1,...$, are constant vector coefficients satisfying recursion relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} {{\bf u}}_{j+1}j(j+1) r^{j}
+2(J+1)\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} {{\bf u}}_{j+1}(j+1) r^{j}\\
\nonumber
+\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}(\sum_{l=0}^{j}\hat{K}_l {{\bf u}}_{j-l})r^l =0\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{K}_l \equiv {\hat{V}}_l+E\hat{I}\delta_{l,1}$, whose explicit solution reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8}
{{\bf u}}_{j+1}=-[2(J+1)(j+1)+j(j+1)]^{-1}\sum_{l=0}^{j}\hat{K}_l {{\bf u}}_{j-l}, {\quad}j\ge0.{\quad}{\quad}\end{aligned}$$ The recursion scheme is initialised by specifying the so far undefined initial vector ${{\bf u}}_0$. This can be chosen in $N$ different ways, e.g., (the last subscript indicates the component of the vector ${{\bf u}}_{0}^{m} $) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9}
({{\bf u}}_{0}^m)_n=\delta_{nm} {\quad}n,m=1,2,...,N\end{aligned}$$ to yield $N$ linearly independent solutions, whose values at some $r_0$ for a suitably chosen $j_{max}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10}
{{\bf\Phi}}_m(r_0)=\sum_{j=0}^{j_{max}} {{\bf u}}_j^m r_0^{J+j+1},{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}\\
\nonumber
{{\bf\Phi}}'_m(r_0)=\sum_{j=0}^{j_{max}} (J+j+1){{\bf u}}_j^m r_0^{J+j}, {\quad}m=1,2,..N,\end{aligned}$$ provide $N$ sets of initial conditions for Eq.(\[1\]). This can now be integrated numerically (a NAG integrator [@NAGINT] is used in this work) to a sufficiently large $r$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11}
({{\bf\Phi}}_m)_n
\approx (\pi k_nr/2)^{1/2}[{\hat{S}}^-_{mn}H^{(2)}_{{\lambda}}(k_nr)+
{\\ \nonumber}{\hat{S}}^+_{mn} H^{(1)}_{{\lambda}}(k_nr)], {\quad}n,m=1,2...N \end{aligned}$$ and ${\hat{S}}^-(E,\lambda)$ and ${\hat{S}}^+(E,\lambda)$ are constant matrices, to be determined numerically. The physical scattering states (\[4\]) are linear combinations of ${{\bf\Phi}}_m$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12}
{{\bf \Psi}}_k=\sum_m A_{km}{{\bf\Phi}}_m, {\quad}k=1,2,...,N,\end{aligned}$$ with $A_{km}$ chosen so that the coefficients multiplying the Hankel functions of the second kind (incoming waves) add up to $\delta_{mn}$ i.e., $\hat{A}=({\hat{S}}^-)^{-1}$. As a result, for the $S$-matrix we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{14}
S_{nn'}= [({\hat{S}}^-)^{-1}{\hat{S}}^+]_{nn'}.\end{aligned}$$ It is readily seen that the $S$-matrix elements diverge if and only if ${\hat{S}}^-$ is singular, so that the condition for a Regge pole at a (real) energy $E$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
\Delta(E,\lambda)\equiv \det{\hat{S}}^-=0. \end{aligned}$$ Starting with a reasonable initial guess for $\lambda$ and recalculating the l.h.s. of Eq.(\[15\]) in each step, one can use a standard routine for finding zeroes of $\Delta(E,\lambda)$ (a NAG root finder [@NAGROOT] is used in this work) to determine the accurate pole position $\bar{\lambda}(E)$. The residues $$\begin{aligned}
\label{16}
\rho_{nn'}(E)\equiv \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \epsilon S_{nn'}(E,\bar{\lambda}+\epsilon). \end{aligned}$$ are readily obtained by integrating Eq.(\[1\]) for a value of $\lambda$ close to $\bar{\lambda}(E)$ and taking the limit (\[16\]). Finally, in the case some of the channels are closed, with corresponding $k_n$’s in Eq.(\[4a\]) purely imaginary, equation (\[15\]) applies, and ensures that the Regge state does not have components which grow exponentially as $r\to \infty$. After this brief summary, in the next Sections we apply the method to a model two-channel $(N=2)$ problem.
The model: two coupled Thomas-Fermi type potentials
===================================================
Next we consider a two-channel scattering problem with a potential matrix defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{17}
V_{22}(r)=-\frac{Z}{r(r+a)(r^2+b)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{17a}
V_{11}(r)=V_{22}(r)+\Delta V,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{18}
V_{12}(r)=V_{21}(r)=\alpha\exp[-(r-r_i)^2/\Delta r^2].\end{aligned}$$ The potential shown in Fig.1 can be seen as a crude model for an inelastic electron-atom collision below the threshold of the second inelastic channel. The diagonal terms $V_{11}$ and $V_{22}$ are two similar Thomas-Fermi type potentials, representing the interaction between an electron and an atom in the first excited and the ground state, respectively. The constant $\Delta V$ is the excitation energy, and the interaction between the channels occurs in the outer layer of the atom, $r_i-\Delta r \lesssim r \lesssim r_i+\Delta r$.
Regge trajectories (curves $Im \bar{\lambda}$ vs. $Re \bar{\lambda}$) are shown in Fig. 2 for arbitrary $Z=54$, $a=0.0125$ a.u., $b=1.5874$ a.u. and $\Delta V=0.3$ a.u. For uncoupled channels ($V_{12}=V_{21}=0$), there are two Regge trajectories, $\bar{\lambda}_{I}(E)$ and $\bar{\lambda}_{II}(E)$. Since the two potentials only differ by a constant shift $\Delta V$, $\bar{\lambda}_{I}(E)=\bar{\lambda}_{II}(E+\Delta V)$, and the two Regge trajectories in Fig. 2 coincide, as shown by the dot-dashed line. Interaction between the channels removes the degeneracy and yields two distinct trajectories as shown in Fig.2 for $\alpha=1.5$ a.u., $\Delta r=1$ a.u., and $r_i=2.4$ a.u. (solid).
The trajectory labelled $(I)$ exhibits a type of behaviour often seen in potential scattering [@Mac; @e; @SA]. As the energy increases, so does $\bar{\lambda}_{I}(E)$, and the trajectory curves away from the real $\lambda$-axis in a smooth manner. The second trajectory, labelled $(II)$ leaves the real axis much more rapidly, and shortly thereafter intersects itself, describing a loop in the first quadrant of the CAM plane. This behaviour, to our knowledge not observed in one-channel scattering problems, is one of our central results. In the next Section we demonstrate it to be a consequence of non-adiabatic effects.
Adiabatic correspondence
========================
Further insight can be gained by considering the two Regge trajectories in the adiabatic approximation. Diagonalising the potential matrix $\hat{V}(r)$ for each value of $r$ yields two adiabatic curves, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{19}
\tilde{V}_{I,II}(r)=\frac{V_1+V_2}{2}\pm\frac{\sqrt{(V_1-V_2)^2+4V_{12}}}{2},\end{aligned}$$ shown in Fig.1 by dashed lines. The first $(I)$ curve acquires an additional barrier, while the second one $(II)$ has an additional well, both roughly proportional to $\pm V_{12}(r)$. Neglecting non-adiabatic coupling, i.e., replacing in Eq.(\[1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{20}
\hat{V}(r) \to diag[\tilde{V}_{I}(r),\tilde{V}_{II}(r)], \end{aligned}$$ yields two uncoupled equations and two adiabatic Regge trajectories shown in Fig.2 by dashed lines. The first adiabatic trajectory is close to the exact trajectory $(I)$ in Fig.2, whose imaginary part grows slowly with the energy, since the corresponding metastable state is stabilised by the effective barrier shown in Fig.1. The second exact trajectory $(II)$ corresponds to the adiabatic trajectory for the barrierless potential $\tilde{V}_{II}(r)$. Comparing these two Regge trajectories suggests that self-intersection of the exact curve in Fig.2 is caused by the non-adiabatic transitions not taken into account by the approximation (\[19\])-(\[20\]).
Integral cross sections.
========================
One important application of the CAM theory is in the identification and quantitative analysis of resonance patterns which occur in elastic, inelastic and reactive integral cross sections (ICS) [@Mac]-[@SA]. A resonance is likely to affect an ICS at an energy $E>0$ for which the corresponding Regge trajectory approaches a real integer value of the angular momentum [@Mac],[@e]. (The requirement is readily understood if one recalls that at negative energies the condition for a true bound state is that $J$ take a ’physical’ integer value.) This condition is satisfied for the trajectory (I) in Fig. 2 which approaches $J=2$ for $E\approx 1.46$ a.u. Next we use this example in order to check the accuracy of the pole positions and residues obtained in Sect. III.
The four ICSs are given by the partial wave sums $$\begin{aligned}
\label{21}
\sigma_{nn'}(E)= \frac{\pi}{k_{n'}^2}\sum_{J=0}^{\infty}(2J+1)|\delta_{nn'}-S_{nn'}|^2,{\quad}{\\ \nonumber}n,n'=1,2{\quad}{\quad}{\quad}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_{n'}$ is the wave vector in the incoming channel, and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. The PWS (\[21\]) can be separated into the resonance and background contributions, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{21a}
\sigma_{nn'}(E)=\sigma^{res}_{nn'}(E) +B_{nn'}(E),
$$ where the resonance term is given by the Mullholland formula [@Mac], [@S1], [@SA]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{22}
\sigma^{res}_{nn'}(E)= \frac{8\pi^{2}}{k_j^2} Im \frac{\bar{\lambda}\rho_{nn'}[S^*_{nn'}(\bar{\lambda}^*)-\delta_{nn'}]}{1+\exp(-2\pi i \bar{\lambda})},
$$
$\lambda=J+1/2$ and a $^*$ denotes complex conjugation.
Exact composition of the background term $B_{nn'}(E)$ is described elsewhere [@Mac; @S1], its essential property being smooth behaviour in the region where an ICS is affected by the resonance. Figure 3 shows the residues trajectories (curves $Im \rho_{ij}$ vs. $Re \rho_{ij}$ first introduced in Ref. [@RESTRAJ]) evaluated for the Regge trajectory (I) in Fig. 2.
. \[fig:1\]
The full ICSs given by the PWS (\[21\]), the resonance term (\[22\]), and the background term obtained as the difference between the two, are shown in Fig.4. The resonance terms $\sigma^{res}_{nn'}(E)$ account for most of the resonance structure at $E\approx 1.46$ a.u. We note that the trajectory (I) in Fig. 2 originates, at low angular momenta, from a bound rather than a metastable state of the two coupled wells. Thus, as in the case of proton impact on neutral atoms [@Mac] and also electron-atoms collisions [@AZM], one can expect Eqs.(\[21a\])-(\[22\]) to provide an efficient separation of the resonance contribution and to probe important physics. Discussion of the distinction between two types of trajectories and a modification of the Mulholland formula can be found in Ref.[@SA]. Extension of the approach of Ref. [@SA] to a multichannel case will be given elsewhere.
Conclusions and discussion
==========================
In conclusion, we advocate a direct method for calculating Regge pole positions and residues, suitable for systems with a relatively small number of channels. The method is applied to a simple model designed to mimic electron-atom scattering at energies between the first and the second excitation thresholds. It is shown that inter-channel coupling splits degenerate Regge trajectories into ones approximately corresponding to the two adiabatic potentials. Beyond the adiabatic approximation, non-adiabatic effects are seen to be responsible for self intersection of the trajectory $(II)$ shown in Fig.2. The effect of loop formation has not, to our knowledge, been observed in single channel scattering.
Finally, the simple model developed here can be improved e.g., by a careful choice of the potential matrix or by including, if necessary, additional $J$-dependent terms in Eq.(\[1\]). The possibility to use the method for a more accurate description of inelastic electron-atom scattering will be discussed in our future work. Suffice it to say that this development promises a powerful approach to low-energy scattering with the possibility to probe Regge resonances and the Feshbach resonances occurring in Bose-Einstein condesates .
One of us (DS) acknowledges support by the Basque Goverment grant IT472 and MICINN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion) grant FIS2009-12773-C02-01. AZM and ZF are supported by US DOE and US AFOSR grants. DS is also grateful to Karl-Eric Thylwe for useful discussions, suggestions and hospitality during visit to Uppsala in May 2010.
[999]{} J.R. Taylor, [*Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions*]{} (Dover, 2006) C. Berteloite [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 203201 (2010); C. W. Walter, N. D. Gibson, Y.-G. Li, D. J. Matyas, R. M. Alton, S. E. Lou, R. L. Field III, D. Hanstorp, L. Pan and D. R. Beck, Phys. Rev. A [**84**]{}, 032514 (2011) H. M. Nussenzveig, Phys. Rev. A, [**43**]{}, 2093 (1991); J. Math.Phys. 10, [**82**]{}; 10, 125 (1969); Ann. Phys. (N.Y. ) [**34**]{}, 23 (1965). J.N.L. Connor, J.Phys.B, [**15**]{} 1683 (1982). J. N. L. Connor and W. Jakubetz, Mol. Phys., 1978, 35, 949 J.N.L. Connor, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. [**86**]{} 1627 (1990). K.-E. Thylwe, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**16**]{}, 1141 (1983). J. N. L. Connor, D. Farrelly and D. C. Mackay, J. Chem. Phys., [**74**]{}, 3278 (1981). K.-E. Thylwe and J. N. L. Connor, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., [**21**]{}, L597 (1988); J. Chem. Phys., [**91**]{}, 1668 (1989). P. McCabe, J. N. L. Connor and K.-E. Thylwe, J. Chem. Phys., [**98**]{}, 2947 (1993). C. Xiaou, J.N. Connor and D.H. Zhang, PCCP, [**13**]{},12981 (2011). D.Sokolovski and A.Z.Msezane, Phys.Rev.A, [**70**]{}, 032710 (2004) D.Sokolovski, K.Sen, V.Aquilanti, S.Cavalli, and D.De Fazio, J. Chem. Phys. [**126**]{}, 084305 (2007); D.Sokolovski, D.De Fazio, S.Cavalli, and V.Aquilanti, PCCP [**9**]{}, 5664 (2007) J.H. Macek, P.S. Krstic, and S.Yu. Ovchinnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 183203 (2004); S.Yu.Ovchinnikov, P.S. Krstic, and J.H.Macek, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 012414 (2009). D. Sokolovski, Z. Felfli, S.Yu. Ovchinnikov, J.H. Macek, and A.Z. Msezane, Phys.Rev.A [**76**]{}, 012705 (2007); Z. Felfli, A.Z. Msezane and D. Sokolovski, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 012714 (2009) A. Z. Msezane, Z. Felfli and D. Sokolovski, J. Phys B [**43**]{}, 201001 (2010); Z. Felfli, A. Z. Msezane and D. Sokolovski, Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 052705 (2011). D. Sokolovski, D. De Fazio, S. Cavalli, and V.Aquilanti, J.Chem.Phys. [**126**]{}, 121101 (2007). D.Sokolovski and E.Akhmatskaya, Phys .Lett. A, [**375**]{}, 3062 (2011). P. G. Burke and C. Tate, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**1**]{}, , 97 (1969). K.-E. Thylwe and D. Sokolovski, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**38**]{}, 5305 (2005). K.-E. Thylwe, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. . [**38**]{}, 7363 (2005). E.E. Nikitin and S.Ia. Umanskii, [*Theory of slow atomic collisions*]{} \[Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag (Springer Series in Chemical Physics. Volume 30), 1984\]: R. V. Krems, A. Dalgarno, N. Balakrishnan, and G. Groenenboom, Phys. Rev. A [**67**]{}, 060703 (R) (2003) T.G. Walker, K. Bonin and W. Happer, Phys. Rev. A, [**35**]{}, 3570 (1987). K.-E. Thylwe and P. McCabe, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**44**]{}, 275305 (2011). Numerical Algorithms Group, Fortran Library Manual, Mark 23, subroutine d02bhf (NAG, OXFORD, 2011). Numerical Algorithms Group, Fortran Library Manual, Mark 23, subroutine c05nbf (NAG, OXFORD, 2011).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present new lattice investigations of finite-temperature transitions for SU(3) gauge theory with $N_f = 8$ light flavors. Using nHYP-smeared staggered fermions we are able to explore renormalized couplings $g^2 {\ensuremath{\lesssim} }20$ on lattice volumes as large as $48^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }24$. Finite-temperature transitions at non-zero fermion mass do not persist in the chiral limit, instead running into a strongly coupled lattice phase as the mass decreases. That is, finite-temperature studies with this lattice action require even larger $N_T > 24$ to directly confirm spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking.\
address: |
$^1$Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, United States\
$^2$Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, United States\
$^3$Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, United States\
$^*$E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- |
David Schaich,$^{1*}$ Anna Hasenfratz$^2$ and Enrico Rinaldi$^3$\
for the Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD) Collaboration
bibliography:
- 'SCGT15.bib'
title: 'Finite-temperature study of eight-flavor SU(3) gauge theory'
---
SU(3) gauge theory with $N_f = 8$ massless fundamental flavors is currently the subject of considerable interest, both as a quantum field theory exhibiting strongly coupled dynamics significantly different from QCD, and also as the basis for models of new strong dynamics producing a standard-model-like 125-GeV Higgs particle. We can only include here an incomplete collection of references to recent investigations employing both continuum and lattice methods.[@Appelquist:2009ty; @Schaich:2012fr; @Bashir:2013zha; @Hasenfratz:2013uha; @Schaich:2013eba; @Aoki:2014oha; @Kurachi:2014qma; @Appelquist:2014zsa; @Lombardo:2014mda; @Hasenfratz:2014rna; @Fodor:2015baa] In this work we attempt to confirm the conventional wisdom that chiral symmetry breaks spontaneously for $N_f = 8$, which would rule out the existence of an 8-flavor conformal IR fixed point (IRFP). However, this requires extrapolating to the massless chiral limit, and we are unable to establish that chiral symmetry breaking persists in that limit.
Previous lattice studies have explored the discrete [$\beta$ ]{}function of the 8-flavor system, denoted ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_s(g^2)$ for scale change $s$.[@Appelquist:2009ty; @Hasenfratz:2014rna; @Fodor:2015baa] An IRFP would correspond to ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_s(g_{\star}^2) = 0$, and no such zero has been observed. In fact, the [$\beta$ ]{}function was found to be monotonic throughout the ranges of couplings explored: $g_{SF}^2 {\ensuremath{\lesssim} }6.6$ in the Schrödinger functional scheme,[@Appelquist:2009ty] $g_c^2 {\ensuremath{\lesssim} }6.3$ in a gradient flow scheme with $c = 0.3$,[@Fodor:2012td; @Fodor:2015baa] and $g_c^2 {\ensuremath{\lesssim} }14$ in gradient flow schemes with $c = 0.25$ and $c = 0.3$.[@Hasenfratz:2014rna] The last result is the most relevant to this work, since we use the same lattice action with nHYP-smeared staggered fermions and both fundamental and adjoint plaquette terms with couplings related by ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_A / {\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = -0.25$.[@Cheng:2011ic] This enables us to relate our bare lattice couplings ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F$ to renormalized $g_c^2$. This work is part of ongoing investigations by the Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD) Collaboration, using this action to extend the USBSM project.[@Schaich:2013eba]
The non-observation of an IRFP by lattice studies of the discrete [$\beta$ ]{}function does not guarantee that the 8-flavor theory exhibits spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. On their own such calculations cannot rule out the possibility that the system flows to an IRFP at a stronger coupling. In fact, the non-perturbative ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_s(g_c^2 \approx 14)$ is comparable to the four-loop [$\overline{\textrm{MS}} $ ]{}prediction,[@Hasenfratz:2014rna] which does possess an IRFP at $g_{{\ensuremath{\overline{\textrm{MS}} } }}^2 \approx 19.5$. To exclude such behavior one must demonstrate that the massless system spontaneously breaks chiral symmetry at some $g^2$ for which the [$\beta$ ]{}function is still non-zero. Here we attempt to do this by studying chiral symmetry breaking at finite temperature $T = 1 / (aN_T)$ and non-zero fermion mass $am$, where “$a$” is the lattice spacing and the lattice volume is $L^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }N_T$ with $L / N_T = 2$.[@Schaich:2012fr; @Hasenfratz:2013uha] We work with fixed $N_T = 20$ and 24 for small $0.0025 \leq am \leq 0.01$, and extrapolate $am \to 0$ to investigate the massless chiral limit.
![\[fig:phase\][**Left:**]{} Previous $N_f = 8$ studies found that the finite-temperature transitions merge with zero-temperature bulk transitions into the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}lattice phase as the fermion mass $am$ decreases.[@Schaich:2012fr; @Hasenfratz:2013uha] [**Right:**]{} Our new results produce the same behavior at smaller masses on larger lattice volumes, implying that $N_T > 24$ is required to establish spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking for $N_f = 8$. This plot zooms in on the weak-coupling regime to the right of the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phase.](phase_data "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![\[fig:phase\][**Left:**]{} Previous $N_f = 8$ studies found that the finite-temperature transitions merge with zero-temperature bulk transitions into the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}lattice phase as the fermion mass $am$ decreases.[@Schaich:2012fr; @Hasenfratz:2013uha] [**Right:**]{} Our new results produce the same behavior at smaller masses on larger lattice volumes, implying that $N_T > 24$ is required to establish spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking for $N_f = 8$. This plot zooms in on the weak-coupling regime to the right of the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phase.](m_beta "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
The chiral extrapolation is crucial since $am > 0$ explicitly breaks chiral symmetry and can even produce QCD-like scaling that disappears as $am$ decreases. This behavior was observed in previous studies (using the same lattice action) that considered $am \geq 0.005$ and $N_T \leq 20$.[@Schaich:2012fr; @Hasenfratz:2013uha] As shown in the left plot of [Fig. \[fig:phase\]]{}, QCD-like scaling between $12 \leq N_T \leq 16$ for $am \geq 0.01$ is lost at $am = 0.005$ where the finite-temperature transitions merge with bulk (zero-temperature) transitions into the “${\ensuremath{\cancel{S^4}} }$” lattice phase in which the single-site shift symmetry ($S^4$) of the staggered action is spontaneously broken.[@Cheng:2011ic] In IR-conformal systems such behavior persists in the chiral limit as $N_T \to \infty$, whereas for chirally broken systems the massless transitions must move to ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F^{(c)} \to \infty$ as $N_T \to \infty$.
The right plot of [Fig. \[fig:phase\]]{} shows our new results, which include smaller $am = 0.0025$ on $40^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }20$ and $48^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }24$ lattices. These $N_T = 20$ and 24 are extraordinarily large compared to typical lattice QCD calculations. Unfortunately they do not suffice to establish spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. At $am = 0.0025$ the $N_T = 20$ finite-temperature transition also merges with the bulk transition into the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}lattice phase. Even the $N_T = 24$ finite-temperature transitions will clearly run into the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phase at non-zero mass, rather than reaching the chiral limit.
![\[fig:Wpoly\][**Left:**]{} The $c = 0.3$ Wilson-flowed Polyakov loop $PL_W$ for $40^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }20$ lattices with $am = 0.01$, 0.005 and 0.0025 vs. the bare lattice coupling ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F$. As the fermion mass decreases the transitions sharpen and move to stronger coupling, eventually merging with the zero-temperature bulk transition into the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phase at ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F \approx 4.625$. [**Right:**]{} The massless Dirac eigenvalue spectrum $\rho({\ensuremath{\lambda} })$ contrasts the three phases encountered for $40^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }20$ lattices with $am = 0.005$: the chirally symmetric phase at weak coupling (${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.8$), the chirally broken phase at intermediate coupling (${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.7$) and the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}lattice phase at strong coupling (${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.5$). We directly measure 200 eigenmodes to produce each histogram.](Wpoly_Nt20 "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![\[fig:Wpoly\][**Left:**]{} The $c = 0.3$ Wilson-flowed Polyakov loop $PL_W$ for $40^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }20$ lattices with $am = 0.01$, 0.005 and 0.0025 vs. the bare lattice coupling ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F$. As the fermion mass decreases the transitions sharpen and move to stronger coupling, eventually merging with the zero-temperature bulk transition into the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phase at ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F \approx 4.625$. [**Right:**]{} The massless Dirac eigenvalue spectrum $\rho({\ensuremath{\lambda} })$ contrasts the three phases encountered for $40^3{\ensuremath{\!\times\!} }20$ lattices with $am = 0.005$: the chirally symmetric phase at weak coupling (${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.8$), the chirally broken phase at intermediate coupling (${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.7$) and the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}lattice phase at strong coupling (${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.5$). We directly measure 200 eigenmodes to produce each histogram.](rho_Nt20 "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
In [Fig. \[fig:Wpoly\]]{} we present some results for observables that have proven useful to identify both bulk and finite-temperature transitions: the Wilson-flowed Polyakov loop $PL_W$ and the massless Dirac eigenvalue spectrum $\rho({\ensuremath{\lambda} })$. $PL_W$ is a modern adaptation of the RG-blocked Polyakov loop investigated in previous studies, which significantly improves signals of the finite-temperature transition without altering its location.[@Schaich:2012fr; @Hasenfratz:2013uha] It is trivial to measure the Polyakov loop as a function of Wilson flow time $t$, and sufficiently large $t$ produces a clear contrast between confined systems with small $PL_W$ and deconfined systems with large $PL_W$. This is shown in the left plot of [Fig. \[fig:Wpoly\]]{} for $N_T = 20$ and $t = (0.3N_T)^2 / 8$ corresponding to $c = \sqrt{8t} / N_T = 0.3$. As the fermion mass decreases from $am = 0.01$ the finite-temperature transition in $PL_W$ steadily sharpens and moves to stronger coupling, merging with the bulk transition into the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phase at $am = 0.0025$ as in [Fig. \[fig:phase\]]{}.
The right plot of [Fig. \[fig:Wpoly\]]{} shows the eigenvalue spectrum $\rho({\ensuremath{\lambda} })$ for a subset of the $N_T = 20$ ensembles with $am = 0.005$, clearly contrasting the three different phases we can observe for this mass. At the weakest coupling shown, ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.8$, the system is deconfined and chirally symmetric, with $\rho(0) = 0$ and a gap below the smallest eigenvalue ${\ensuremath{\lambda} }_0 > 0$. The gap grows at even weaker couplings that are not included in this plot. Moving to stronger couplings, at ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.7$ we observe the expected chiral symmetry breaking, with $\rho(0) \neq 0$ and a small slope $\frac{d\rho}{d{\ensuremath{\lambda} }}$. That is, we find $4.7 < {\ensuremath{\beta} }_F^{(c)} < 4.8$ for the $N_T = 20$ transition with $am = 0.005$, slightly sharper than the signal in $PL_W$. However, at the strongest coupling shown, ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.5$, chiral symmetry breaking is lost (${\ensuremath{\lambda} }_0 > 0$) and the system exhibits the “soft edge” $\rho({\ensuremath{\lambda} }) \propto \sqrt{{\ensuremath{\lambda} }- {\ensuremath{\lambda} }_0}$ characteristic of the [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phase.[@Cheng:2011ic] Finally, ${\ensuremath{\beta} }_F = 4.6$ appears to exhibit partial features of both the chirally broken and [$\cancel{S^4}$ ]{}phases, with $\rho(0) \neq 0$ but a much larger slope approaching the square-root behavior of the soft edge.
While this finite-temperature study with $N_T = 20$ and 24 is not able to establish spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking for $N_f = 8$, it is only part of ongoing investigations by the LSD Collaboration that primarily focus on the zero-temperature hadron spectrum, and in particular the scalar Higgs particle. When that work is finalized, combining these complementary studies of the discrete [$\beta$ ]{}function, finite-temperature transitions, and hadron spectrum, all using the same lattice action, will shed further light on $N_f = 8$ and its phenomenological viability as the basis for new strong dynamics beyond the standard model.\
[*Acknowledgments:*]{} We thank the other members of LSD for continuing collaboration on $N_f = 8$. AH and DS are grateful for the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics, supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHYS-1066293. This work was supported by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) LDRD 13-ERD-023 (ER) and by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, under Award Numbers [DE-SC]{}0010005 (AH), [DE-SC]{}0008669 (DS) and [DE-SC]{}0009998 (DS). Numerical calculations were carried out through LLNL Institutional Computing Grand Challenge program allocations on the LLNL BlueGene/Q (rzuseq and vulcan) supercomputer and on the DOE-funded USQCD facilities at Fermilab.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We calculate the probability of recoilless emission and detection of neutrinos ([Mössbauer]{} effect with neutrinos) taking into account the boundedness of the parent and daughter nuclei in the neutrino source and detector as well as the leptonic mixing. We show that, in spite of their near monochromaticity, the recoillessly emitted and captured neutrinos oscillate. After a qualitative discussion of this issue, we corroborate and extend our results by computing the combined rate of $\bar{\nu}_e$ production, propagation and detection in the framework of quantum field theory, starting from first principles. This allows us to avoid making any a priori assumptions about the energy and momentum of the intermediate-state neutrino. Our calculation permits quantitative predictions of the transition rate in future experiments, and shows that the decoherence and delocalization factors, which could in principle suppress neutrino oscillations, are irrelevant under realistic experimental conditions.'
author:
- 'Evgeny Kh. Akhmedov'
- Joachim Kopp
- Manfred Lindner
title: 'Oscillations of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos'
---
Introduction
============
Soon after the discovery of recoil-free emission and absorption of gamma rays by [Mössbauer]{} in 1958 [@Moessbauer:1958; @Frauenfelder:1962], it has been suggested by Visscher that a similar effect should also exist for neutrinos emitted in electron capture processes from unstable nuclei embedded into a crystal lattice [@Visscher:1959]. In the 1980’s, the idea was further developed by Kells and Schiffer [@Kells:1983; @Kells:1984nm], who showed that bound state beta decay [@Bahcall:1961] could provide an alternative recoilless production mechanism. In this case, an antineutrino with a very small energy uncertainty would be emitted, which could then be absorbed through induced orbital electron capture [@Mikaelyan:1967]. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in this idea, inspired by two works by Raghavan [@Raghavan:2005gn; @Raghavan:2006xf], in which the feasibility of an experiment using the emission process $${}^3{{\rm H}}\ \rightarrow \ {}^3{{\rm He}}~+~e^- \text{(bound)}~+~\bar{\nu}_e
\label{eq:prod}$$ and the detection process $${}^3{{\rm He}}~+~e^- \text{(bound)}~+~\bar{\nu}_e \ \ \rightarrow \ ^3{{\rm H}}\label{eq:abs}$$ has been studied. The $^3{{\rm H}}$ and $^3{{\rm He}}$ atoms were proposed to be embedded into metal crystals. The detection process would then have a resonance nature, leading to an enhancement of the detection cross section by up to a factor of $10^{12}$ compared to the non-resonance capture of neutrinos of the same energy. If such an experiment were realized, it could carry out a very interesting physics program, including neutrino detection with 100 g scale (rather than ton or kiloton scale) detectors, searching for neutrino oscillations driven by the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ at a baseline of only 10 m, determining the neutrino mass hierarchy without using matter effects, searching for active-sterile neutrino oscillations and studying the gravitational redshift of neutrinos [@Raghavan:2005gn; @Raghavan:2006xf; @Minakata:2006ne; @Minakata:2007tn].
In this paper we consider recoillessly emitted and captured neutrinos – which we will call [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos – from a theoretical point of view. In our discussion, we will mainly focus on the $^3{{\rm H}}$–$^3{{\rm He}}$ system of Eqs. and , but most of our results apply also to other emitters and absorbers of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos.
One of our main goals is to resolve the recent controversy about the question of whether [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos would oscillate. It has been argued [@Bilenky:2006hk] that the answer to this question depends on whether equal energies or equal momenta are assumed for different neutrino mass eigenstates – the assumptions often made in deriving the standard formula for the oscillation probability. Moreover, a possible inhibition of oscillations due to the time-energy uncertainty relation has been brought up [@Bilenky:2007vs]. To come to definitive conclusions regarding the oscillation phenomenology of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos, we employ a quantum field theoretical (QFT) approach, in which neutrinos are treated as intermediate states in the combined process and no [*a priori*]{} assumptions on the energies or momenta of the different neutrino mass eigenstates are made.
We begin in Sec. \[sec:qualitative\] by qualitatively discussing how the peculiar features of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos, and in particular their very small energy uncertainty, affect the oscillation phenomenology. We argue that oscillations do occur, and that the coherence length is infinite if line broadening is neglected. We then proceed to quantitative arguments in Sec. \[sec:QM\] and discuss a formula for the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability in the quantum mechanical intermediate wave packet formalism [@Giunti:1997wq], in which the neutrino is described as a superposition of three wave packets, one for each mass eigenstate. In Sec. \[sec:QFT\], we derive our main result, the rate for the combined process of neutrino production, propagation and detection in the QFT external wave packet approach. In this framework, the neutrino is described by an internal line in a Feynman diagram, while its production and detection partners are described by wave packets. Also in this section, for the first time, we calculate the rates for beta decay with production of a bound-state electron and for the inverse process of stimulated electron capture in the case of nuclei bound to a crystal lattice. We distinguish between different neutrino line broadening mechanisms and concentrate on the oscillation phenomenology, paying special attention to the coherence and localization terms in the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability and to the [Mössbauer]{} resonance conditions arising in each case. In Sec. \[sec:discussion\], we discuss the obtained results and draw our conclusions.
[Mössbauer]{} neutrinos do oscillate {#sec:qualitative}
====================================
[Mössbauer]{} neutrinos have very special properties compared to those of neutrinos emitted and detected in conventional processes. In particular, they are almost monochromatic because they are produced in two-body decays of nuclei embedded in a crystal lattice and no phonon excitations of the host crystal accompany their production, which ensures the recoilless nature of this process. Therefore the width of the neutrino line is only limited by the natural linewidth, which is the reciprocal of the mean lifetime of the emitter, and by solid-state effects, including electromagnetic interactions of the randomly oriented nuclear spins, lattice defects and impurities [@Raghavan:2006xf; @Potzel:2006ad; @Coussement:1992; @Balko:1997]. For $^3{{\rm H}}$ decay, the natural linewidth is $1.17 \cdot 10^{-24}$ eV, but it has been estimated that various broadening effects degrade this value to an experimentally achievable [Mössbauer]{} linewidth of $\gamma =
\mathcal{O}(10^{-11} \ \text{eV})$ [@Potzel:2006ad; @Coussement:1992]. Compared to the neutrino energy in bound state $^3{{\rm H}}$ decay, $E = 18.6$ keV, the achievable relative linewidth is therefore of order $10^{-15}$.
In the standard derivations of the neutrino oscillation formula it is often assumed that the different neutrino mass eigenstates composing the produced flavor eigenstate have the same momentum ($\Delta p=0$), while their kinetic energies differ by $\Delta E\simeq \Delta m^2/2 E$. For bound state tritium beta decay (\[eq:prod\]) and $\Delta m^2 =\Delta
m_{31}^2\simeq 2.5\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ one has $\Delta E\simeq
7\times 10^{-8}$ eV, which is much larger than $\gamma$. One may therefore wonder if the extremely small energy uncertainty of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos would inhibit oscillations by destroying the coherence of the different mass eigenstates of which the produced $\bar{\nu}_e$ is composed. Indeed, if neutrinos are emitted with no momentum uncertainty and their energy uncertainty ($\sim\gamma$) is much smaller than the energy differences of the different mass eigenstates, in each decay event one would exactly know which mass eigenstate has been emitted. This would prevent a coherent emission of different mass eigenstates, thus destroying neutrino oscillations. If, on the contrary, one adopts the same energy assumption, the momenta of different mass eigenstates would differ by $\Delta p\simeq \Delta m^2/2p$, which would not destroy their coherence provided that the momentum uncertainty of the emitted neutrino state is greater that $\Delta p$; in that case, oscillations are possible.
It is well known that in reality neither same momentum nor same energy assumptions are correct [@Winter:1981kj; @Giunti:1991ca; @Giunti:2000kw; @Giunti:2001kj; @Giunti:2003ax]; however, for neutrinos from conventional sources both lead to the correct result, the reason being that neutrinos are ultra-relativistic and the spatial size of the corresponding wave packets is small compared to the oscillation length.[^1] The above assumptions are thus just shortcuts which allow one to arrive at the correct result in an easy (though not rigorous) way. However, [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos represent a very peculiar case, which requires a special consideration.
Let us discuss the issue of coherence of different mass eigenstates in more detail. If one knows the values of the neutrino energy $E$ and momentum $p$ with uncertainties $\sigma_E$ and $\sigma_p$, from the energy-momentum relation of relativistic particles $E^2=p^2+m^2$ one can infer the value of the squared neutrino mass $m^2$ with the uncertainty $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{m^2} = \sqrt{(2 E \sigma_E)^2 + (2 p \sigma_p)^2}\,,
\label{eq:coherence-cond}\end{aligned}$$ where it is assumed that $\sigma_E$ and $\sigma_p$ are independent. By $\sigma_E$ and $\sigma_p$ we will now understand the intrinsic quantum mechanical uncertainties of the neutrino energy and momentum, beyond which these quantities cannot be measured in a given production or detection process; $\sigma_{m^2}$ is then the quantum mechanical uncertainty of the inferred neutrino squared mass. A generic requirement for coherent emission of different mass eigenstates is their indistinguishability: the uncertainty $\sigma_{m^2}$ has to be larger than the mass squared difference $\Delta m^2$ [@Kayser:1981ye]. From the above discussion, we know that for [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos corresponding to the $^3{{\rm H}}$–$^3{{\rm He}}$ system one has $E
\sigma_E \sim 10^{-8}$ eV$^2$, which is much smaller than $\Delta m^2\sim
10^{-3}$ eV$^2$. Thus, whether or not [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos oscillate depends on whether or not $2p\sigma_p>\Delta m^2$.
While the energy of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos is very precisely given by the production process itself, this is not the case for their momentum. The neutrino momentum can in principle be determined by measuring the recoil momentum of the crystal in which the emitter is embedded. The ultimate uncertainty $\sigma_p$ of this measurement is related to the coordinate uncertainty $\sigma_x$ of the emitting nucleus through the Heisenberg relation $\sigma_p \sigma_x\ge 1/2$. Therefore, for the momentum uncertainty to be small enough to destroy the coherence of different mass eigenstates, $2p\sigma_p < \Delta m^2$, the coordinate uncertainty of the emitter must satisfy $\sigma_x \gtrsim 2p/\Delta
m^2$. This means that the emitter should be strongly de-localized with the coordinate uncertainty $\sigma_x$ of order of the neutrino oscillation length $L^{\rm osc}=4\pi p/\Delta m^2\simeq 20$ m. This is certainly not the case, because the coordinate uncertainty of the emitter cannot exceed the size of the source, i.e. a few cm. In fact, it is even much smaller, because in principle it is possible to find out which particular nucleus has undergone the [Mössbauer]{} transition by destroying the crystal and checking which $^3$H atom has been transformed into $^3$He. Thus, $\sigma_x$ is of the order of interatomic distances, i.e. $\sigma_p\sim 10$ keV, so that $$2p\sigma_p \gg \Delta m^2\,.
\label{eq:local}$$ This means that [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos will oscillate. The condition (\[eq:local\]) is often called the localization condition, because it requires the neutrino source to be localized in a spatial region that is small compared to the neutrino oscillation length $L^{\rm osc}$.
It should be noted that for the observability of neutrino oscillations the coherence of the emitted neutrino state is not by itself sufficient; in addition, this state must not lose its coherence until the neutrino is detected. A coherence loss could occur because of the wave packet separation. When a neutrino is produced as a flavour eigenstate, the wave packets of its mass eigenstate components fully overlap; however, since they propagate with different group velocities, after a time $t^{\rm coh}$ or upon propagating a distance $L^{\rm coh}\simeq t^{\rm coh}$, these wave packets separate to such an extent that they can no longer interfere in the detector, and oscillations become unobservable. The coherence length $L^{\rm coh}$ depends on the energy uncertainty $\sigma_E$ of the emitted neutrino state and becomes infinite in the limit $\sigma_E\to 0$.
From the above discussion it follows that the oscillation phenomenology of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos should mainly depend on their momentum uncertainty, whereas their energy uncertainty, though crucial for the [Mössbauer]{} resonance condition, plays a relatively minor role for neutrino oscillations. Therefore, the equal energy assumption, though in general incorrect, should be a good approximation when discussing oscillations of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos. Adopting this approach, i.e. assuming the neutrino energy to be *exactly* fixed at a value $E$ by the production process, one obtains for the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability $P_{ee}$ at a distance $L$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_{ee}
&= \sum_{j,k} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2
\exp\Big[ -2\pi i \frac{L}{L^{\rm osc}_{jk}} \Big].
\label{eq:infinite-wp-P1}\end{aligned}$$ Here $U$ is the leptonic mixing matrix, $L^{\rm osc}_{jk}$ are the partial oscillation lengths, $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\rm osc}_{jk} &= \frac{4\pi E}{\Delta m_{jk}^2}\,,
\label{eq:Losc}\end{aligned}$$ and the neutrinos are assumed to be ultra-relativistic or nearly mass-degenerate, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E} \ll E \,.
\label{eq:relativistic-approx}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[eq:infinite-wp-P1\]) is just the standard result for the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability. As expected, we do not obtain any decoherence factors if the neutrino energy is exactly fixed. We have also taken into account here that in real experiments the size of the source and detector are much smaller than the smallest of the oscillation lengths $L^{\rm osc}_{jk}$, so that the localization condition is satisfied.
[Mössbauer]{} neutrinos in the intermediate wave packet formalism {#sec:QM}
=================================================================
Although Eq. shows that neutrino oscillations are not inhibited by the energy constraints implied by the [Mössbauer]{} effect, the assumption of an exactly fixed neutrino energy is certainly unrealistic. Therefore, we will now proceed to a more accurate treatment of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos using an intermediate wave packet model [@Giunti:1991ca; @Giunti:1991sx; @Kiers:1995zj; @Giunti:1997wq; @Giunti:2003ax]. In this approach, the propagating neutrino is described by a superposition of mass eigenstates, each of which is in turn a wave packet with a finite momentum width. With the assumption of Gaussian wave packets, Giunti, Kim and Lee [@Giunti:1991sx; @Giunti:1997wq] obtain the following expression for the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability in the approximation of ultra-relativistic neutrinos: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{ee}
&= \sum_{j,k} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2
\exp\bigg[
- 2\pi i \frac{L}{L^{\rm osc}_{jk}}
- \bigg( \frac{L}{L^{\rm coh}_{jk}} \bigg)^2
- 2\pi^2 \xi^2 \bigg( \frac{1}{2 \sigma_p L^{\rm osc}_{jk}} \bigg)^2
\bigg].
\label{eq:QM-P1}\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\rm coh}_{jk} &= \frac{2 \sqrt{2} E^2}{\sigma_p |\Delta m_{jk}^2|}
\label{eq:Lcoh}\end{aligned}$$ are the partial coherence lengths, $\sigma_p$ being the effective momentum uncertainty of the neutrino state, and the oscillation lengths $L^{\rm osc}_{jk}$ are given by Eq. . $E$ is the energy that a massless neutrino emitted in the same process would have, and the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ parameter $\xi$ quantifies the deviation of the actual energies of massive neutrinos from this value. Since the energy uncertainty is very small for [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos, the mass eigenstates differ in momentum, but hardly in energy, so that $\xi$ should be negligibly small in our case.
One can see that the first term in the exponent of Eq. is the standard oscillation phase. The second term yields a decoherence factor, which describes the suppression of oscillations due to the wave packet separation. For conventional neutrino experiments with non-negligible $\xi$, the third term implements a localization condition by suppressing oscillations if the spatial width $\sigma_x = 1 / 2\sigma_p$ of the neutrino wave packet is much larger than the oscillation length $L^{\rm osc}_{jk}$ (cf. Eqs. (\[eq:Losc\]) and (\[eq:local\])). However, we have seen that, due to the smallness of $\xi$, the intermediate wave packet formalism predicts this condition to be irrelevant for oscillations of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos.
[Mössbauer]{} neutrinos in the external wave packet formalism {#sec:QFT}
=============================================================
![Feynman diagram for neutrino emission and absorption in the $^3$H–$^3$He system.[]{data-label="fig:feyn"}](feyn.eps)
In the derivation of the quantum mechanical result discussed in the previous section, certain assumptions had to be made on the properties of the neutrino wave packets, in particular on the parameters $\sigma_p$ and $\xi$. We will now proceed to the discussion of a QFT approach [@Jacob:1961; @Sachs:1963; @Giunti:1993se; @Rich:1993wu; @Grimus:1996av; @Grimus:1998uh; @Grimus:1999ra; @Cardall:1999ze; @Beuthe:2001rc; @Beuthe:2002ej], in which these quantities will be automatically determined from the properties of the source and the detector.
Our calculation will be based on the Feynman diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:feyn\], in which the neutrino is described as an internal line. We take the external particles to be confined by quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator potentials to reflect the fact that they are bound in a crystal lattice. Typical values for the harmonic oscillator frequencies are of the order of the Debye temperature $\Theta_D \sim 600\ \mathrm{K}\simeq 0.05$ eV of the respective crystals [@Raghavan:2006xf; @Potzel:2006ad]. Although this simplistic treatment neglects the detailed structure of the solid state lattice, it is known to correctly reproduce the main features of the conventional [Mössbauer]{} effect [@Lipkin:1973], and since we are interested mainly in the oscillation physics and not in the exact overall process rate, it is sufficient for our purposes. As only recoil-free neutrino emission and absorption are of interest to us, we can neglect thermal excitations and consider the parent and daughter nuclei in the source and detector to be in the ground states of their respective harmonic oscillator potentials.
In Sec. \[sec:QFT-minimal\], we will develop our formalism and derive an expression for the rate of the combined process of [Mössbauer]{} neutrino emission, propagation and absorption. In we will then discuss in detail the effects of different line broadening mechanisms.
The formalism {#sec:QFT-minimal}
-------------
Let us denote the harmonic oscillator frequencies for tritium and helium in the source by $\omega_{{{\rm H}},S}$ and $\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}$ and those in the detector by $\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}$, and $\omega_{{{\rm He}},D}$. In general, these are four different numbers because $^3{{\rm H}}$ and $^3{{\rm He}}$ have different chemical properties, and because their different abundances in the source and detector imply $\omega_{{{\rm H}},S} \neq \omega_{{{\rm H}},D}$ and $\omega_{{{\rm He}},S} \neq \omega_{{{\rm He}},D}$. We ignore possible anisotropies of the oscillator frequencies because their inclusion would merely lengthen our formulas without giving new insights into the oscillation phenomenology. The normalized wave functions of the ground states of the three-dimensional harmonic oscillators ${\ensuremath{| \psi_{A,B,0} \rangle}}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{A,B,0}({{\mathbf{x}}}, t) = \bigg[\frac{m_A \omega_{A,B}}{\pi}\bigg]^\frac{3}{4}
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{1}{2} m_A \omega_{A,B} |{{\mathbf{x}}} - {{\mathbf{x}}}_B|^2 \bigg] \cdot e^{-i E_{A,B} t},
\label{eq:HO-WF-gs}\end{aligned}$$ where $A = \{ {{\rm H}}, {{\rm He}}\}$ distinguishes the two types of atoms and $B =
\{ S, D \}$ distinguishes between quantities related to the source and to the detector. The masses of the tritium and $^3{{\rm He}}$ atoms are denoted by $m_{{\rm H}}$ and $m_{{\rm He}}$, and the coordinates of the lattice sites at which the atoms are localized in the source and in the detector are ${{\mathbf{x}}}_S$ and ${{\mathbf{x}}}_D$. The energies $E_{A,B}$ of the external particles are not exactly fixed due to the line broadening mechanisms discussed in Sec. \[sec:qualitative\], but follow narrow distribution functions, which are centered around $E_{A,B,0} =
m_A + \frac{1}{2} \omega_{A,B}$. For the differences of these mean energies of tritium and helium atoms in the source and detector we will use the notation $$\begin{aligned}
E_{S,0} = E_{{{\rm H}},S,0} - E_{{{\rm He}},S,0}\,,\qquad\qquad
E_{D,0} = E_{{{\rm H}},D,0} - E_{{{\rm He}},D,0}\,.
\label{eq:diff1}\end{aligned}$$
Before proceeding to calculate the overall rate of the process of neutrino production, propagation and detection, we compute the expected rates of the [Mössbauer]{} neutrino production and detection treated as separate processes, ignoring neutrino oscillations. This calculation is very instructive, and we will use its result as a benchmark for comparison with our subsequent QFT calculations.
The effective weak interaction Hamiltonians for the neutrino production and detection $H_S^+$ and $H_D^-$ are given by Eqs. (\[eq:Hs+\]) and (\[eq:Hd-\]) of appendix C. We will first assume that the neutrino emitted in the recoil-free production process (\[eq:prod\]) is monochromatic, i.e. neglect the natural linewidth as well as all broadening effects. Likewise, we will neglect now the absorption line broadening effects in the recoilless detection process (\[eq:abs\]). A straightforward calculation gives for the rate of recoilless neutrino production $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_p = \Gamma_0\,X_S\,,
\label{eq:Gammap}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_0 = \frac{G_F^2 \cos^2\theta_c}{\pi}\; |\psi_e(R)|^2 \,m_e^2\,
\left(|M_V|^2+g_A^2 |M_A|^2\right)\,\left(\frac{E_{S,0}}{m_e}\right)^2
\kappa_S
\label{eq:Gamma0}\end{aligned}$$ with $G_F$ the Fermi constant, $\theta_c$ the Cabibbo angle, $m_e$ the electron mass, $M_V$ and $M_A$ the vector and axial-vector (or Fermi and Gamow-Teller) nuclear matrix elements and $g_A\simeq 1.25$ the axial-vector coupling constant. Note that for the allowed beta transitions in the $^3$H–$^3$He system, $M_V=1$ and $M_A\approx \sqrt{3}$. The quantity $\psi_e(R)$ is the value of the anti-symmetrized atomic wave function of $^3{{\rm He}}$ at the surface of the nucleus. The factor $\kappa_S$ takes into account that the spectator electron which is initially in the $1s$ atomic state of $^3{{\rm H}}$ ends up in the $1s$ state of $^3{{\rm He}}$. It is given by the overlap integral of the corresponding atomic wave functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_S~=~\Big|\int \Psi_{Z=2,S}({{\mathbf{r}}})^* \,\Psi_{Z=1,S}({{\mathbf{r}}})\, d^3 r
\,\Big|^2\,.
\label{eq:kappaS}\end{aligned}$$ The factor $X_S$ in Eq. (\[eq:Gammap\]) is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
X_S = 8\left(\eta_S+\frac{1}{\eta_S}\right)^{-3}
e^{-\frac{p^2}{\sigma_{pS}^2}}\,\equiv\,Y_{S}\,e^{-\frac{p^2}{\sigma_{pS}^2}}\,,
\label{eq:Xs}\end{aligned}$$ where $p=\sqrt{E_{S,0}^2-m^2}$ is the neutrino momentum[^2], and $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_S = \sqrt{\frac{m_{{\rm H}}\,\omega_{{{\rm H}},S}}{m_{{\rm He}}\, \omega_{{{\rm He}},S}}}\,,
\qquad\qquad \sigma_{pS}^2 = m_{{\rm H}}\,\omega_{{{\rm H}},S}+m_{{\rm He}}\, \omega_{{{\rm He}},S}\,.
\label{eq:etaS}\end{aligned}$$ The energy spectrum $\rho(E)$ of the emitted [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos in the considered approximation is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(E) = \Gamma_0 \, X_S \, \delta(E-E_{S,0})\,.
\label{eq:rhoE}\end{aligned}$$
For the cross section of the recoilless detection process (\[eq:abs\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(E) = B_0\,X_D\,\delta(E-E_{D,0})\,,
\label{eq:sigma}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
B_0=4\pi G_F^2 \cos^2\theta_c\; |\psi_e(R)|^2
\left(|M_V|^2+g_A^2 |M_A|^2\right)\,\kappa_D\,.
\label{eq:B0}\end{aligned}$$ The factor $\kappa_D$ here is defined similarly to $\kappa_S$ in Eq. . Note that in the approximation of hydrogen-like atomic wave functions one has $\kappa_S=\kappa_D=512/729\simeq 0.7$. The factor $X_D$ in Eq. is defined similarly to the corresponding factor for the production process, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
X_D = 8\left(\eta_D+\frac{1}{\eta_D}\right)^{-3}
e^{-\frac{p^2}{\sigma_{pD}^2}}\,\equiv\,Y_{D}\, e^{-\frac{p^2}{\sigma_{pD}^2}}
\label{eq:Xd}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_D = \sqrt{\frac{m_{{\rm H}}\,\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}}{m_{{\rm He}}\, \omega_{{{\rm He}},D}}}\,,
\qquad\qquad \sigma_{pD}^2 = m_{{\rm H}}\,\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}+m_{{\rm He}}\, \omega_{{{\rm He}},D}\,.
\label{eq:etaD}\end{aligned}$$ The [Mössbauer]{} neutrino production rate $\Gamma_p$ and detection cross section $\sigma(E)$ differ from those previously obtained for unbound parent and daughter nuclei respectively in Refs. [@Bahcall:1961] and [@Mikaelyan:1967] by the factors $X_S$ and $X_D$. Note that in the limit $m_{{\rm H}}\,\omega_{{{\rm H}},S}=m_{{\rm He}}\, \omega_{{{\rm He}},S}$, $m_{{\rm H}}\,\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}=
m_{{\rm He}}\, \omega_{{{\rm He}},D}$, the pre-exponential factors $Y_S$ and $Y_D$ in Eqs. (\[eq:Xs\]) and (\[eq:Xd\]) become equal to unity, so that $X_S$ and $X_D$ reduce to the exponentials, which are merely the recoil-free fractions in the production and detection processes (see the discussion below).
For unpolarized tritium nuclei in the source the produced neutrino flux is isotropic; therefore the spectral density of the neutrino flux at the detector located at a distance $L$ from the source is $\rho(E)/(4\pi L^2)$. The detection rate is thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma\,=\,\frac{1}{4\pi L^2}\int_0^\infty \rho(E)\sigma(E)\,dE \,=\,
\frac{\Gamma_0\, B_0}{4\pi L^2}\,X_S X_D \;\delta(E_{S,0}-E_{D,0})\,.
\label{eq:rate1}\end{aligned}$$ We see that it is infinite when the [Mössbauer]{} resonance condition $E_{S,0}=E_{D,0}$ is exactly satisfied and zero otherwise, which is a consequence of our assumption of infinitely sharp emission and absorption lines. This assumption is certainly unphysical, and a realistic calculation should take into account the finite linewidth effects. We do that here by assuming Lorentzian energy distributions for the production and detection processes, which will be useful for comparison with the results of our subsequent QFT approach. In this approximation Eqs. (\[eq:rhoE\]) and (\[eq:sigma\]) have to be replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(E) = \Gamma_0 \,X_S\,
\frac{\gamma_S/2\pi}{(E-E_{S,0})^2+\gamma_S^2/4}\,,
\qquad \sigma(E) =
B_0\,X_D\,\frac{\gamma_D/2\pi}{(E-E_{D,0})^2+\gamma_D^2/4}\,,
\label{eq:rhoEsigma}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_S$ and $\gamma_D$ are the energy widths associated with production and detection. The combined rate of the neutrino production, propagation and detection process is then $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma\,= \,\frac{1}{4\pi L^2}\int_0^\infty \rho(E)\sigma(E)\,dE \,\simeq\,
\frac{\Gamma_0\, B_0}{4\pi L^2}\,X_S X_D\;
\frac{(\gamma_S+\gamma_D)/2\pi}{(E_{S,0}-E_{D,0})^2+(\gamma_S+\gamma_D)^2/4}\,.
\label{eq:rate2}\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen from this formula, the [Mössbauer]{} resonance condition is $$\begin{aligned}
(E_{S,0}-E_{D,0})^2\ll(\gamma_S+\gamma_D)^2/4\,.
\label{eq:}\end{aligned}$$ If it is satisfied, the neutrino detection cross section is enhanced by a factor of order $(\alpha Z m_e)^3/[p_e E_e(\gamma_S+\gamma_D)]$ compared to cross sections of non-resonant capture reactions $\bar{\nu}_e+A\to A'+e^+$ for neutrinos of the same energy (assuming the recoil-free fraction to be of order 1). For $\gamma_S+\gamma_D\sim 10^{-11}$ eV the enhancement factor can be as large as $10^{12}$.
We now turn to the QFT treatment of the overall neutrino production, propagation and detection process, first neglecting the line broadening effects. We derive the corresponding transition amplitude from the matrix elements of the weak currents in the standard way by employing the coordinate-space Feynman rules to the diagram in Fig. \[fig:feyn\]. For the external tritium and helium nuclei, we use the bound state wave function $\psi_{A,B,0}({{\mathbf{x}}}, t)$ from Eq. . We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathcal{A} &=
\int\! d^3x_1 \, dt_1 \int\! d^3 x_2 \, dt_2 \,
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}}, S}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},S}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_1 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_S|^2 \bigg] \, e^{-i E_{{{\rm H}},S} t_1} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_1 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_S|^2 \bigg] \, e^{+i E_{{{\rm He}},S} t_1} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}}, D}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},D}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_2 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_D|^2 \bigg] \, e^{-i E_{{{\rm He}},D} t_2} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_2 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_D|^2 \bigg] \, e^{+i E_{{{\rm H}},D} t_2} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot \sum_j
\mathcal{M}_S^\mu \mathcal{M}_D^{\nu *} |U_{ej}|^2 \, \int \!
\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}
e^{-i p_0 (t_2 - t_1) + i {{\mathbf{p}}} ({{\mathbf{x}}}_2 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_1)} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bar{u}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) \,
\frac{i (\slashed{p} + m_j)}{p_0^2 - {{\mathbf{p}}}^2 - m_j^2 + i\epsilon} \,
(1 + \gamma^5) \gamma_\nu u_{e,D}.
\label{eq:QFT-A1}\end{aligned}$$ The Dirac spinors for the external particles are denoted by $u_{A,B}$ with $A = \{ e, {{\rm H}}, {{\rm He}}\}$ and $B = \{ S, D \}$. Note that all spinors are non-relativistic, so that we can neglect their momentum dependence. The matrix elements $\mathcal{M}^\mu_S$ and $\mathcal{M}^\mu_D$ encode the information on the bound state tritium beta decay and also on the inverse process, the induced orbital electron capture which takes place in the detector. They are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{S,D}^\mu &= \frac{G_F \cos\theta_c}{\sqrt{2}} \, \psi_e(R) \,
\bar{u}_{{\rm He}}(M_V\, \delta^\mu_0 - g_A M_A \sigma_i \,
\delta^{\mu}_i/\sqrt{3} ) u_{{\rm H}}\,\kappa_{S,D}^{1/2}\,.
\label{eq:Mj}\end{aligned}$$
The integrations over $t_1$ and $t_2$ in Eq. yield energy-conserving $\delta$-functions at the neutrino production and detection vertices. The spatial integrals are Gaussian and can be evaluated after making the transformations ${{\mathbf{x}}}_1 \rightarrow {{\mathbf{x}}}_1 + {{\mathbf{x}}}_S$ and ${{\mathbf{x}}}_2 \rightarrow {{\mathbf{x}}}_2 + {{\mathbf{x}}}_D$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathcal{A} &= \mathcal{N} \int \! \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4} \,
2\pi \delta(p_0 - E_S) \, 2\pi \delta(p_0 - E_D) \,
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{{{\mathbf{p}}}^2}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg] \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\sum_j \mathcal{M}_S^\mu \mathcal{M}_D^{\nu *} |U_{ej}|^2
\bar{u}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) \,
\frac{i (\slashed{p} + m_j) e^{i {{\mathbf{p}}} {{\mathbf{L}}}}}{p_0^2 - {{\mathbf{p}}}^2 -
m_j^2 + i\epsilon} \,
(1 + \gamma^5) \gamma_\nu u_{e,D},
\label{eq:QFT-A2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the notation $$\begin{aligned}
E_S = E_{{{\rm H}},S} - E_{{{\rm He}},S}\,,\qquad\qquad
E_D = E_{{{\rm H}},D} - E_{{{\rm He}},D}\,,
\label{eq:EsEd}\end{aligned}$$ and introduced the baseline vector ${{\mathbf{L}}} = {{\mathbf{x}}}_D - {{\mathbf{x}}}_S$. The quantity $\sigma_p$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sigma_p^2} =
\frac{1}{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},S} + m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}}
+ \frac{1}{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},D} + m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},D}}\,,
\label{eq:sigma-p}\end{aligned}$$ can be interpreted as an effective momentum uncertainty of the neutrino. Note that $\sigma_p^{-2}=\sigma_{pS}^{-2}+\sigma_{pD}^{-2}$. We have also defined a constant $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N} &=
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}}, S}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},D}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}}, D}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{3cm} \cdot
\bigg( \frac{2\pi}{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},S} + m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}}
\bigg)^\frac{3}{2}
\bigg( \frac{2\pi}{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},D} + m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},D}}
\bigg)^\frac{3}{2},\end{aligned}$$ containing the numerical factors from Eq. and coming from the integrals over ${{\mathbf{x}}}_1$ and ${{\mathbf{x}}}_2$. One of the $\delta$-functions in Eq. can now be used to perform the integration over $p_0$, thereby fixing $p_0$ at the value $p_0 = E_S = E_D$. To compute the remaining integral over the three-momentum ${{\mathbf{p}}}$, we use a theorem by Grimus and Stockinger [@Grimus:1996av], which states the following: Let $\psi({{\mathbf{p}}})$ be a three times continuously differentiable function on $\mathbb{R}^3$, such that $\psi$ itself and all its first and second derivatives decrease at least as $1/|{{\mathbf{p}}}|^2$ for $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|
\rightarrow \infty$. Then, for any real number $A > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int d^3p \, \frac{\psi({{\mathbf{p}}}) \, e^{i {{\mathbf{p}}} {{\mathbf{L}}}}}{A - {{\mathbf{p}}}^2 + i\epsilon}
\xrightarrow{|{{\mathbf{L}}}| \rightarrow \infty}
-\frac{2 \pi^2}{L} \psi(\sqrt{A} \tfrac{{{\mathbf{L}}}}{L}) e^{i \sqrt{A} L}
+ \mathcal{O} (L^{-\frac{3}{2}}).
\label{eq:Grimus}\end{aligned}$$ The validity conditions are fulfilled in our case, so that in leading order in $1/L$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathcal{A} &= \frac{-i}{2L} \mathcal{N} \, \delta(E_S - E_D) \,
\sum_j \exp\bigg[\! -\frac{E_S^2 - m_j^2}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg]
\mathcal{M}_S^\mu \mathcal{M}_D^{\nu *} |U_{ej}|^2 \,
e^{i \sqrt{E_S^2 - m_j^2} L} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{6cm} \cdot
\bar{u}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) (\slashed{p}_j + m_j)
(1 + \gamma^5) \gamma_\nu u_{e,D}\,,
\label{eq:QFT-A3}\end{aligned}$$ where the 4-vector $p_j$ is defined as $p_j = (E_S, (E_S^2 - m_j^2)^{1/2} \,
{{\mathbf{L}}}/L)$. The Grimus-Stockinger theorem ensures that for $L\gg E_0^{-1}$, where $E_0$ is the characteristic neutrino energy, the intermediate-state neutrino is essentially on mass shell and its momentum points from the neutrino source to the detector.
The transition probability $\mathcal{P}$ is obtained by summing $|\mathcal{A}|^2$ over the spins of the final states and averaging it over the initial-state spins. Note that no integration over final-state momenta is necessary because we consider transitions into discrete states. The transition rate is obtained from $\mathcal{P}$ as $\Gamma = d\mathcal{P}/dT$, where $T$ is the total running time of the experiment. As we shall see, in the case of inhomogeneous line broadening $\mathcal{P}\propto T$ for large $T$, so that $\Gamma$ is independent of $T$ in that limit. The same is true for the homogeneous line broadening, except for the special case of the natural line width, for which the dependence on $T$ is more complicated (see Sec. \[sec:QFT-nat\]).
Inhomogeneous line broadening {#sec:QFT-inhom}
-----------------------------
Inhomogeneous line broadening is due to stationary effects, such as impurities, lattice defects, variations in the lattice constant, etc. [@Potzel:2006ad; @Balko:1997]. These effects are taken into account by summing the probabilities of the process for all possible energies of the external particles, weighted with the corresponding probabilities of these energies. In other words, one has to fold the probability or total rate of the process with the energy distributions of tritium and helium atoms in the source and detector, $\rho_{{{\rm He}},S}(E_{{{\rm He}},S})$, $\rho_{{{\rm H}},D}(E_{{{\rm H}},D})$, $\rho_{{{\rm H}},S}(E_{{{\rm H}},S})$ and $\rho_{{{\rm He}},D}(E_{{{\rm He}},D})$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P} &=
\int_0^\infty
\! dE_{{{\rm H}},S} \, dE_{{{\rm He}},S} \, dE_{{{\rm He}},D} \, dE_{{{\rm H}},D} \, \nonumber\\
&\hspace{3cm} \cdot
\rho_{{{\rm H}},S}(E_{{{\rm H}},S}) \, \rho_{{{\rm He}},D}(E_{{{\rm He}},D}) \,
\rho_{{{\rm He}},S}(E_{{{\rm He}},S}) \, \rho_{{{\rm H}},D}(E_{{{\rm H}},D}) \,
\overline{|\mathcal{A}|^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{|\mathcal{A}|^2}$ is the squared modulus of the amplitude, averaged over initial spins and summed over final spins. Using the standard trace techniques to evaluate these spin sums and neglecting the momenta of the non-relativistic external particles, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}
=& T\, \frac{G_F^4\,\cos^4\theta_c}{\pi L^2}\,|\psi_e(R)|^4 E_{S,0}^2\,
(|M_V|^2 + g_A^2 |M_A|^2)^2\,Y_S Y_D \kappa_S \kappa_D
\int_0^\infty \!\!\! dE_{{{\rm H}},S} \, dE_{{{\rm He}},S} \, dE_{{{\rm He}},D} \, dE_{{{\rm H}},D} \,
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm} \cdot \delta(E_S - E_D)
\rho_{{{\rm H}},S}(E_{{{\rm H}},S}) \, \rho_{{{\rm He}},D}(E_{{{\rm He}},D}) \,
\rho_{{{\rm He}},S}(E_{{{\rm He}},S}) \, \rho_{{{\rm H}},D}(E_{{{\rm H}},D}) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm} \cdot
\sum_{j,k} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2 \,
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{2 E_S^2 - m_j^2 - m_k^2}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg]
e^{i \big(\sqrt{E_S^2 - m_j^2} - \sqrt{E_S^2 - m_k^2}\big) L}\,,
\label{eq:QFT-Gamma1}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_S$ and $Y_D$ were defined in Eqs. (\[eq:Xs\]) and (\[eq:Xd\]). Here we have taken into account that for $T \gg (E_S - E_D)^{-1}$ the squared $\delta$-function appearing in $\overline{|\mathcal{{A}}|^2}$ can be rewritten as[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
[\delta(E_S - E_D)]^2
\simeq \frac{1}{2\pi} \delta(E_S - E_D)
\int_{-T/2}^{T/2} \! dt \, e^{i (E_S - E_D) t}
= \frac{T}{2\pi} \delta(E_S - E_D)\,.
\label{eq:double-delta}\end{aligned}$$ The overall process rate $\Gamma$ is then obtained from Eq. (\[eq:QFT-Gamma1\]) by simply dividing by $T$. Using the definitions of $\Gamma_0$ and $B_0$ given in Eqs. (\[eq:Gamma0\]) and (\[eq:B0\]), one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma =& \frac{\Gamma_0 \,B_0}{4\pi L^2}\;Y_S Y_D
\int_0^\infty \! dE_{{{\rm H}},S} \, dE_{{{\rm He}},S} \, dE_{{{\rm He}},D} \, dE_{{{\rm H}},D} \,
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm} \cdot \delta(E_S - E_D)
\rho_{{{\rm H}},S}(E_{{{\rm H}},S}) \, \rho_{{{\rm He}},D}(E_{{{\rm He}},D}) \,
\rho_{{{\rm He}},S}(E_{{{\rm He}},S}) \, \rho_{{{\rm H}},D}(E_{{{\rm H}},D}) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm} \cdot
\sum_{j,k} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2 \,
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{2 E_S^2 - m_j^2 - m_k^2}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg]
e^{i \big(\sqrt{E_S^2 - m_j^2} - \sqrt{E_S^2 - m_k^2}\big) L}.
\label{eq:QFT-Gamma1a}\end{aligned}$$
Before proceeding to the computation of the remaining integrations over the energy distributions of the external particles, let us discuss the expression in the last line in Eq. . In the approximation of ultra-relativistic (or nearly mass-degenerate) neutrinos, Eq. , the last exponential becomes the standard oscillation phase factor $\exp(-2\pi i L / L^{\rm osc}_{jk})$ with the oscillation length defined in Eq. . The additional exponential suppression term $\exp[-(2 E_S^2 - m_j^2 - m_k^2)/2 \sigma_p^2]$ is an analogue of the well-known Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor (or recoil-free fraction) [@Frauenfelder:1962; @Lipkin:1973; @Raghavan:2005gn], which describes the relative probability of recoil-free emission and absorption compared to the total emission and absorption probability. We see that for [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos this factor depends not only on their energy, but also on their masses. Therefore, if two mass eigenstates, $\nu_j$ and $\nu_k$, do not satisfy the relation $|\Delta m_{jk}^2| \ll \sigma_p^2$, the emission and absorption of the lighter mass eigenstate will be suppressed compared to the emission and absorption of the heavier one. This can be viewed as a reduced mixing of the two states, which in turn leads to a suppression of oscillations. To stress this point directly in our formulas, we rewrite the corresponding factor as $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{(p^{\rm min}_{jk})^2}{\sigma_p^2} \bigg]
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{|\Delta m_{jk}^2|}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg],
\label{eq:Lamb-MB}\end{aligned}$$ where $p^{\rm min}_{jk}$ is the smaller of the two momenta of the mass eigenstates $\nu_j$ and $\nu_k$, $$\begin{aligned}
(p^{\rm min}_{jk})^2 = E_S^2 - \max(m_j^2, m_k^2)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The first exponential in Eq. describes the suppression of the emission rate and the absorption cross section, i.e. is a generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor, while the second one describes the suppression of oscillations. The condition $|\Delta m_{jk}^2| \lesssim
2\sigma_p^2$ enforced by this second exponential can also be interpreted as a localization condition: Defining the spatial localization $\sigma_x \simeq
1/2\sigma_p$, we can reformulate it as $L^{\rm osc}_{jk} \gtrsim 4\pi
\sigma_x E_S/\sigma_p$. Since the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor (the first factor in Eq. (\[eq:Lamb-MB\])) enforces $E_S \lesssim
\sigma_p$, this inequality is certainly fulfilled if $|L^{\rm osc}_{jk}|
\gtrsim 2\pi \sigma_x$ holds. The latter, stronger, localization condition is the one obtained in other external wave packet calculations [@Giunti:1993se; @Grimus:1998uh; @Beuthe:2001rc] and is also equivalent to the one obtained in the intermediate wave packet picture [@Giunti:1991sx; @Giunti:1997wq] and discussed in Sec. \[sec:QM\].
Let us now consider the integrations over the spectra of initial and final states in Eq. . To evaluate these integrals, we need expressions for $\rho_{A,B}$, based on the physics of the inhomogeneous line broadening mechanisms. To a very good approximation, these effects cause a Lorentzian smearing of the energies of the external states [@Potzel:PrivComm], so that the energy distributions are $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{A,B}(E_{A,B}) &=
\frac{\gamma_{A,B}/2\pi}{(E_{A,B} - E_{A,B,0})^2 + \gamma_{A,B}^2/4}\,,
\label{eq:QFT-Lorentzian}\end{aligned}$$ where, as before, $A = \{ {{\rm H}}, {{\rm He}}\}$, $B = \{ S, D \}$ and $E_{A,B,0} = m_A + \frac{1}{2} \omega_{A,B}$. After evaluating the four energy integrals in Eq. (see appendix \[sec:appendix-inhom\] for details), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma =& \frac{\Gamma_0 \,B_0}{4\pi L^2}\;Y_S Y_D \,\frac{1}{2\pi}\,
\sum_{j,k} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2 \,
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{(p^{\rm min}_{jk})^2}{\sigma_p^2} \bigg]
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{|\Delta m_{jk}^2|}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg] \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\frac{1}{E_{S,0} - E_{D,0} \pm i \, \tfrac{\gamma_S - \gamma_D}{2}} \,
\Bigg[
\frac{\gamma_D A_{jk}^{(S)}}
{E_{S,0} - E_{D,0} \pm i \, \tfrac{\gamma_S +
\gamma_D}{2}}
+ \frac{\gamma_S A_{jk}^{(D)}}
{E_{S,0} - E_{D,0} \mp i \, \tfrac{\gamma_S +
\gamma_D}{2}}
\Bigg]\,.
\label{eq:QFT-Gamma3}\end{aligned}$$ In deriving this expression we have used the fact that the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor is almost constant over the resonance region and can thus be approximated by its value at $\bar{E} = \frac{1}{2} (E_{S,0} + E_{D,0})$. The quantities $A_{jk}^{(B)}$ in Eq. are given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_{jk}^{(B)}
= \exp\bigg[ -i \frac{\Delta m_{jk}^2}{2(E_{B,0} \pm i \,
\tfrac{\gamma_B}{2})}\, L \bigg]
&\simeq \exp\bigg[ -2\pi i \frac{L}{L^{\rm osc}_{B,jk}} \bigg] \,
\exp\bigg[ - \frac{L}{L^{\rm coh}_{B,jk}} \bigg]\,.
\label{eq:inhom-A}\end{aligned}$$ In Eqs. (\[eq:QFT-Gamma3\]) and (\[eq:inhom-A\]) the upper (lower) signs correspond to $\Delta m_{jk}^2>0$ ($\Delta m_{jk}^2<0$). The oscillation and coherence lengths in (\[eq:inhom-A\]) are defined in analogy with Eqs. and : $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\rm osc}_{B,jk} = \frac{4\pi E_{B,0}}{\Delta m_{jk}^2}\simeq
\frac{4\pi \bar{E}}{\Delta m_{jk}^2}\,,
\qquad\qquad
L^{\rm coh}_{B,jk} = \frac{4 E_{B,0}^2}{\gamma_B |\Delta m_{jk}^2|} \simeq
\frac{4 \bar{E}^2}{\gamma_B |\Delta m_{jk}^2|}\,,
\label{eq:Lcoh2}\end{aligned}$$ We see that Eq. depends not on the individual energies and widths of all external states separately, but only on the combinations $E_{B,0} = E_{{{\rm H}},B,0} - E_{{{\rm He}},B,0}$ and $\gamma_B=\gamma_{{{\rm H}},B} +
\gamma_{{{\rm He}},B}$. In the limit of no neutrino oscillations, i.e. when all $\Delta m_{jk}^2=0$ or $U_{aj}=\delta_{aj}$, Eq. reproduces the no-oscillation result (\[eq:rate2\]) obtained in our calculation of the [Mössbauer]{} neutrino production and detection rates treated as separate processes.
If the localization condition $|\Delta m_{jk}^2|\ll 2\sigma_p^2$ is satisfied for all $j$ and $k$, as it is expected to be the case in realistic experiments, one can pull the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor out of the sum in Eq. (\[eq:QFT-Gamma3\]) and replace the localization exponentials by unity, which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma \simeq \frac{\Gamma_0 \,B_0}{4\pi L^2}\;Y_S Y_D \,
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{E_{S,0}^2-m_0^2}{\sigma_p^2} \bigg]\,
\sum_{j,k} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2 \, I_{jk} \,.
\label{eq:QFT-Gamma3a}\end{aligned}$$ Here $m_0$ is an average neutrino mass and $I_{jk}$ is defined in Eq. (\[eq:Ijk\]). In realistic situations, it is often sufficient to consider two-flavour approximations to this expression. Indeed, at baselines $L \simeq 10$ m which are suitable to search for oscillations driven by $\theta_{13}$, the “solar" mass squared difference $\Delta m_{21}^2$ is inessential, whereas for longer baselines around $L\simeq 300$ m, which could be used to study the oscillations driven by the parameters $\Delta m_{21}^2$ and $\theta_{12}$, the subdominant oscillations governed by $\Delta m_{31}^2$ and $\theta_{13}$ are in the averaging regime, leading to an effective 2-flavour oscillation probability. In both cases one therefore needs to evaluate $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j,k = 1, 2} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2 \, I_{jk}
= \frac{(\gamma_S + \gamma_D) / 2\pi}
{(E_{S,0} - E_{D,0})^2 + \frac{(\gamma_S + \gamma_D)^2}{4}}
\Bigg\{
(c^4 + s^4) + \frac{c^2 s^2}{2} \Big[ A^{(S)} + A^{(D)} + c.c. \Big]
\Bigg\} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
- \frac{c^2 s^2 / 4\pi}{(E_{S,0} - E_{D,0})^2 + \frac{(\gamma_S + \gamma_D)^2}{4}}
\Bigg[
\frac{(A^{(S)} - A^{(D)})
\big[
(E_{S,0} - E_{D,0})(\gamma_S - \gamma_D)
+ i \frac{(\gamma_S + \gamma_D)^2}{2}
\big]}
{ E_{S,0} - E_{D,0} + i \frac{\gamma_S - \gamma_D}{2}}
+ c.c.
\Bigg],
\label{eq:inhom-2f}\end{aligned}$$ where $A^{(B)}$ ($B=S,D$) denotes the value of $A^{(B)}_{jk}$ corresponding to the appropriate fixed $\Delta m_{jk}^2\equiv \Delta m^2$ (which is defined here to be positive, i.e. $\Delta m^2=|\Delta m_{31}|^2$ or $\Delta m_{21}^2$), $s = \sin\theta$ and $c = \cos\theta$, with $\theta$ being the relevant two-flavour mixing angle.
As in the full three-flavour framework, in the absence of oscillations, i.e. for $\Delta m^2 = 0$ or $\theta = 0$, Eqs. and (\[eq:inhom-2f\]) reproduce the no-oscillation rate of Eq. (\[eq:rate2\]). With oscillations included, the first line of Eq. factorizes into the Lorentzian times the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability, which in general contains decoherence factors. Such a factorization does *not* occur in the second line because the first term in the numerator in the square brackets is not proportional to $\gamma_S + \gamma_D$. This term, containing a product of three small differences, is typically small compared to the other terms (at least when the [Mössbauer]{} resonance condition $|E_{S,0} - E_{D,0}| \ll (\gamma_S + \gamma_D)/2$ is satisfied). Still, it is interesting to observe that a naive factorization of $\Gamma$ into a no-oscillation transition rate and the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability is not possible when this term is retained.
In all physically relevant situations, however, the whole second line of Eq. is negligible because so is $A^{(S)} - A^{(D)}$. Retaining only the contribution of the first line in Eq. , from Eq. one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma \simeq & \frac{\Gamma_0 \,B_0}{4\pi L^2}\;Y_S Y_D \,
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{E_{S,0}^2-m_0^2}{\sigma_p^2} \bigg]\,
\frac{(\gamma_S + \gamma_D) / 2\pi}
{(E_{S,0} - E_{D,0})^2 + \frac{(\gamma_S + \gamma_D)^2}{4}}
\nonumber \\
& \hspace*{2cm}
\cdot \bigg\{1 - 2 s^2 c^2\bigg[1-\frac{1}{2}
( e^{-\alpha_S L} + e^{-\alpha_D L})
\cos\bigg(\frac{\Delta m^2 L}{4\bar{E}}\bigg)\bigg]\bigg\}\,,
\label{eq:P-inhom-rel-2f-approx}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{S,D} = (\Delta m^2/4\bar{E}^2) \gamma_{S,D}$, so that $\exp[-\alpha_{S,D} L]=\exp[-L/L^{\rm coh}_{S,D}]$ are the decoherence factors (cf. Eqs. and ). For realistic experiments, one expects the oscillation phase $(\Delta m^2/4\bar{E})L$ to be of order unity, so that $\alpha_{S,D} L\sim \gamma_{S,D}/\bar{E}\sim 10^{-15}$, and decoherence effects are completely negligible. The second line in Eq. then yields the standard 2-flavour expression for the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability.
As we have already pointed out, the contribution of the second line in to $\Gamma$ is of order $(e^{-\alpha_S L}-e^{-\alpha_D L})$ and therefore completely negligible. It is interesting to ask if there are any conceivable situations in which the decoherence exponentials in Eq. should be kept, while the contribution of the second line in can still be neglected. Direct inspection of Eq. shows that this is the case when $|E_{S,0}-E_{D,0}| \lesssim |\gamma_S+\gamma_D|$ with $\alpha_{S,D} L\gtrsim 1$ and $|\alpha_S- \alpha_D|L\ll 1$.
Homogeneous line broadening {#sec:QFT-hom}
---------------------------
Homogeneous line broadening is caused by various electromagnetic relaxation effects, including interactions with fluctuating magnetic fields in the lattice [@Potzel:2006ad; @Coussement:1992]. Unlike inhomogeneous broadening, it affects equally all the emitters (or absorbers) and therefore cannot be taken into account by averaging the unperturbed transition probability over the appropriate energy distributions of the participating particles, as we have done in the previous subsection. Instead, one has to modify already the expression for the amplitude. Since the homogeneous broadening effects are stochastic, a proper averaging procedure, adequate to the broadening mechanism, has then to be employed. For the conventional [Mössbauer]{} effect with long-lived nuclei, a number of models of homogeneous broadening was studied in [@Coussement:1992; @Coussement:1992b; @Odeurs:1995; @Balko:1997; @Odeurs:1997]. In all the considered cases the Lorentzian shape of the emission and absorption lines has been obtained. The same models can be used in the case of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos; one therefore expects that in most of the cases of homogeneous broadening the overall neutrino production – propagation – detection rate will also have the Lorentzian resonance form, i.e. will essentially coincide in form with Eq. , or with its simplified version in which the difference between $A_{jk}^{(S)}$ and $A_{jk}^{(D)}$ is neglected. A notable exception, which we consider next, is the homogeneous broadening due to the natural linewidth. As we shall see, this case is special because the time interval during which the source is produced is small compared with the tritium lifetime.
Neutrino [Mössbauer]{} effect dominated by the natural linewidth {#sec:QFT-nat}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Although in a [Mössbauer]{} neutrino experiment with a tritium source and a $^3{{\rm He}}$ absorber inhomogeneous broadening as well as homogeneous line broadening different from the natural linewidth are by far dominant, we will now consider also the case in which the emission and absorption linewidths are determined by the decay widths of the unstable nuclei. Even though it is not clear if such a situation can be realized experimentally, it is still very interesting for theoretical reasons.
To take the natural linewidth of tritium into account, we modify our expression for the amplitude, Eq. , by including exponential decay factors in the $^3$H wave functions. For the tritium in the source, this factor has the form $\exp(-\gamma t/2)$, describing a decay starting at $t = 0$, the time at which the experiment starts.[^4] For the tritium which is produced in the detector, the decay factor is $\exp(-\gamma (T - t_2)/2)$, where $t_2$ is the production time and $T$ is the time at which the number of produced $^3$H atoms is counted. Note that $\gamma$ here is the total decay width of tritium, not the partial width for bound state beta decay. Since we are taking into account the finite lifetime of tritium, we also have to restrict the domain of all time integrations in $\mathcal{A}$ to the interval $[0, T]$ instead of $(-\infty, \infty)$. We thus have to compute $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathcal{A} &=
\int\! d^3x_1 \int_0^{T}\! dt_1 \int\! d^3x_2 \int_0^{T}\! dt_2 \,
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}}, S}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},S}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_1 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_S|^2 \bigg] \,
e^{-i E_{{{\rm H}},S,0} t_1 - \frac{1}{2} \gamma t_1}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},S}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_1 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_S|^2 \bigg] \, e^{+i E_{{{\rm He}},S,0} t_1}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}}, D}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm He}}\omega_{{{\rm He}},D}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_2 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_D|^2 \bigg] \, e^{-i E_{{{\rm He}},D,0} t_2}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bigg( \frac{m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}}{\pi} \bigg)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp\bigg[ -\frac{1}{2} m_{{\rm H}}\omega_{{{\rm H}},D}
|{{\mathbf{x}}}_2 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_D|^2 \bigg] \,
e^{+i E_{{{\rm H}},D,0} t_2 - \frac{1}{2} \gamma (T - t_2)}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot \sum_j
\mathcal{M}_S^\mu \mathcal{M}_D^{\nu *} |U_{ej}|^2 \, \int \! \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}
e^{-i p_0 (t_2 - t_1) + i {{\mathbf{p}}} ({{\mathbf{x}}}_2 - {{\mathbf{x}}}_1)} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\bar{u}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) \,
\frac{i (\slashed{p} + m_j)}{p_0^2 - {{\mathbf{p}}}^2 - m_j^2 + i\epsilon} \,
(1 + \gamma^5) \gamma_\nu u_{e,D}
\label{eq:QFT-A5}\end{aligned}$$ with the same notation as in Sec. \[sec:QFT-minimal\]. This form for $\mathcal{A}$ can also be derived in a more rigorous way using the Weisskopf-Wigner approximation [@Weisskopf:1930au; @Weisskopf:1930ps; @Grimus:1998uh; @Cohen:QM2], as shown in appendix \[sec:appendix-WeisskopfWigner\]. After a calculation similar to the one described in Sec. \[sec:QFT-minimal\], we find for the total probability for finding a tritium atom at the lattice site ${{\mathbf{x}}}_D$ in the detector after a time $T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}
&= \frac{\Gamma_0 \,B_0}{4\pi L^2}\;Y_S Y_D \,\frac{2}{\pi}\,
\sum_{j,k} \theta(T_{jk}) \, |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2 \,
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{(p^{\rm min}_{jk})^2}{\sigma_p^2} \bigg]
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{|\Delta m_{jk}^2|}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg]
e^{i \big( \sqrt{\bar{E}^2 - m_j^2} - \sqrt{\bar{E}^2 - m_k^2} \big) L}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} \cdot
e^{-\gamma T_{jk}} e^{- L / L^{\rm coh}_{jk}} \,
\frac{\sin\big[ \frac{1}{2} (E_{S,0} - E_{D,0}) (T - \frac{L}{v_j})
\big]\sin\big[ \frac{1}{2} (E_{S,0} - E_{D,0}) (T - \frac{L}{v_k})
\big]} {(E_{S,0} - E_{D,0})^2}
\label{eq:QFT-P2}\end{aligned}$$ In the derivation, which is described in more detail in appendix \[sec:appendix-nat\], we have neglected the energy dependence of the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor and of the spinorial terms, approximating them by their values at $\bar{E} = \frac{1}{2} (E_{S,0}
+ E_{D,0})$. Furthermore, we have expanded the oscillation phase around this average energy. These approximations are justified by the observation that these quantities are almost constant over the resonance region.
In Eq. the quantity $v_j =(\bar{E}^2 - m_j^2)^{1/2}/\bar{E}$ denotes the group velocity of the $j$th neutrino mass eigenstate, and the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor is parameterized in the by now familiar form with $p^{\rm min}_{jk} = \bar{E}^2 - \max(m_j^2, m_k^2)$. Moreover, we have defined the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
T_{jk} = \min\bigg( T - \frac{L}{v_j}, \, T - \frac{L}{v_k} \bigg)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which corresponds to the total running time of the experiment, minus the time of flight of the heavier of the two mass eigenstates $\nu_j$ and $\nu_k$. The appearance of the step-function factor $\theta(T_{jk})$ in Eq. is related to the finite neutrino time of flight between the source and the detector and to the fact that the interference between the $j$th and $k$th mass components leading to oscillations is only possible if both have already arrived at the detector. As in Sec. \[sec:QFT-inhom\], decoherence exponentials appear, containing the characteristic coherence lengths $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{L^{\rm coh}_{jk}} &= \gamma \, \bigg| \frac{1}{v_j} - \frac{1}{v_k}
\bigg|\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the approximation of ultra-relativistic (or nearly mass-degenerate) neutrinos, this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\rm coh}_{jk} = \frac{4 \bar{E}^2}{\gamma |\Delta m_{jk}^2|}\,, \end{aligned}$$ and is thus analogous to Eqs. and .
While the first two lines of Eq. contain the standard oscillation terms, the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor and some numerical factors, the expression in the third line is unique to [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos in the regime of natural linewidth dominance. To interpret this part of the probability, it is helpful to consider the approximation of massless neutrinos, which implies $v_j = 1$ for all $j$ and thus $L^{\rm coh}_{jk} =
\infty$. If we neglect the time of flight $L/v_j$ compared to the total running time of the experiment $T$, we find that the probability is proportional to $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\gamma T} \, \frac{\sin^2 [(E_{S,0} - E_{D,0}) \frac{T}{2}]}{(E_{S,0}
- E_{D,0})^2}.
\label{eq:T-dependence1}\end{aligned}$$ The factor $\exp(-\gamma t)$ accounts for the depletion of $^3{{\rm H}}$ in the source and for the decay of the produced $^3{{\rm H}}$ in the detector.
It is easy to see that for $\gamma = 0$ and $T \rightarrow \infty$, Eq. is recovered, except for the omitted averaging over the energies of the initial and final state nuclei. In particular, we see that in this limit, due to the emerging $\delta$-function, the [Mössbauer]{} effect can only occur if the resonance energies $E_{S,0}$ and $E_{D,0}$ match exactly. For finite $T$, in contrast, the matching need not be exact because of the time-energy uncertainty relation, which permits a certain detuning, as long as $|E_{S,0} - E_{D,0}| \lesssim 1/T$. In the case of strong inequality $|E_{S,0} - E_{D,0}| \ll 1/T$, Eq. can be approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
T^2\, e^{-\gamma T}/4\,.
\label{eq:T-dependence2}\end{aligned}$$ It is crucial to note that the allowed detuning of $E_{S,0}$ and $E_{D,0}$ does *not* depend on $\gamma$, contrary to what one might expect. Instead, the [Mössbauer]{} resonance condition requires this detuning to be small compared to the reciprocal of the overall observation time $T$. Therefore, the natural linewidth is not a fundamental limitation to the energy resolution of a [Mössbauer]{} neutrino experiment. There is a well-known analogue to this in quantum optics [@Meystre:1980], called subnatural spectroscopy. Consider an experiment, in which an atom is instantaneously excited from its ground state into an unstable state ${\ensuremath{| b \rangle}}$ by a strong laser pulse at $t=0$. Moreover, the atom is continuously exposed to electromagnetic radiation with a photon energy $E$, which can eventually excite it further into another unstable state ${\ensuremath{| a \rangle}}$. If, after a time $\tau$, the number of atoms in state ${\ensuremath{| a \rangle}}$ is measured, it turns out that the result is proportional to $1/[(E - \Delta E)^2 + (\gamma_a - \gamma_b)^2/4]$ rather than to naively expected $1/[(E - \Delta E)^2 + (\gamma_a + \gamma_b)^2/4]$, where $\Delta E$ is the energy difference between the two states, and $\gamma_a$, $\gamma_b$ are their respective widths. In our case, the state ${\ensuremath{| b \rangle}}$ corresponds to a $^3{{\rm H}}$ atom in the source and a $^3{{\rm He}}$ atom in the detector, while ${\ensuremath{| a \rangle}}$ corresponds to a $^3{{\rm He}}$ atom in the source and a $^3{{\rm H}}$ atom in the detector. The initial excitation of state ${\ensuremath{| b \rangle}}$ corresponds to producing the tritium source and starting the [Mössbauer]{} neutrino experiment, and the transition from ${\ensuremath{| b \rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{| a \rangle}}$ corresponds to the production, propagation and absorption of a neutrino. Since the difference of decay widths $\gamma_a-\gamma_b$ vanishes for [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos,[^5] we see that $\gamma$ does not have any impact on the achievable energy resolution, in accordance with Eq. . Note that this is only true because the source is produced at one specific point in time, namely $t=0$ (more generally, during a time interval that is short compared to the tritium lifetime). In a hypothetical experiment, in which tritium is continuously replenished in the source, an additional integration of $\mathcal{P}$ over the production time would be required, and this would yield proportionality to $1/[(E_{S,0} - E_{D,0})^2 +
\gamma^2]$, in full analogy with the corresponding result in quantum optics [@Meystre:1980].
The $T$-dependence of $\mathcal{P}$, as given by Eq. can be understood already from a classical argument. If we denote the number of $^3{{\rm H}}$ atoms in the source by $N_S$ and the corresponding number in the detector by $N_D$, the latter obeys the following differential equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{N}_D = -\dot{N}_S N_{0} P_{ee} \frac{\sigma(T)}{4\pi L^2} - \gamma N_D\,.
\label{eq:ND-ODE}\end{aligned}$$ Here $P_{ee}$ is the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability, $N_0$ is the number of $^3$He atoms in the detector, which we consider constant (this is justified if the number of $^3$H atoms produced in the detector is small compared to the initial number of $^3$He), and $\sigma(T)$ is the absorption cross section. It depends on $T$ because, due to the Heisenberg principle, the accuracy to which the resonance condition has to be fulfilled is given by $T^{-1}$. If we describe this limitation by assuming the emission and absorption lines to be Lorentzians of width $1/T$, we find that for $|E_{S,0}-E_{D,0}|\ll T^{-1}$ the overlap integral is proportional to $T$, so that we can write $\sigma = s_0\, T$ with $s_0$ a constant. Using furthermore the fact that $N_S = N_{S,0} \exp(-\gamma T)$, the solution of Eq. is found as $$\begin{aligned}
N_D = \frac{N_{S,0} N_0 \gamma P_{ee} s_0}{8\pi L^2}
\, T^2 e^{-\gamma T}.\end{aligned}$$ This expression has precisely the $T$-dependence given by Eq. .
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Let us now summarize our results. We have studied the properties of recoillessly emitted and absorbed neutrinos ([Mössbauer]{} neutrinos) in a plane wave treatment (Sec. \[sec:qualitative\]), in a quantum mechanical wave packet approach (Sec. \[sec:QM\]) and in a full quantum field theoretical calculation (Sec. \[sec:QFT\]). The plane wave treatment corresponds to the standard derivation based on the same energy approximation. We have pointed out, that for [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos this approximation is justifiable, even though for conventional neutrino sources it is generally considered to be inconsistent. The wave packet approach is an extension of the plane wave treatment, which takes into account the small but non-zero energy and momentum spread of the neutrino. Finally, the QFT calculation is superior to the other two, in particular, because no prior assumptions about the energies and momenta of the intermediate-state neutrinos have to be made. These properties are automatically determined from the wave functions of the external particles in the source and in the detector. For these wave functions we used well established approximations that are known to be good in the theory of the standard [Mössbauer]{} effect.
In all three approaches that have been discussed, we have consistently arrived at the prediction that [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos will oscillate, in spite of their very small energy uncertainty. The plane wave result, Eq. , is actually the standard textbook expression for the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability, and Eqs. , and are extensions of this expression, containing, in particular, decoherence and localization factors. We have found that these factors cannot suppress oscillations under realistic experimental conditions, but are very interesting from the theoretical point of view.
Let us now compare the results of different approaches. First, we observe that the decoherence exponents in our QFT calculations are linear in $L/L^{\rm coh}$, while in the quantum mechanical result, Eq. , the dependence is quadratic. This behaviour can be traced back to the fact that Gaussian neutrino wave packets have been assumed in the quantum mechanical computation, while in our QFT approach we have employed the Lorentzian line shapes, which are more appropriate for describing [Mössbauer]{}neutrinos. The linear dependence of the decoherence exponents on $L/L^{\rm coh}$ in the case of the Lorentzian neutrino energy distribution has been previously pointed out in [@Grimus:1998uh].
Even more striking than the differing forms of the decoherence exponentials is the fact that a localization factor of the form $\exp[-|\Delta m_{jk}^2|
/2\sigma_p^2]$ is present in Eqs. and , while the localization exponentials disappear from Eq. in the limit $\xi \to 0$ which is relevant for [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos. This shows that the naive quantum mechanical wave packet approach does not capture all features of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos. In particular, it neglects the differences between the emission (and absorption) probabilities of different mass eigenstates, which effectively may lead to a suppression of neutrino mixing. In realistic experiments, however, this effect should be negligible.
Another interesting feature of the exponential factors implementing the localization condition in our QFT calculations is that the corresponding exponents are linear in $|\Delta m_{jk}^2|$, whereas the dependence is quadratic (for $\xi\ne 0)$ in the quantum-mechanical expression . This can be attributed to the fact that we consider the parent and daughter nuclei in the source and detector to be in bound states with zero mean momentum (but non-zero [*rms*]{} momentum). This is also the reason why the $\sigma_p$-dependence of the localization exponents in Eqs. and is different from that in the quantum mechanical approach (namely, they depend on $|\Delta m_{jk}^2|
/2\sigma_p^2$ rather than $|\Delta m_{jk}^2|/2p\sigma_p$): for the considered bound states, the [*rms*]{} momentum is $\bar{p}\sim \sigma_p$, so that $\bar{p}\sigma_p\sim \sigma_p^2$.
One more point to notice is that while the same quantity, the momentum uncertainty , enters into the decoherence and localization factors in the quantum mechanical formula , this is not the case in the QFT approach, where the localization factors depend on $\sigma_p$, whereas the decoherence exponentials are determined by the (much smaller) energy uncertainty. In the case of natural line broadening this energy uncertainty is given by the $^3$H decay width $\gamma$, while in all the other cases it is given by the widths of the neutrino emission and absorption lines, which are determined by the homogeneous and inhomogeneous line broadening effects taking place in the source and detector.
The QFT results of Eqs. and describe not only the oscillation physics, but also the production and detection processes. These results can thus also be used for an approximate prediction of the total event rate expected in a [Mössbauer]{} neutrino experiment. Both expressions contain the Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor (or recoil-free fraction), which describes the relative probability of recoilless decay and absorption of neutrinos. Moreover, they contain factors that suppress the overall process rate $\Gamma$ unless the emission and absorption lines overlap sufficiently well. In the case of inhomogeneous line broadening (Sec. \[sec:QFT-inhom\]) as well as for homogeneous broadening different from the natural linewidth effect, this is a Lorentzian factor, the same as in the no-oscillation rate . It suppresses the transition rate if the peak energies of the emission and absorption lines differ by more than the combined linewidth $\gamma_S+\gamma_D$. We have, however, found that the factorization of the total rate into the no-oscillation rate including the overlap factor and the oscillation probability is only approximate. For the hypothetical case of an experiment in which the neutrino energy uncertainty is dominated by the natural linewidth $\gamma$ (Sec. \[sec:QFT-nat\]), we have found that the overlap condition does not depend on $\gamma$, but is rather determined by the reciprocal of the overall duration of the experiment $T$. Although this result may seem counterintuitive at first sight, it has a well-known analogy in quantum optics [@Meystre:1980] and is related to the fact that the initial unstable particles in the source are produced in a time interval much shorter than their lifetime.
Notice that the overlap factors contained in our QFT-based results for the neutrino [Mössbauer]{} effect governed by the natural linewidth and by other line broadening mechanisms, Eqs. and , are two well-known limiting representations of the $\delta$-function, which yield the energy-conserving $\delta$-function $\delta(E_{S,0}-E_{D,0})$ in the limits $T\to \infty$ or $\gamma_S+\gamma_D\to 0$, respectively.[^6] One can see that in these limits both expressions reproduce, if one sets the $\bar{\nu}_e$ survival probability $P_{ee}$ to unity, the no-oscillation rate obtained in the infinitely sharp neutrino line limit by treating the [Mössbauer]{} neutrino production and detection as separate processes. Our QFT results thus generalize the results of the standard calculations and allow a more accurate and consistent treatment of both the production – detection rate and the oscillation probability of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos.
To conclude, we have performed a quantum field theoretic calculation of the combined rate of the emission, propagation and detection of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos for the cases of inhomogeneous and homogeneous neutrino line broadening. In both cases we found that the decoherence and localization damping factors present in the combined rate will not play any role in realistic experimental settings and therefore will not prevent [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos from oscillating.
It is a pleasure to thank F. v. Feilitzsch, H. Kienert, J. Litterst, W. Potzel, G. Raffelt and V. Rubakov for very fruitful discussions. This work was in part supported by the Transregio Sonderforschungsbereich TR27 “Neutrinos and Beyond” der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. JK would like to acknowledge support from the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes.
Derivation of the transition rate for inhomogeneous line broadening {#sec:appendix-inhom}
===================================================================
In this appendix we give details of the steps leading from Eq. to Eq. when the energy densities of the external states $\rho_{A,B}$ are chosen to have the Lorentzian form, Eq. (\[eq:QFT-Lorentzian\]).
First, we notice that the Lorentzians are sharply peaked, with their widths much smaller than the peak energies, and therefore the energy integrals in get their main contributions from the narrow intervals around these peaks. Since the peak energies, as well as their differences $E_{{{\rm H}},S,0}-E_{{{\rm He}},S,0}$ and $E_{{{\rm H}},S,0}-E_{{{\rm He}},S,0}$ that determine the neutrino energies, are much larger than the neutrino masses, one can employ the expansion $\sqrt{E_S^2-m_{i}^2}\simeq E_S
-m_{i}^2/2E_S$ in the exponents.
Next, we make use of the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE_a \, dE_b \,&
\frac{\gamma_a/2\pi}{(E_a - E_{a,0})^2 + \frac{\gamma_a^2}{4}} \,
\frac{\gamma_b/2\pi}{(E_b - E_{b,0})^2 + \frac{\gamma_b^2}{4}}
\, f(E_a - E_b) \nonumber\\
&= \int_{-\infty}^\infty d(E_a - E_b) \,
\frac{(\gamma_a + \gamma_b)/2\pi}{\big[ (E_a - E_b) - (E_{a,0} - E_{b,0})
\big]^2 + \frac{(\gamma_a + \gamma_b)^2}{4}} \, f(E_a - E_b)\,,
\label{eq:eff-Lorentzian}\end{aligned}$$ that holds for any function $f(E)$ for which the integrals in (\[eq:eff-Lorentzian\]) exist. To apply this formula to Eq. , we have to extend the domain of the energy integrals from the physical region $[\max_j(m_j),\infty)$ to the whole real axis, $(-\infty,\infty)$. This is again possible because the Lorentzians $\rho_{A,B}(E_{A,B})$ have very narrow widths and therefore ensure that the unphysical contributions are strongly suppressed, the error introduced by the extension of the integration interval being of order $\gamma_{S(D)}/E_{S(D),0}\sim 10^{-15}$. We can thus use Eq. to perform two of the four energy integrations in Eq. . Of the remaining two, one is trivial due to the factor $\delta(E_S - E_D)$, so that the expression for $\Gamma$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma = \frac{\Gamma_0 \,B_0}{4\pi L^2}\;Y_S Y_D
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \! dE \,
\frac{\gamma_S/2\pi}{(E - E_{S,0})^2 + \gamma_S^2/4} \,
\frac{\gamma_D/2\pi}{(E - E_{D,0})^2 + \gamma_D^2/4} \, \nonumber\\
\hspace{1cm} \cdot
\sum_{j,k} |U_{ej}|^2 |U_{ek}|^2 \,
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{2 E^2 - m_j^2 - m_k^2}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg]
e^{-i \frac{\Delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E}}\,.
\label{eq:QFT-Gamma2a}\end{aligned}$$
Next, we pull the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor out of the integral, replacing it by its value at $\bar{E} = (E_{S,0} + E_{D,0})/2$. This is justified by the observation that $\gamma_S, \gamma_D \sim 10^{-11}\
\text{eV} \ll \sigma_p \sim 10 \ \text{keV}$, so that the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor is nearly constant over the region where the integrand is sizeable. We are thus left with the task to compute the expression $$\begin{aligned}
I_{jk} \equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty \! dE \,
\frac{\gamma_S/2\pi}{(E - E_{S,0})^2 + \gamma_S^2/4} \,
\frac{\gamma_D/2\pi}{(E - E_{D,0})^2 + \gamma_D^2/4} \,
e^{-i \frac{\Delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E}}\,,
\label{eq:Ijk1}\end{aligned}$$ which can be done by integration in the complex plane. The integrand of (\[eq:Ijk1\]) has four poles, two above the real axis and two below, and an essential singularity at $E=0$ (see Fig. \[fig:contours-3\]). To circumvent the essential singularity, we choose the integration contour to consist of the real axis with a small interval $[-\varepsilon, \varepsilon]$ cut out, supplemented by a half-circle of radius $\varepsilon$ around the point $E=0$ and closed by a half-circle of large radius. The contribution of the small half-circle vanishes when its radius goes to zero provided that we avoid the point $E=0$ from above when $\Delta m_{jk}^2>0$ and from below when $\Delta m_{jk}^2<0$. Thus, we close the integration contour in the upper half-plane for $\Delta m_{jk}^2>0$ and in the lower half-plane for $\Delta m_{jk}^2<0$. The contribution from the large half-circle vanishes when its radius tends to infinity because the product of two Lorentzians goes to zero as $|E|^{-4}$ for $|E| \rightarrow \infty$, while the exponential becomes unity in this limit. Application of the residue theorem yields now
![Integration contours in the complex $E$ plane.[]{data-label="fig:contours-3"}](contours-3.eps){width="8cm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{jk} &= \frac{1}{2\pi}
\frac{1}{E_{S,0} - E_{D,0} \pm i \, \tfrac{\gamma_S - \gamma_D}{2}}
\,
\Bigg[
\frac{\gamma_D A_{jk}^{(S)}}
{E_{S,0} - E_{D,0} \pm i \, \tfrac{\gamma_S +
\gamma_D}{2}}
+ \frac{\gamma_S A_{jk}^{(D)}}
{E_{S,0} - E_{D,0} \mp i \, \tfrac{\gamma_S +
\gamma_D}{2}}
\Bigg],
\label{eq:Ijk}\end{aligned}$$
with the notation from Sec. \[sec:QFT-inhom\]. Here the upper (lower) signs correspond to $\Delta m_{jk}^2>0$ ($\Delta m_{jk}^2<0$). Inserting this result into Eq. , we obtain Eq. .
Derivation of the total transition probability for the case of natural linewidth dominance {#sec:appendix-nat}
==========================================================================================
In this appendix we describe the derivation leading from Eq. to Eq. . The spatial integrals in Eq. are the same as those encountered in Sec. \[sec:QFT-minimal\] and yield the factor $\exp[-{{\mathbf{p}}}^2/2\sigma_p^2]
\exp[i {{\mathbf{p}}} {{\mathbf{L}}}]$. The time integrals can also be evaluated straightforwardly; however, unlike the corresponding integrals in Eq. , they do not give exact, but only approximate energy conserving factors for the production and detection processes. This behaviour can be ascribed to the non-zero width of the tritium states and the finite measurement time $T$. To evaluate the three-momentum integral over ${{\mathbf{p}}}$, we again employ the Grimus-Stockinger theorem and thus find $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathcal{A}
&= \frac{-i}{8 \pi^2 L} \mathcal{N}
\sum_j \mathcal{M}_S^\mu \mathcal{M}_D^{\nu *} |U_{ej}|^2 \int_
{-\infty}^{\infty}\! dp_0 \,
\bar{u}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) (\slashed{p}_j + m_j)
(1 + \gamma^5) \gamma_\nu u_{e,D}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm} \cdot
e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2} T} \,
\frac{e^{-i (E_S - p_0) T - \frac{\gamma}{2} T } - 1}
{p_0 - E_S + i \frac{\gamma}{2}} \,
\frac{e^{ i (E_D - p_0) T + \frac{\gamma}{2} T } - 1}
{p_0 - E_D + i \frac{\gamma}{2}} \,
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{p_0^2 - m_j^2}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg] \,
e^{i \sqrt{p_0^2 - m_j^2} L},
\label{eq:QFT-A6}\end{aligned}$$ where the 4-vector $p_j$ is defined as $p_j = (p_0, (p_0^2 - m_j^2)^{1/2} \,
{{\mathbf{L}}}/L)$. The exponential depending on $\sigma_p^2$, which will eventually lead to the generalized Lamb-[Mössbauer]{} factor, can be approximated by its value at $\bar{E} = (E_S + E_D)/2$ because $\gamma \ll \sigma_p$ ensures that it is almost constant in the region from which the main contribution to the integral comes, namely the region where $|p_0 - E_S| \lesssim \gamma$ and $|p_0 - E_D|
\lesssim \gamma$. The fact that this region is very narrow also allows us to pull the spinorial factors out of the integral and to expand the oscillation phase around $\bar{E}$: $$\begin{aligned}
i \sqrt{p_0^2 - m_j^2} L \simeq
i \sqrt{\bar{E}^2 - m_j^2} L
+ i \frac{L}{v_j} (p_0 - \bar{E})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $v_j = (\bar{E}^2 - m_j^2)^{1/2} / \bar{E}$. The integral over $p_0$ can then be evaluated by complex contour integration. The denominator has poles at $p_0 = E_S - i \gamma/2$ and $p_0 = E_D-i\gamma/2$, and the relevant terms in the numerator are $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big( e^{-i (E_S - p_0) T - \frac{1}{2} \gamma T} - 1 \Big)
\Big( e^{i (E_D - p_0) T + \frac{1}{2} \gamma T} - 1 \Big) \,
e^{i (p_0 - \bar{E}) \frac{L}{v_j}}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{3cm}
= \underbrace{ e^{i p_0 \frac{L}{v_j}}
e^{-i (E_S - E_D) T - \bar{E} \frac{L}{v_j}} }_\textrm{(A)}
\,-\, \underbrace{ e^{i p_0 (T + \frac{L}{v_j})}
e^{-i E_S T - i \bar{E} \frac{L}{v_j} - \frac{1}{2} \gamma T} }_\textrm{(B)}
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{3cm} \phantom{=}
\,-\, \underbrace{ e^{-i p_0 (T - \frac{L}{v_j})}
e^{ i E_D T - i \bar{E} \frac{L}{v_j} + \frac{1}{2} \gamma T}}_\textrm{(C)}
\,+\,\underbrace{ e^{i \frac{L}{v_j} p_0} e^{-i \bar{E} \frac{L}{v_j}}
}_\textrm{(D)}.\end{aligned}$$ To close the integration contour, we add to the real axis a half-circle of infinite radius. For the terms labeled (A), (B) and (D), this half-circle has to lie in the upper half-plane, while for (C) it has to lie in the upper half-plane for $T < L/v_j$, and in the lower half-plane for $T > L/v_j$. As the integrand is holomorphic for ${\rm Im}(p_0) \geq 0$, only in this last case the integral can be non-zero. The residue theorem then yields $$\begin{aligned}
i \mathcal{A}
&= \frac{\mathcal{N}}{4 \pi L} \sum_j \theta(T - L/v_j) \,
\mathcal{M}_S^\mu \mathcal{M}_D^{\nu *} |U_{ej}|^2 \cdot
\exp\bigg[\! -\frac{\bar{E}^2 - m_j^2}{2 \sigma_p^2} \bigg] \,
\bar{u}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1\!-\!\gamma^5) (\slashed{\bar{p}}_j + m_j)
(1\!+\!\gamma^5) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.2cm}
\cdot \gamma_\nu u_{e,D}
e^{i \sqrt{\bar{E}^2 - m_j^2} L}
\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma (T - \frac{L}{v_j})}
e^{-\frac{i}{2} (E_S - E_D) T)}}{E_S - E_D}
\bigg[ e^{-\frac{i}{2} (E_S - E_D) (T - \frac{L}{v_j})}
- e^{\frac{i}{2} (E_S - E_D) (T - \frac{L}{v_j})} \bigg]\,,
\label{eq:QFT-A7}\end{aligned}$$ where now $\bar{p}_j = (\bar{E}, (\bar{E}^2 - m_j^2)^{1/2} \, {{\mathbf{L}}}/L)$, and $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. The total probability for finding a tritium atom at the lattice site ${{\mathbf{x}}}_D$ in the detector after a time $T$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P} = \overline{|\mathcal{A}|^2}\,,
\label{eq:QFT-P1}\end{aligned}$$ where the bar indicates the average over initial spins and the sum over final spins. Apart from these spin sums, no integration over the energy distributions of the initial and final state nuclei is necessary as long as only natural line broadening is taken into account, because we are dealing with transitions between discrete energy eigenstates. A straightforward evaluation of Eq. yields Eq. .
Weisskopf-Wigner approach to the effects of the natural line width {#sec:appendix-WeisskopfWigner}
==================================================================
In this appendix we use the Weisskopf-Wigner approach [@Weisskopf:1930au; @Weisskopf:1930ps; @Cohen:QM2; @Grimus:1998uh] to derive Eq. , which has been the starting point for our discussion of [Mössbauer]{} neutrinos in the regime of natural linewidth dominance. In particular, our aim is to substantiate the arguments dictating the form of the exponential decay factors by an explicit derivation.
We can write the Hamiltonian of the system as ${H}= {H}_0 + e^{i {H}_0 t} {H}_1 e^{-i {H}_0 t}$, where ${H}_1$ is the interaction-representation weak interaction Hamiltonian and ${H}_0$ is the remainder. In general, we will not treat $H_1$ as a perturbation since we are ultimately interested in the depletion of unstable states over time, which cannot be adequately described in a perturbative approach.
One can write an arbitrary state as ${\ensuremath{| \psi(t) \rangle}} = \sum_j c_j(t)
{\ensuremath{| \phi_j \rangle}}$, where ${\ensuremath{| \phi_j \rangle}}$ are the eigenstates of ${H}_0$. The Schrödinger equation then gives the evolution equations for the coefficients $c_j(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
i \dot{c}_j(t) = \sum_k {\ensuremath{\langle \phi_j |}} {H}_1 {\ensuremath{| \phi_k \rangle}} \, c_k(t)\,.
\label{eq:cj-evolution}\end{aligned}$$ For our purposes it will be convenient to slightly modify the notation and classify the different states according to their particle content, as shown in Table \[tab:states\].
$^3{{\rm H}}$ and $^3{{\rm He}}$ denote the two types of atoms in the experiment, and the index $S$ or $D$ shows whether the respective particle is initially localized at the source or at the detector. For those states for which we have written the electron participating in the reaction and the $^3{{\rm He}}^+$ ions separately, we imply that the electron may be either free or in an atomic bound state, while for the other states only bound electrons are considered. The upper index $(i)$ stands for the initial state, the indices $(1)$ through $(6)$ denote intermediate states, and $(f)$ stands for the final state, after the decay of the source particle, the absorption of the emitted neutrino in the detector and the decay of the produced tritium. The lower indices stand for the various quantum numbers of the particles; for example, $j$ encodes the momenta and the spins of $\bar{\nu}_S$ and $e_S^-$, and the information whether $e_S^-$ is bound or free.
The evolution of the system is governed by the interaction Hamiltonian $H_1={H}_S^+ + {H}_D^- +\tilde{{H}}_D^+ +H.c$, where [$$\begin{aligned}
{H}_S^+ &= \int \! d^3 x \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} G_F \cos\theta_c
{\ensuremath{\langle {}^3{{\rm He}}|}} J^\mu {\ensuremath{| {}^3{{\rm H}}\rangle}} \,
\bar{\psi}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) \psi_\nu\,,
\label{eq:Hs+} \\
{H}_D^- &= \int \! d^3 x \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} G_F \cos\theta_c
{\ensuremath{\langle {}^3{{\rm H}}|}} J^\mu {\ensuremath{| {}^3{{\rm He}}\rangle}} \,
\bar{\psi}_\nu \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) \psi_{e,D}\,,
\label{eq:Hd-} \\
\tilde{{H}}_D^+ &= \int \! d^3 x \,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} G_F \cos\theta_c
{\ensuremath{\langle {}^3{{\rm He}}|}} J^\mu {\ensuremath{| {}^3{{\rm H}}\rangle}} \,
\bar{\psi}_{e,S} \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma^5) \psi_\nu\,.
\label{eq:tildeHd}\end{aligned}$$]{} The Hermitian conjugates of these operators will be denoted ${H}_S^-$, ${H}_D^+$ and $\tilde{{H}}_D^-$. The Hamiltonians ${H}_S^+$ and $\tilde{{H}}_D^+$ describe tritium decay in the source and detector respectively, whereas ${H}_D^-$ describes the $\bar{\nu}_e$ capture in the detector. Although the Hamiltonians are essentially related by ${H}_S^+ = {H}_D^+ = \tilde{{H}}_D^+$, we will treat them as distinct operators throughout this appendix to keep our derivation more transparent and more general. For the matrix elements of the transitions, the following relations hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(i)} |}} {H}_S^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}}
&= {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_S^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}}
= {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}}, \\
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(i)} |}} {H}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}}
&= {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}}, \\
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(4)} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(f)}_l \rangle}}
&= {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}
= {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:A-identities}
\intertext{and similarly,}
\begin{aligned}
E^{(i)} - E^{(1)}_j &= E^{(2)}_k - E^{(3)}_{jk}
= E^{(5)}_{kl} - E^{(6)}_{jkl}, \\
E^{(i)} - E^{(2)}_k &= E^{(1)}_j - E^{(3)}_{jk}, \\
E^{(4)} - E^{(f)}_l &= E^{(2)}_k - E^{(5)}_{kl}
= E^{(3)}_{jk} - E^{(6)}_{jkl}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:E-identities}\end{aligned}$$ They follow from the fact that the corresponding processes differ only by the spectator particles. The evolution equations for the system are $$\begin{aligned}
i \dot{c}^{(i)} &=
\sum_j {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(i)} |}} {H}_S^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \, c^{(1)}_j
+ \sum_k {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(i)} |}} {H}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \, c^{(2)}_k,
\label{eq:ci-dot}\\
i \dot{c}^{(1)}_j &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_S^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \, c^{(i)}
+ \sum_k {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \, c^{(3)}_{jk},
\label{eq:c1-dot}\\
i \dot{c}^{(2)}_k &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \, c^{(i)}
+ \sum_j {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_S^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \, c^{(3)}_{jk}
+ \sum_l {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \, c^{(5)}_{kl},
\label{eq:c2-dot}\\
i \dot{c}^{(3)}_{jk} &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \, c^{(1)}_j
+ {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_S^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \, c^{(2)}_k
+ \sum_l {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}} \, c^{(6)}_{jkl},
\label{eq:c3-dot}\\
i \dot{c}^{(4)} &=
\sum_j {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(4)} |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \, c^{(1)}_j
+ \sum_k {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(4)} |}} {H}_S^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \, c^{(2)}_k
+ \sum_l {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(4)} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(f)}_l \rangle}} \, c^{(f)}_{l},
\label{eq:c4-dot}\\
i \dot{c}^{(5)}_{kl} &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \, c^{(2)}_k
+ \sum_j {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}} \, c^{(6)}_{jkl},
\label{eq:c5-dot}\\
i \dot{c}^{(6)}_{jkl} &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \, c^{(5)}_{kl}
+ {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \, c^{(3)}_{jk},
\phantom{\sum_k} \label{eq:c6-dot}\\
i \dot{c}^{(f)}_l &=
\sum_k {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(f)} |}} {H}_S^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \, c^{(5)}_{kl}
+ {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(f)}_l |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(4)} \rangle}} \, c^{(4)}.
\label{eq:cf-dot}\end{aligned}$$ We treat all processes that occur within the source or within the detector non-perturbatively, while first-order perturbation theory will be used for processes that require the propagation of a neutrino between the source and the detector. This second kind of transitions is suppressed due to the smallness of the solid angle at which the detector is seen from the source. Consequently, we include only the respective forward reactions (i.e. those proceeding downward in the scheme of Table \[tab:states\]), but neglect the feedback terms, which would otherwise appear in the equations for $c^{(1)}_j$, $c^{(2)}_k$, and $c^{(5)}_{kl}$. The feedback of ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(f)}_l \rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(4)} \rangle}}$ is included because the production of both states from the initial state requires a single neutrino propagation between the source and the detector. The sums in Eqs. – symbolically denote the summation over the relevant discrete indices and integration over the continuous variables.
The initial conditions for the equation system – are given by $c^{(i)}(0) = 1$ with all other coefficients vanishing at $t = 0$.
Our ultimate goal is to solve the evolution equations for $c^{(4)}(t)$, which determines the $^3{{\rm H}}$ abundance in the detector at time $t$. It is convenient to first consider the closed subsystem formed by Eqs. , , , , and , which we solve from the bottom upwards. We start by integrating Eq. to obtain an expression for $c^{(6)}_{jkl}$, which we then insert into Eq. . This yields $$\begin{aligned}
i \dot{c}^{(5)}_{kl}(t) &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} c^{(2)}_k(t)
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
- i \sum_j \int_0^t d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^-(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \,
c^{(5)}_{kl}({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
- i \sum_j \int_0^t d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^-(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \,
c^{(3)}_{jk}({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})\,.
\label{eq:c5-dot-1}\end{aligned}$$ Consider first the second term, which describes the effect on ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}$ of its decay into ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}}$. Following the Weisskopf-Wigner procedure as described in [@Cohen:QM2], we split the quantum numbers indexed by $j$ into the energy $E^{(6)}$ and the remaining parameters $\beta$. Denoting the density of states (the number of states per unit energy interval) by $\rho(E^{(6)}, \beta)$, one can make the replacements $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{kl}; E^{(6)}, \beta \rangle}}\,,
\qquad\qquad
\sum_j \rightarrow \sum_\beta\, \int\!dE^{(6)}
\rho(E^{(6)}, \beta)
\label{eq:sum-to-int}\end{aligned}$$ in the second term of Eq. , which gives $$\begin{aligned}
- i \int\!dE^{(6)} K(E^{(6)}) \,
\int_0^t d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\, e^{i(E^{(5)}_{kl} - E^{(6)})(t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \,
c^{(5)}_{kl}({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})\,.
\label{eq:c5-dot-2}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have explicitly written down the time dependence of the matrix elements and introduced the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
K(E^{(6)})= \sum_\beta\, \left|{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^-(0)
{\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{kl}; E^{(6)}, \beta \rangle}}\right|^2\,\rho(E^{(6)}, \beta)\,,
\label{eq:K}\end{aligned}$$ which is a smooth (non-oscillating) function of energy. More specifically, $K(E^{(6)})$ represents a broad bump of width $\mathcal{O}(m_W)$, so that a non-negligible contribution to the energy integral in can only arise if $t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\lesssim 1/m_W$. Otherwise, the integrand is fast oscillating and the integral is strongly suppressed. Therefore, we can to a very good accuracy replace $c^{(5)}_{kl}({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})$ by $c^{(5)}_{kl}(t)$ in Eq. and pull it out of the integral over ${{\ensuremath{t_1}}}$ (we assume that $c^{(5)}_{kl}(t)$ is approximately constant over time intervals of order $1/m_W$. This assumption will be justified [*a posteriori*]{} by inspecting the obtained expression for $c^{(5)}_{kl}(t)$). For $t \gg 1/m_W$ we thus obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& - i c^{(5)}_{kl}(t) \int\!dE^{(6)} \, K(E^{(6)})
\int_0^t d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\, e^{i(E^{(5)}_{kl} - E^{(6)})(t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})}
\nonumber\\
&\simeq
-i c^{(5)}_{kl}(t) \int\!dE^{(6)} \bigg[
\pi \delta(E^{(5)}_{kl} - E^{(6)})
+ i P \bigg(\frac{1}{E^{(5)}_{kl} - E^{(6)}} \bigg)
\bigg] K(E^{(6)}) \nonumber\\
&= -i \bigg( \frac{\gamma}{2} + i \delta E \bigg) c^{(5)}_{kl}(t)\,,
\label{eq:c5-dot-3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = 2 \pi K(E^{(5)}_{kl})\,, \qquad\qquad
\delta E = P \int\!dE^{(6)} \frac{K(E^{(6)})}{E^{(5)}_{kl} - E^{(6)}}\,,
\label{eq:gamma}\end{aligned}$$ and $P$ denotes the principal value. As follows from the definition of the function $K(E)$ in Eq. and Fermi’s golden rule, $\gamma$ is just the decay width of $^3{{\rm H}}$ in the source. The quantity $\delta E$ is the mass renormalization of the particles forming ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}$. From now on, we will omit $\delta E$ and similar quantities in subsequent formulas, assuming that they are already included in the definition of the physical masses of the involved particles. The formal solution to Eq. is $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(5)}_{kl}(t) &=
- i \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\, {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})
{\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \, c^{(2)}_k({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) \label{eq:c5-1} \\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
+ (-i)^2 \sum_j \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \, c^{(3)}_{jk}({{\ensuremath{t_2}}})\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By a similar argument, we obtain from Eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
i \dot{c}^{(3)}_{jk}(t) &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_D^-(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \, c^{(1)}_j(t)
+ {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_S^+(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \, c^{(2)}_k(t)
- i \frac{\tilde{\gamma}}{2} c^{(3)}_{jk}(t)
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
- i \sum_l \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^-(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \,
c^{(5)}_{kl}({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})\,,
\label{eq:c3-dot-1}\end{aligned}$$ where the decay width of $^3{{\rm H}}$ in the detector, $\tilde{\gamma}$, has been defined in analogy with Eq. . We will now show that the last term of Eq. can be neglected. To this end, we insert in it the expression for $c^{(5)}_{kl}(t)$ from , which yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\ (-i)^2 \sum_l \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\,
|{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^-(0) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}|^2 \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{7cm} \cdot
e^{i \left(E^{(2)}_k - E^{(5)}_{kl}\right)(t - {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma ({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}- {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \, c^{(2)}_k({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) \nonumber\\
+&\ (-i)^3 \sum_l \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_3}}}\,
|{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^-(0) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}|^2 \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}
\sum_{j^\prime} {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^-({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{j^\prime kl} \rangle}} \,
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{7cm} \cdot
e^{i \left(E^{(2)}_k - E^{(5)}_{kl}\right)(t - {{\ensuremath{t_3}}})} \,
c^{(3)}_{j^\prime k}({{\ensuremath{t_3}}})\,.
\label{eq:c3-dot-2}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used Eqs. and . We will show now that the first term of Eq. can be neglected; a similar argument can be used to justify the neglect of the second term.
Replacing the index $l$ by $E^{(5)}$ and $\tilde{\beta}$ in analogy with Eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(-i)^2 \int\!dE^{(5)}\, \tilde{K}(E^{(5)})
\int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \,
e^{i \left(E^{(2)}_k - E^{(5)}\right)(t - {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma ({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}- {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \, c^{(2)}_k({{\ensuremath{t_2}}})\,,
\label{eq:c3-dot-3}\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{K}(E^{(5)})$ defined analogously to $K(E^{(6)})$. As in Eq. , the energy integral is non-negligible only if $t - {{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\lesssim 1/m_W$. We see immediately that here this condition also implies $t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\lesssim 1/m_W$. Consequently, we may pull out of the integral those terms which remain approximately constant over time intervals $\mathcal{O}(1/m_W)$, which gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\ (-i)^2 {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} c^{(2)}_k(t)
\int\!dE^{(5)}\, \tilde{K}(E^{(5)}) \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\,
e^{i \left(E^{(2)}_k - E^{(5)}\right)(t - {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \nonumber\\
\sim&\ (-i)^2 {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} {H}_S^+(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}
c^{(2)}_k(t) \frac{1}{m_W} \int\!dE^{(5)}\,
\bigg[ \pi \delta(E^{(2)}_k - E^{(5)})
+ i P \bigg(\frac{1}{E^{(2)}_k - E^{(5)}} \bigg) \bigg]
\tilde{K}(E^{(5)}) \nonumber \\
\sim&\ \mathcal{O} \bigg( \frac{\tilde{\gamma}}{m_W} \bigg),
\label{eq:c3-dot-4}\end{aligned}$$ which is negligible compared to the other terms contributing to $\dot{c}^{(3)}_{jk}(t)$ (cf. Eq. ). This result already suggests the general rule that the only transitions which may contribute sizeably to the evolution equations are those corresponding to the direct production of the states (i.e. production with a minimum number of intermediate steps), and those corresponding to direct feedback from a daughter state into its immediate parent state, e.g. from ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}}$ into ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}}$. All terms corresponding to more complicated interaction chains are negligible. One can now solve Eq. for $c^{(3)}_{jk}$: $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(3)}_{jk}(t) &=
-i\int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \, c^{(1)}_j({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
-i \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}}\,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \, c^{(2)}_k({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})\,.
\label{eq:c3-1}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we plug our expressions and for $c^{(3)}_{jk}$ and $c^{(5)}_{kl}$ into Eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
i \dot{c}^{(2)}_k(t) &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_D^-(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} c^{(i)}(t)
- i \frac{\gamma}{2} c^{(2)}_k(t)
- i \frac{\tilde{\gamma}}{2} c^{(2)}_{jk}(t)
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
- i \sum_j \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_S^-(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \, c^{(1)}_j({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})\,.
\label{eq:c2-dot-1}\end{aligned}$$ We have omitted a term containing the product of ${\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} {H}_S^- {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+ {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}}$ and thus describing the transition chain ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(6)}_{jkl} \rangle}} \rightarrow
{\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}}$, because this term can be shown to be $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\gamma} / m_W)$ by an argument similar to the one we used for Eq. . The formal solution to Eq. is $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(2)}_k(t) &=
-i \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\, {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{- \frac{1}{2} \gamma (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \, c^{(i)}({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})
\label{eq:c2-1} \\
&\hspace{-0.5cm}
+ (-i)^2 \sum_j \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_S^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \,
e^{- \frac{1}{2} \gamma (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \, c^{(1)}_j({{\ensuremath{t_2}}})\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We now proceed to Eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
i \dot{c}^{(1)}_j(t) &=
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_S^+(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} c^{(i)}(t)
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}
- i \sum_k \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_D^+(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \, c^{(1)}_j({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})\,.
\label{eq:c1-dot-1}\end{aligned}$$ The contributions coming from $c^{(2)}_k$ through the transition chain ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \rightarrow
{\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}}$ are again omitted as being $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\gamma}/m_W)$. The term containing ${\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_D^+(t) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(3)}_{jk} |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}}$ describes the direct feedback from ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}}$, but since the transition ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} \to {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(3)}_{jk} \rangle}}$ does not occur spontaneously, the corresponding decay width is zero. Indeed, when applying the Weisskopf-Wigner procedure, we see that the resulting $\delta$-function under the energy integral is zero for all allowed energies. Thus, the second term in Eq. is negligible, and the equation is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(1)}_j(t) &=
- i \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
c^{(i)}({{\ensuremath{t_1}}})\,.
\label{eq:c1-1}\end{aligned}$$ We can insert this expression, together with $c^{(2)}_k(t)$ from Eq. , into the equation for $c^{(i)}(t)$, and find $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(i)}(t) = e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma t}\,,
\label{eq:ci-1}\end{aligned}$$ up to a term suppressed by $\tilde{\gamma} / m_W$. The closed-form expressions for $c^{(1)}_j(t)$, $c^{(2)}_k(t)$, $c^{(3)}_{jk}(t)$, $c^{(5)}_{kl}(t)$, and $c^{(6)}_{jkl}(t)$ are then [$$\begin{aligned}
c^{(1)}_j(t) &=
- i \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_1}}}}\,,
\label{eq:c1-2} \\
c^{(2)}_k(t) &=
- i \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\, {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{- \frac{1}{2} \gamma t
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})}\,,
\label{eq:c2-2} \\
c^{(3)}_{jk}(t) &=
(-i)^2 \bigg[ \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_1}}}} \bigg]
\bigg[ \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \bigg]\,,
\label{eq:c3-2} \\
c^{(5)}_{kl}(t) &=
(-i)^2 \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{- \frac{1}{2} \gamma t
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} ({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}- {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})}\,,
\label{eq:c5-2} \\
c^{(6)}_{jkl}(t) &=
(-i)^3 \bigg[ \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_1}}}} \bigg]
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{2cm} \cdot
\bigg[ \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! \int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(5)}_{kl} |}} \tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} \,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} {H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}} \,
e^{- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} ({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}- {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \bigg]\,.
\label{eq:c6-1}\end{aligned}$$]{} In the expressions for $c^{(3)}_{jk}(t)$ and $c^{(6)}_{jkl}(t)$, we have used the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}= \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\int_{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. – show that all coefficients are slowly varying over time intervals of order $1/m_W$, which provides the [*a posteriori*]{} justification for pulling them out of the time integrals when applying the Weisskopf-Wigner procedure.
We have now all the ingredients required to solve for $c^{(4)}(t)$. We insert Eqs. , and into Eq. , neglect the $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\gamma}/m_W)$ contribution from the reaction chain ${\ensuremath{| \phi^{(5)}_{kl} \rangle}} \rightarrow
{\ensuremath{| \phi^{(f)}_l \rangle}} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(4)} \rangle}}$, and apply the completeness relations $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(1)}_j \rangle}} {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(1)}_j |}} = 1\,,\qquad\quad
\sum_k {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(2)}_k \rangle}} {\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(2)}_k |}} = 1\end{aligned}$$ to dispose of the sums over $j$ and $k$ and of the intermediate bra- and ket-vectors in the products of matrix elements. This leads us to the main result of this appendix, $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(4)}(t) &= (-i)^2 \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\,
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(4)} |}} \Big[
{H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_1}}})} \,
{H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_2}}}} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{5cm}
+ {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_1}}}} \,
{H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} (t - {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})}
\Big] {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}}\,.
\label{eq:c4-3}\end{aligned}$$ We see that $c^{(4)}(t)$ is given by the time-ordered product of the two interaction Hamiltonians, supplemented by the classically expected exponential decay factors. After inserting the appropriate expressions for ${H}_S^+$ and ${H}_D^-$, finally setting $\tilde{\gamma} = \gamma$ and applying the Feynman rules, Eq. leads directly to Eq. of Sec. \[sec:QFT-nat\].
For completeness, we also give the expression for $c^{(f)}_l(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(f)}_l(t) &=
(-i)^3 \int_0^t\! d{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_1}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\int_0^{{\ensuremath{t_2}}}\! d{{\ensuremath{t_3}}}{\ensuremath{\langle \phi^{(f)}_l |}} \Big[
\tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) \,
{H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} ({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}- {{\ensuremath{t_2}}})} \,
{H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_3}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_3}}}} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{5cm}
+ \tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) \,
{H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_2}}}} \,
{H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_3}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} ({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}- {{\ensuremath{t_3}}})} \,
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{5cm}
+ {H}_S^+({{\ensuremath{t_1}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma {{\ensuremath{t_1}}}} \,
\tilde{{H}}_D^+({{\ensuremath{t_2}}})
{H}_D^-({{\ensuremath{t_3}}}) e^{-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma} ({{\ensuremath{t_2}}}- {{\ensuremath{t_3}}})}
\Big] {\ensuremath{| \phi^{(i)} \rangle}}\,.
\label{eq:cf-1}\end{aligned}$$
Note that an alternative way of solving Eqs. – is to exploit the fact that, in the closed system formed by Eqs. , , , , , and , the processes in the source and those in the detector can be separated by using a product ansatz for the coefficients $c$. Once this subsystem is solved, $c^{(4)}$ and $c^{(f)}_l$ can be computed as above.
[44]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
(), .
(), .
, ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
(), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ** (, , ).
, .
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , **, vol. (, ).
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: It is also essential that the energy and momentum uncertainties of these neutrinos are of the same order.
[^2]: Since in this calculation we ignore neutrino oscillations, we also neglect the neutrino mass differences.
[^3]: The expression $\delta(E_S-E_D)$ here should be understood as a $\delta$-like function of very small width. For $|E_S - E_D|\sim 10^{-11}$ eV, the condition $T \gg (E_S-E_D)^{-1}$ would require $T\gg 10^{-4}$ s, which should be very well satisfied in any realistic experiment.
[^4]: This is also supposed to be the time at which the number of $^3$H atoms in the source is known. It is assumed that the source is created in a time interval that is short compared to the tritium mean lifetime $\gamma^{-1}=17.81$ years.
[^5]: We assume that the tritium nuclei in the source and detector have the same mean lifetime.
[^6]: Eq. yields $T\delta(E_{S,0}-E_{D,0})$ because it describes a probability rather than a rate.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Spreading the ideas and announcing new discoveries and findings in the scientific world is typically realized by publishing and reading scientific literature. Within the past few decades we have witnessed digital revolution, which moved scholarly communication to electronic media and also resulted in a substantial increase in its volume. Nowadays keeping track with the latest scientific achievements poses a major challenge for the researchers. Scientific information overload is a severe problem that slows down scholarly communication and knowledge propagation across the academia.
Modern research infrastructures facilitate studying scientific literature by providing intelligent search tools, proposing similar and related documents, building and visualizing interactive citation and author networks, assessing the quality and impact of the articles using citation-based statistics, and so on. In order to provide such high quality services the system requires the access not only to the text content of stored documents, but also to their machine-readable metadata. Since in practice good quality metadata is not always available, there is a strong demand for a reliable automatic method of extracting machine-readable metadata directly from source documents.
Our research addresses these problems by proposing an automatic, accurate and flexible algorithm for extracting wide range of metadata directly from scientific articles in born-digital form. Extracted information includes basic document metadata, structured full text and bibliography section.
Designed as a universal solution, proposed algorithm is able to handle a vast variety of publication layouts with high precision and thus is well-suited for analyzing heterogeneous document collections. This was achieved by employing supervised and unsupervised machine-learning algorithms trained on large, diverse datasets. The evaluation we conducted showed good performance of proposed metadata extraction algorithm. The comparison with other similar solutions also proved our algorithm performs better than competition for most metadata types.
Proposed method is a reliable and accurate solution to the problem of extracting the metadata from documents. It allows modern research infrastructures to provide intelligent tools and services supporting the process of consuming the growing volume of scientific literature by the readers, which results in facilitating the communication among the scientists and the overall improvement of the knowledge propagation and the quality of the research in the scientific world.
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
---
\[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{} \[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{} \[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors Prof. Marek Niezgódka and Łukasz Bolikowski for the inspiration, advice, motivation and creating a comfortable environment for research.
Next, I would like to thank my colleagues at Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling involved in the development of CERMINE system and GROTOAP datasets: Artur Czeczko, Jan Lasek, Aleksander Nowiński, Paweł Szostek, Łukasz Pawełczak, Krzysztof Rusek and Bartosz Tarnawski. I would also like to thank the colleagues at ICM, whose enlightened advice, fruitful discussions and solid debugging effort were priceless: Piotr Jan Dendek, Mateusz Fedoryszak, Marek Horst, Jakub Jurkiewicz and Mateusz Kobos.
Last but not least, this thesis would never come into existence without a tremendous amount of support and motivation I received over many years from my former colleague, friend and mentor, Sebastian Zagrodzki.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ArDM project aims at developing and operating large noble liquid detectors to search for direct evidence of Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) as Dark Matter in the Universe. The initial goal is to design, assemble and operate a $\approx$1 ton liquid Argon prototype to demonstrate the feasibility of a ton-scale experiment with the required performance to efficiently detect and sufficiently discriminate backgrounds for a successful WIMP detection. Our design addresses the possibility to detect independently ionization and scintillation signals. In this paper, we describe this goal and the conceptual design of the detector.'
address: 'Institut für Teilchenphysik, ETHZ, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- André Rubbia
title: 'ArDM: a ton-scale liquid Argon experiment for direct detection of Dark Matter in the Universe'
---
Introduction
============
Astronomical observations give strong evidence for the existence of non-luminous and non-baryonic matter, presumably composed of a new type of elementary particle. A leading candidate is the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP). If they exist, they should form a cold thermal relic gas which can be detected via elastic collisions with nuclei of ordinary matter. The detection of these WIMPs is based on the capability of measuring the recoils of target nuclei with kinetic energy in the range of $10-100$ keV. The signal is therefore quite elusive and it is a rare event given the weak coupling. Furthermore the rate is not easily predicted, since it depends on many poorly defined variables, even in the context of well defined extensions of the SM like e.g. SUSY [@kaufmann]. Nonetheless, ton-scale targets are nowadays to be contemplated in order study with high statistical power the DAMA result[@Bernabei:2004yy] or alternatively to cover large fractions of the remaining theoretical parameter space.
Within the ICARUS R&D program, it was first shown that noble liquid detectors using Xenon or Argon could act as targets for WIMP detection [@ica1; @Arneodo:2000vc]. Xenon or Argon provide a high event rate because of their high density and high atomic number and large target masses are readily conceivable. They have high scintillation and ionization yields because of their low ionization potentials. Both scintillation and ionization are measurable and can be used to very effectively discriminate between nuclear recoils and gamma/electron backgrounds.
2Lurl\#1\#2
The use of noble liquid gases to detect WIMP dark matter is currently the subject of intense R&D carried out by a number of groups worldwide[@Aprile:2005mz; @Spooner:2001br; @Brunetti:2004rk]. In these detectors, one relies on the simultaneous detection of the ionization charge and of the scintillation light produced during a nuclear recoil event. A main subject for any such detector is the method of the readout for the ionization and scintillation. Currently, the XENON[@Aprile:2005mz], ZEPLIN[@Spooner:2001br] and WARP[@Brunetti:2004rk] designs rely exclusively on photomultipliers (PMTs) for their readout. The possibility to directly detect the ionization charge is less well developed although it might provide alternative and potentially large benefits. Given the low energy thresholds necessary to efficiently detect WIMP signals, this method however requires the charge to be amplified before it is readout. While amplification is not possible in the liquid Argon phase, it can be achieved in the vapor in equilibrium on top of the liquid, although operation in this context precludes the inclusion of common avalanche quenchers, since they will condense in the liquid phase.
In 2004 we have initiated the Argon Dark Matter experiment (ArDM[^1], see 2Lurl[http://neutrino.ethz.ch/ArDM/ ]{}[http://neutrino.ethz.ch/ArDM/]{}). The goal of this project is to design, assemble and operate a bi-phase $\approx$1 ton Argon detector with independent ionization and scintillation readout, to demonstrate the feasibility of a noble gas ton-scale experiment with the required performance to efficiently detect and sufficiently discriminate backgrounds for a successful WIMP detection.
Conceptual design
=================
The choice of natural Argon for the initial ton-scale target instead of Xenon can be motivated by three arguments:\
(1) The detection energy threshold depends on the achievable performance of the light and ionization detection systems. The event rate in Argon is less sensitive to the threshold on the recoil energy than for Xenon because of form factors. For a threshold of $\approx$30 keVr, the rates on Xenon and Argon per mass are similar (See Figure \[fig:recoil\]). With such a threshold a WIMP-nucleon cross-section of 10$^{-44}$ cm$^{2}$ yields about one event per ton per day (See Figure \[fig:eventrate\]).\
(2) Argon is much cheaper than other noble gases, and we have acquired sizeable experience in the handling of massive liquid Argon detectors within the ICARUS program. A ton-scale Argon detector is hence readily conceivable, safe and economically affordable.\
(3) The scientific relevance of obtaining data on Argon and Xenon is given by the fact that recoil spectra in Xenon and Argon are different (due to kinematics), providing an important crosscheck in case of a positive signal.
![\[fig:eventrate\]Cross-section normalized to nucleon versus WIMP mass. The expected event rates for a true recoil energy threshold of 30 keVr are indicated by horizontal thick lines. With such a threshold a WIMP-nucleon cross-section of 10$^{-44}$ cm$^{2}$ yields one event per ton per day.](Canfranc-EOI-080905Fig1.eps){width="18pc"}
![\[fig:eventrate\]Cross-section normalized to nucleon versus WIMP mass. The expected event rates for a true recoil energy threshold of 30 keVr are indicated by horizontal thick lines. With such a threshold a WIMP-nucleon cross-section of 10$^{-44}$ cm$^{2}$ yields one event per ton per day.](Canfranc-EOI-080905Fig2.eps){width="18pc"}
One non-negligible drawback of natural Argon liquefied from the atmosphere is the existence of the radioactive isotope $^{39}$Ar which is a beta-emitter with a lifetime of 269 years and a value Q=565keV. Its concentration in atmospheric Argon is well known [@loosli] and will induce a background decay rate of $\approx$1 kHz in a 1ton detector. In principle, the intrinsic electron/nuclear recoil rejection provided by the ratio of the scintillation to the ionization yields, which is extremely high for nuclear recoils (i.e. WIMP events), is sufficient to suppress this background, provided this ratio can be measured precisely. This fact needs to be experimentally further understood since rejection factors exceeding $>10^9$ are needed. We intend to fully address it with our proposed 1 ton prototype, i.e. a detector of the relevant size[^2]. We are also studying other ways to obtain $^{39}$Ar-depleted targets, by using Argon extracted from well gases (extracted from underground natural gas) rather than from the atmosphere. This would provide a reduction of this background although its cost is to be estimated. On the other hand, the $^{39}$Ar decays, evenly distributed in the target, provide a precise calibration and monitoring of the detector response as a function of time and position.
![\[fig:concept\]The conceptual design of the ArDM experiment.](Canfranc-EOI-080905Fig3.eps){width="95.00000%"}
The conceptual layout of the detector is shown in Figure \[fig:concept\]. More details can be found in Ref. [@como]. A main feature is the possibility to independently detect the ionization charge and scintillation light. Following an ionizing event, ionization charges will be drifted towards the top of the detector where they will be extracted from the liquid to the gas phase. There, a Large Electron Multiplier[@LEM; @Chechik:2004wq] (LEM) system will amplify the electrons in order to produce a detectable signal. By segmenting the LEMs, an image of the event will be obtained, retaining the salient features of the ICARUS imaging technology, although with a much lower energy threshold.
Because background discrimination requires the ratio of the scintillation to the ionization yields, the primary VUV scintillation light of argon (128 nm) will be reflected by specially conceived high reflectivity mirrors made of $Al-MgF_2$ coated Mylar foils[@knecht] and located on the field shaping electrodes. The photons are detected via a light readout system located behind the transparent HV cathode. R&D efforts are under way to improve on the light collection efficiency (about 5% with PMTs), and hence on the threshold and background discrimination, by using wavelength shifters and alternative light readout systems such as avalanche photodiodes.
Charge imaging and time correlation between scintillation and charge will provide a precise localization of the event vertex (in space), hence a good fiducial volume definition, important for $\gamma$-ray and slow neutrons background rejection from surrounding elements.
The time dependence of scintillation light can be used to further discriminate between heavy recoils and other backgrounds (in addition to primary versus secondary signal).
A second feature of the experiment is the possibility to reach very high drift fields up to 5 kV/cm in order to detect an ionization signal even in the presence of highly quenched nuclear recoils as in the case of a WIMP interaction.
Outlook
=======
A natural follow-up of the use of liquid noble gases as media for detectors is the extension of their application to the direct detection of nuclear recoils induced by dark matter. We have presented our plans for the construction of a 1 ton prototype whose goal is to demonstrate the validity of our design. This goal requires a successful implementation and operation of (a) a high drift field device; (b) a LEM based charge readout; (c) a highly efficient Argon scintillation light detection system.
Given the challenging nature of the experiment which requires innovations both at the level of the detection methods and at the level of background rejection, our immediate plan is to fully design and acquire the needed equipments to setup and operate the 1 ton prototype at CERN. The operation of the prototype will involve cryogenic, LAr purification, HV system, drift volume, charge amplification + readout, and light readout. It will allow us to define and set up all the necessary equipment and infrastructure for a safe operation of the detector.
Our first milestone is a proof of principle and stability studies, and further optimization of the design for a highly efficient $\gamma$-ray and beta electron ($^{39}$Ar) rejection vs. nuclear recoils. Strong neutron shielding and stringent requirements on detector radio-purity will be fully addressed in a second phase. Assuming the successful operation of the prototype, we will consider a deep underground operation[^3]. With the assumed recoil energy threshold of 30 keVr, a WIMP-nucleon cross-section of 10$^{-42}$ cm$^{2}$ would yield 100 events per day per ton (See Figure \[fig:eventrate\]). The sensitivity expectation of the ArDM 1 ton prototype would therefore be around $\sim$10$^{-6}$ pb or better. The discovery region of the ArDM 1 ton detector, assuming that sufficiently low gamma and neutron backgrounds can be reached, would be $\sim$10$^{-8}$ pb. Its ultimate sensitivity for a year of operation would be $\sim$10$^{-10}$ pb. Scaling linearly with mass, a $\approx$10 ton detector would reach `<`10$^{-11}$ pb in a year of operation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The help of all ArDM colleagues from ETH Zürich, Granada University, CIEMAT, Soltan Institute Warszawa, and Zürich University, is greatly acknowledged. Informal contributions from P. Picchi (LNF) are also greatly recognized.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[9]{}
e.g. L. Kaufmann, Diploma thesis, ETH Zurich, March 2005, available at http://neutrino.ethz.ch/.
R. Bernabei [*et al.*]{}, [*Prepared for IDM 2004: 5th International Workshop on the Identification of Dark Matter, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, 6-10 Sep 2004*]{}
A. Benetti [*et al.*]{}, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A [**327**]{}(1993) 203.
F. Arneodo [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**449**]{} (2000) 147. E. Aprile \[The XENON Collaboration\], arXiv:astro-ph/0502279. N. Spooner, in [*Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001)* ]{} ed. N. Graf, eConf [**C010630**]{} (2001) E601. R. Brunetti [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:astro-ph/0411491. The concentration in $^{40}$Ar is 8.1x10$^{-16}$ \[H.H. Loosli, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 63 (1983) 51 and “Nachweis von $^{39}$Ar in atmosphärischem Argon” PhD thesis University Bern 1968\].
M. Messina and A. Rubbia, Talk given at 9th ICATPP conference Astroparticle, Particle, Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications, Como (Italy), October 2005.
P. Jeanneret [*et al.*]{}, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A [**500**]{}, 133 (2003).
R. Chechik, A. Breskin, C. Shalem and D. Mormann, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**535**]{}, 303 (2004) \[arXiv:physics/0404119\] and references therein. A. Knecht, Diploma thesis, ETH Zurich, August 2005, available at http://neutrino.ethz.ch/.
[^1]: ETH Zürich, Granada University, CIEMAT, Soltan Institute Warszawa, Zürich University.
[^2]: We note that achieving the required performance on small prototypes is less challenging.
[^3]: A memorandum has been sent on September 9th, 2005 to the Canfranc Scientific Committee.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract:
- 'The paper proposes a possible mechanism of interaction of microwaves with superfluid helium that results in an experimentally observed narrow peak of microwave absorption on the frequencies by the order of the roton frequency. The obtained microwave photon absorption coefficient depends on the local equilibrium distribution function which is established due to fast roton-roton and roton-phonon interactions. With the availability of superfluid flows, the local equilibrium distribution function depends on their velocity. The critical velocity of the flows, at which the absorption of microwaves is replaced by their radiation, is found. superfluid, rotons, microwaves 67.25.du, 67.30.eh, 67.25.dt'
- '=3000В роботі запропоновано механізм взаємодії надвисокочастотних хвиль із надплинним гелієм, який пояснює експериментально спостережуваний вузький пік поглинання надвисокочастотних хвиль з частотою порядку ротонної частоти. Отриманий коефіцієнт поглинання надвисокочастотних фотонів залежить від локально-рівноважної функції розподілу, яка встановлюється завдяки швидких ротон-ротонних та ротон-фононних взаємодій. При наявності надплинних потоків, локально-рівноважна функція розподілу залежить від їхньої швидкості. Отримано критичну швидкість потоків, за якої поглинання надвисокочастотних хвиль змінюється на їхнє випромінювання. надплинність, ротони, надвисокочастотні хвилі'
address:
- 'Karazin Kharkov National University, 4 Svobody Sq., 61077 Kharkov, Ukraine'
- 'Харківський національний університет ім. В.Н. Каразіна, пл. Свободи, 4, 61077 Харків, Україна '
author:
- 'V.D. Khodusov, A.S. Naumovets'
- 'В.Д. Ходусов, А.С. Наумовець'
date: 'Received July 3, 2012, in final form August 22, 2012'
title: Вплив надплинних потоків на взаємодію надвисокочастотних хвиль з Не ІІ
---
Introduction
============
The experiments aimed at the study of the absorption of microwaves in the frequency range $40\div200$ GHz in superfluid helium have produced a number of unexpected results. Thus, a resonant absorption of microwaves has been revealed in the frequencies relevant to roton energy [@3; @4; @5; @6]; in this case, a narrow absorption line near the minimum energy of rotons has been observed against the background of a wide pedestal and, what is more, the results of the measurements of temperature dependence of this narrow line correlated with the change in the minimum roton energy. Besides, the effect of the velocity of the relative motion of normal ${\bf V}_\mathrm{n}$ and superfluid ${\bf V}_\mathrm{s}$ components on the character of the resonant interaction of microwaves has been found. The microwave absorption coefficient decreased at an increase of the velocity of the relative motion. When there was an excess of some critical velocity, the absorption of waves was replaced by their radiation.Similar effects take place in plasma physics when one describes linear and nonlinear Landau attenuation of plasma waves on particles as well as the excitation of these waves by particle streams moving at the velocity higher than some critical value [@7].
These experimental results are indicative of an intensified manifestation of electric properties in helium at temperatures below . Moreover, they point out a special role, which the quasi-particles (i.e., phonons, rotons) should play in explaining these experiments. In [@9; @9a; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14], some attempts were made to theoretically explain these features. In the above works, a possible mechanism of microwave interaction with superfluid helium is proposed. It consists in taking into account the effect of its electric properties on quasi-particles and their kinetics. In the temperature range, in which the experiments were carried out ($1.4 \div 2.3$ K), rotons had a dominant role. They determined both thermodynamic and kinetic properties of He II. Fast roton-roton and roton-phonon interactions provide the establishment of a hydrodynamic regime in gas of quasi-particles. The explanation of these effects can be made if we take into account the summands in the roton energy that are linear in the electric field [@15], i.e., if one suggests that a roton has a dynamic dipole moment.
Raman scattering of electromagnetic waves from quasiparticles in He II
======================================================================
The interaction of electromagnetic waves with superfluid helium had been previously studied, both theoretically and experimentally, while describing the Raman light scattering from phonons, second sound and rotons [@16; @17; @18; @19; @20; @21]. In references [@17; @18], the two-roton scattering of light was experimentally observed. Since the roton momentum considerably exceeds (by some orders) the photon momentum (visible light and microwaves) [@19], in order to monitor the electromagnetic wave Raman scattering from rotons, it is necessary to have two rotons, which follows from the momentum conservation. Energy and momentum conservation permits a birth of two rotons by photon and photon scattering from rotons.
For the first process, the energy and momentum conservation laws are: $$\label{1conslow}
\hbar \omega_1=\hbar \omega_2+\varepsilon_3+\varepsilon_4 \, , \qquad \hbar {\bf k}_1=\hbar {\bf k}_2+{\bf p}_3+{\bf p}_4 \, ,$$ where $\omega_{1,2}$ and ${\bf k}_{1,2}$ are the frequencies and wave vectors of the incident and the reflected electromagnetic wave accordingly, $\varepsilon_{3,4}$ and ${\bf p}_{3,4}$ are the energies and the momenta of rotons, respectively. The scattering in this case occurs with the excitation of two rotons with the opposite momenta ${\bf p}_3\approx-{\bf p}_4$.
Taking into account that the roton energy is $\varepsilon=\Delta+{(p-p_0)^2}/{2\mu}$ , from one can obtain for Stokes (red) satellite: $$\label{redsatel}
\hbar (\omega_1-\omega_2)\geqslant 2\Delta+\frac{(p_3-p_0)^2}{\mu} \, ,$$ where $p_0$ is the value of a momentum, at which the energy or roton has a minimum equal to $\Delta$, $\mu$ is the effective mass of roton. The density of the number of roton energy states per a unit of volume is equal to: $$\label{density}
\rho(\varepsilon)=\frac{\sqrt{2\mu}}{4\pi^4\hbar^3}\frac{\left[p_0+\sqrt{2 \mu (\varepsilon-\Delta)}\right]^2}{\sqrt{\varepsilon-\Delta}} \, .$$ From equation it follows that the basic role in these processes is played by rotons having minimal energy $\varepsilon\approx\Delta$ . Then, as follows from equation , two-roton light absorption takes place, as observed in works [@17] and [@18]. Theoretical explanation of these experiments as well as the detection of matrix elements of photon and roton interactions are given in references [@19] and [@20]. For the second process, describing photon scattering from rotons, conservation laws of energy and momentum are: $$\label{2conslow}
\hbar \omega_1+\varepsilon_3=\hbar \omega_2+\varepsilon_4 \, , \qquad \hbar {\bf k}_1+{\bf p}_3=\hbar {\bf k}_2+{\bf p}_4 \, .$$ In contrast to the first case, here we have ${\bf p}_3\approx{\bf p}_4$.
As follows from the compatibility condition of the system , the next condition is imposed on frequencies of the incident and the reflected electromagnetic waves, for Stokes satellite: $$\label{Stokessatel}
0\leqslant \left(\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} \right)\leqslant \frac{2\left({ p}_{3} -{ p}_{0} \right)\left|{\bf k}_{1} -{\bf k}_{2} \right|+\hbar \left|{\bf k}_{1} -{\bf k}_{2} \right|^{2} }{2\mu } \, .$$
This condition, as opposed to , determines an upper limit for $\left(\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} \right)$ and shows that frequencies $\omega _{1}$ and $\omega _{2}$ are closer to each other than in the previous case. Indeed, under the conditions corresponding to those for the experiments in [@17], estimations give the following result for $p_{3} \approx p_{0} $, ${\bf k}_{1} \approx -{\bf k}_{2} $, $k_{1} \approx 10^{5}$ cm$^{-1}$: $\left(\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} \right)\approx 2\cdot 10^{6}$ s$^{-1}$. In the first case, under the same conditions, from equation we obtain $\left(\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} \right)\approx 2.27\cdot 10^{12}$ s$^{-1}$, if we take the value for the roton minimal energy at temperature $T=1.4$ K $\Delta =8.65$ K. Stokes line intensity of Raman light scattering on rotons due to the second process, as it follows from the research [@20], is $\re^{-{\Delta }/{T} } $ times less than that one due the first process. Moreover, it is in other frequency ranges (MHz). We hope that with the use of modern equipment it will be possible to detect this line in spite of small intensity. A method of resonant combinational light scattering represents a special interest in studying Raman scattering [@22]. Thus, the instances are possible when light frequency coincides with the own frequencies of elementary excitations. In this case, there is an imposition of two effects: a forced resonant excitation of quasi-particles by electromagnetic wave and photon scattering from quasi-particles. If an electromagnetic wave frequency tends to roton energy, the processes of the birth of two rotons are forbidden, as it follows from energy conservation.
The narrow resonant line and the effect of the flows
====================================================
We assume that a narrow resonant line, which is observed on the background of the pedestal (Rayleigh wings), is caused by the photons scattering from rotons. The quasi-local distribution function of rotons in this case is established in a time $1/\gamma _{r} \sim 10^{-11}$ s as: $$\label{Nfunc}
n_{r0} =\left[\exp \left(\frac{\varepsilon +{\bf p}{\bf W}}{T} \right)-1\right]^{-1}\, ,$$ where ${\bf W}={\bf V}_\mathrm{n} -{\bf V}_\mathrm{s} $ is the relative velocity.
The change in a unit of time of a number of microwave photons $\Delta N_{1}$ with energies $\hbar \omega _{1}$ due to the induced processes of scattering of photons from rotons can be written in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Nfuncspeed}
\frac{\partial \Delta N_{1} }{\partial t} &=&\Delta N_{1} \int \left|\Phi \left(1,3;2,4\right)\right| ^{2} N_{2} \left(n_{04} -n_{03} \right)\delta \left(\hbar \left(\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} \right)+\varepsilon _{3} -\varepsilon _{4} \right) \\
&\times& \delta \left({\bf p}_{4} -{\bf p}_{3} -\hbar \left({\bf k}_{1} -{\bf k}_{2} \right)\right)\frac{\rd^{3} p_{4} \rd^{3} p_{3} }{\left(2\pi \hbar \right)^{6} } \frac{\rd^{3} k_{2} }{\left(2\pi \right)^{3} }\, .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\left|\Phi \left(1,3;2,4\right)\right|$ is a matrix element of interaction of rotons and microwaves. It depends from an interaction constant, which determines the interaction between the dipole moment of rotons and the electric component of microwaves. This constant is small, because the electromagnetic field relaxation occurs during the period of an order of seconds after turning off the field [@privat]. Taking into account that the momentum of photons is much smaller than that of the rotons and ${\bf p}_3\approx{\bf p}_4$, we can write $n_{04}$ as: $$\label{nexpand}
n_{04} =n_{03}+\frac{n_{03} }{T} \left[-\hbar \left(\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} \right)+\hbar \left({\bf k}_{1} -{\bf k}_{2} \right){\bf W}\right].$$
If we try to find a solution to this equation in the form $\Delta N\sim \re^{-\gamma t} $, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{decr}
\gamma &=&-\frac{1}{T} \int \left|\Phi \left(1,3;2,4\right)\right| ^{2} n_{03} N_{2} \left[(\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} )-\left(k_{1} -k_{2} \right)W\right] \\
%
&\times &\frac{2\mu }{\left|k_{1} -k_{2} \right|\sqrt{(p_{3} -p_{0} )^{2} +2\mu \hbar (\omega _{1} -\omega _{2} )} } \frac{2\pi p_{3}^{2} \rd p_{3} }{\left(2\pi \hbar \right)^{3} } \frac{\rd^{3} k_{2} }{\left(2\pi \right)^{3} }\, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By comparing this attenuation factor with the one experimentally measured, it is possible to obtain the matrix element order estimates of interaction of microwave photons and rotons. The absorption coefficient of microwaves depends upon $\omega _{1}$. Assuming that the frequencies $\omega _{1}$, $\omega _{2}$ fall into the same range in the vicinity of the resonance, it is possible to determine the boundary conditions from : $$\frac{\Delta }{\hbar } -\frac{2\left|p_{3} -p_{0} \right|\left|k_{1} -k_{2} \right|+\hbar \left|k_{1} -k_{2} \right|^{2} }{4\mu } \leqslant \omega _{1} \leqslant \frac{\Delta }{\hbar } +\frac{2\left|p_{3} -p_{0} \right|\left|k_{1} -k_{2} \right|+\hbar \left|k_{1} -k_{2} \right|^{2} }{4\mu }\, .$$
From this relation it follows, that both the resonant frequency itself and the limiting values of the permitted frequencies of microwaves change as a function of temperature basically in the same way as the energy gap in a roton spectrum, which corresponds to the experimental results.
Besides, if ${\bf k}_{1} \approx -{\bf k}_{2} $ and $\left|p_{3} -p_{0} \right|\approx \sqrt{2\mu T} $ for the thermal rotons, the width of a resonant curve at zero intensity is defined by the expression: $$\label{width}
\Delta \omega \approx 2{\left(\sqrt{2\mu T} k_{1} +\hbar k_{1} ^{2} \right)\Big/ \mu }.$$
If $T=1.4{\rm \; }$ K, $k_{1} \approx 37.7{\rm \; }$ cm$^{-1}$, then $\Delta \omega \approx 4.7\cdot 10^{5}$ Hz. It coincides by the order of the magnitude with the one which has been observed in the experiment.
From the expression , for $\gamma $ it is obvious that there exists such a relative critical velocity $W_\mathrm{cr} $ at which $\gamma =0$. At the velocities greater than $W_\mathrm{cr} $, absorption of microwaves is replaced by their radiation. After the calculation of the remaining integral, we obtain the critical velocity: $W_\mathrm{cr} =\frac{8}{3} \frac{\hbar k_{1} }{\mu } $. Substituting the values of $k_{1} $ and $\mu $, we obtain the following value of $W_\mathrm{cr} \sim 10^{-2}$ cm/s.
Conclusions
===========
A possible mechanism of interaction between microwaves and superfluid He is proposed in the paper. The obtained microwave phonon absorption coefficient depends on the local equilibrium distribution function, which is established due to fast roton-roton and roton-phonon interactions. It is shown that the resonant line changes with the temperature similarly to the minimum roton energy. The value of the resonant line width is obtained, which is in agreement with the experimentally observed one. The local equilibrium distribution function and, correspondingly, the microwave absorption coefficient depend on the velocity of superfluid flows. There is found a critical velocity of flows at which the absorption of microwaves is replaced by their radiation.
[22]{}
Rybalko A.S., Rubets S.P., Rudavskii E.Ya., Tikhiy V.A., Tarapov S.A., Golovashchenko R.V., Derkach V.N., Phys. Rev. B, 2007, **76**, 140503(R); .
Rybalko A.S., Rubets S.P., Rudavskii E.Ya., Tikhiy V.A., Golovashchenko R.V., Derkach V.N., Tarapov S.A., Low Temp. Phys., 2008, **34**, 254; .
Rybalko A.S., Rubets S.P., Rudavskii E.Ya., Tikhiy V.A., Tarapov S.A., Golovashchenko R.V., Derkach V.N., Low Temp. Phys., 2008, **34**, 497; .
Rybalko A.S., Rubets S.P., Rudavskii E.Ya., Tikhiy V.A., Poluektov U.M., Golovashchenko R.V., Derkach V.N., Tarapov S.A., Usatenko O.V., Low Temp. Phys., 2009, **35**, 837; .
Akhiezer A.I., Akhiezer I.A., Polovin R.V., Sitenko A.G., Stepanov K.N., [Plasma Electrodynamics]{}, ed. D. ter Haar, vol. 1, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, 1975.
Kosevich A.M., Low Temp. Phys., 2005, **31**, 37; . Kosevich A.M., Low Temp. Phys., 2005, **31**, 839; .
Melnikovsky L.A., Preprint arXiv:cond-mat/0505102v3, 2006.
Natsik V.D., Low Temp. Phys., 2005, **31**, 915; .
Loktev V.M., Tomchenko M.D., Low Temp. Phys., 2008, **34**, 262; .
Woolf M., Platzmann P., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1966, **17**, 294; .
Greytak T.J., Yan J., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1969, **22**, 987; .
Greytak T.J., Woerner R., Yan J., Benjamin R., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1970, **25**, 1547; .
Halley J.W., Phys. Rev., 1969, **181**, 338; .
Stephen M., Phys. Rev., 1969, **187**, 279; .
Ginzburg V.L., Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 1943, **13**, 243.
Martin R.M., Falicov L.M., In: Light Scattering in Solids, ed. M. Cardona, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975.
Rybalko A.S. (private communication).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Pedestrian tracking has long been considered an important problem, especially in security applications. Previously, many approaches have been proposed with various types of sensors. One popular method is Pedestrian Dead Reckoning (PDR) [@Beauregard2006PedestrianDR] which is based on the inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor. However PDR is an integration and threshold based method, which suffers from accumulation errors and low accuracy. In this paper, we propose a novel method in which the sensor data is fed into a deep learning model to predict the displacements and orientations of the pedestrian. We also devise a new apparatus to collect and construct databases containing synchronized IMU sensor data and precise locations measured by a LIDAR. The preliminary results are promising, and we plan to push this forward by collecting more data and adapting the deep learning model for all general pedestrian motions.'
author:
- |
Mahdi Elhousni & Xinming Huang\
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
bibliography:
- 'bibfile1.bib'
title: Pedestrian Tracking with Gated Recurrent Units and Attention Mechanisms
---
Pedestrian, Tracking, PDR, GRU, Attention.
Introduction
============
a subject indoors is a very important challenge to solve. The first use case that comes to our mind and that motivated this research was to be able to track in real time, firefighters and first responders when they are intervening on a scene, using a lightweight and uncumbersome sensor. This becomes more complicated to solve than the classical indoor pedestrian tracking when we consider the different complex movements that they have to demonstrate in order be able to move in very damaged areas. Classical tracking methods were tuned to work well when the motion is restricted to straightforward walking. However, they fail and do not have the potential to be generalized when other movement as common as running or as original as knee-crawling or belly-crawling are demonstrated. On the other hand, a deep learning approach has this potential, because the tracking accuracy and types of motions that it will be able to track are going to be only limited by the amount and diversity of the data that it is being trained on. The way that data is being collected is also an interesting topic. Typical databases containing Stride Lengths (SL) data are usually build using one of the following methods :
- Placing labels on the ground, usually equally spaced, that the subject is supposed to step on to follow a path. This usually produces a very limited range of SLs and does not give a true representation of a free motion.
- Using a treadmill with pressure sensors, or combining it with a foot pressure sensor. This only produces straightforward walks with no change in orientation, making the data limited for tracking purposes.
- Using multiple synchronized cameras to track an object placed on the subject, in a restrained and closed indoor space. The main issue with this method is the range of the camera limits the data collection to very small space. Setting up such a setup can also be very costly.
We propose a new method to collect synchronized sensor and SL data by combining a LiDAR and an IMU. Our method gives the subject the possibility to move freely in a big indoor space so that we can produce data that will represent as close as possible a the true motions and displacements that would happen in a free movement.
Previous Work
=============
Pedestrian tracking
-------------------
### Pedestrian Dead Reckoning (PDR)
Dead Reckoning is a navigation method where one’s position is predicted and calculated using it’s precedent position, which is moved based on estimated speeds over a certain period of time. When applied to pedestrians, we obtain the main method used today to track people : Pedestrian Dead Reckoning [@Beauregard2006PedestrianDR]. Multiple variants of this method have been proposed, using different sensors and different body placements of the sensors used [@Beauregard2006AHP; @Pratama2012SmartphonebasedPD; @Kakiuchi2013PedestrianDR], however the best results are obtained by using a foot-mounted IMU [@Jimnez2009ACO]. The PDR process follows a few main steps : divide the IMU data into ’steps’ using a manually set threshold, derive the distance traveled during those steps by integrating the accelerometer data from IMU twice, derive the orientation of the subject by integrating the gyroscope data from the IMU twice, and finally combine the number of steps, distance traveled and orientations to re-construct the path of the pedestrian.
The accuracy of this method is extremely sensible to few variables such as the placement of the sensor on the foot and the selected threshold to detect steps. It also only works for a very limited range of movements : Straightforward walking. There is no way today to generalize PDR to more complex movements such as walking backwards, knee-crawling or belly-crawling, which are essential motions for firefighters and first responders for example.
### Machine Learning Approaches
Predicting Stride Lengths (SL) using IMU data and deep learning has been attracting some attention in the last years. For medical purposes, Julius Hannink et al. proposed in [@article] to use Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) to extract multiple gait parameters such as the SL or the swing and stance time, using data collected from a foot-mounted IMU, in order to detect neurological and musculoskeletal diseases affects human gait quality. This work however does not aim to track the subject and assumes a straightforward motion on a treadmill with no turns.
On the other hand, Marcus Ede et al. have proposed in [@Edel2015AnAM] a B-LSTM network to predict the SL with the objective of abandoning the double integration methods in PDR and were able to obtain impressive results. However, in order to obtain ground truth, they placed labels along a path at 50 cm evenly spaced intervals and asked the subject to step on top of the labels, which is not an accurate representation of the motions present when a human is freely walking. They also did not adress the orientation issue when tracking a subject.
Neural Networks
---------------
### Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN)
- RNN :
Recurrent Neural Networks are a type of deep learning models that were first explored by John Hopfield during the 80’s. They were designed to deal with sequential information, which makes them very suited to tasks such as handwriting recognition or speech recognition. An RNN consists of a hidden state and an optional output which operates on a variable or fixed length sequence. Here, contrary to traditional neural networks, the input and output are not independent from each other, because RNNs have a “memory” that lets them capture relevant information. Multiple variations of RNN have been proposed and tested such as Multiple Inputs RNN’s, Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) or Gated Recurrent Units (GRU).\
- GRU :
Gated Recurrent Units are type of RNN introduced by Cho et al. in [@Chung2014EmpiricalEO] which have the particularity of being able to retain information for a long time sequence. It is a gated mechanism where gating is done using the previous hidden state and the bias. GRUs contain two gates which are :
1. Update Gate : $$g_u = \sigma(W_{ux}X_t + W_{uh}h_{t-1} + b)$$
2. Reset Gate : $$g_r = \sigma(W_{rx}X_t + W_{rh}h_{t-1} + b)$$
The hidden state is calculated as follows : $$h_t = (1 - g_u).h_{t-1} + g_u.q_t$$ with $$q_t = \tanh(W_{hx}X_t + W_{hh}.(g_r.h_{t-1}) + b)$$ that let us control what we want to keep from the previous state.
GRUs were proposed as an improvement to LSTMs, which are an older gated mechanism proposed by Sepp Hochreiter et al. in [@hochreiter1997long]. They were able to achieve comparable results in Natural Language Processing [@Kumar2015AskMA; @Bansal2016AskTG] while being faster and consuming a lot less resources.
### Attention Mechanisms
Attention Mechanisms are a popular trend nowadays in Image Recognition, Neural Machine Translation and Speech Recognition tasks [@Xu2015ShowAA; @NIPS2017_7181; @NIPS2015_5847]. This mechanism allows for a more straightforward dependence between the state of the model at different points during the time sequence. It basically helps the model to “pay attention” to the most important data in the sequence. We follow the formulation proposed by Colin Raffel et al. in [@Raffel2015FeedForwardNW] where the “context” vector for the entire sequence $c$ is defined as: $$c_t = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \alpha_th_t$$ where $T$ is the total number of time steps in the input sequence. The weightings $\alpha_{t}$ can be computed by: $$e_t = a(h_t) \quad , \quad
\alpha_t = \frac{\exp(e_t)}{\sum_{k=1}^{T} \exp(e_k)}$$
As we can see, the hidden state $h_t$ is passed through a learnable function $a$ that depends on $h_{t}$ in order to produce a probability vector $\alpha$. The context vector is then computed by weighting $h_t$ with $\alpha$ and is then used to compute a new state sequence $s$ where $s_{t}$ depends also on the hidden state $h_t$. This formulation is called “Feed-Forward Attention” and it was shown that it is very efficient and performs very well when solving long-term memory problems for long sequences. This is adapted to our task because sensor data received at high frequency tends to form very long time sequences.
Problem Reformulation
=====================
In order to track the trajectory of a pedestrian, we need to have both the SL and the orientation at a given moment in time. We propose, in the context of a 2D trajectory in the $(x,y)$ plan, to decompose our prediction of the displacement d into 2 predictions: $dx$ and $dy$. By predicting $dx$ and dy instead of $d$ only, we are implicitly predicting the subjects orientation too. This method is not limited to 2D movements only, since the elevation dz can be obtained using other sensors, and thus form the full 3D trajectory in the $(x,y,z)$ plan.
Data Collection
===============
In order to collect our ground truth and construct our database, we combined a lightweight foot-strapped IMU with a 2D LiDAR. More details below.
Hardware
--------
- NGIMU ; The NGIMU is an IMU released by x-io Technologies : It was chosen because it is lightweight, compact and easily configurable. The sensors included in this unit are a triple-axis gyroscope, accelerometer, and magnetometer, as well a barometric pressure sensor and humidity sensor. The communication between the IMU and the computer was established using the OSC protocol library in python, through the Robotic Operating System (ROS) system. The sensor data is time stamped on-board when registered by the sensor, making synchronization with others sensor possible. The IMU was strapped to the foot of the subject when recording data with the z axis pointing upward and the x axis pointing forward.
- Hokuyo 2D LiDAR ; In order to register the displacement of the subject, we used a 2D Hokuyo LiDAR, namely the “Hokuyo UXM-30LAH-EWA Scanning Laser Rangefinder”. This LiDAR was chosen because of it high range of 80 meters. This gives us the possibility to track our subject over long distances while walking around in a room. It has a scan angle of 190 $^\circ$ and an average accuracy of ± 30mm. It outputs through an Ethernet 100Base-TX interface, and we used the Hokuyo ROS driver to obtain time-stamped samples.
Method
------
In order to register the displacement of the subject when walking indoors, we use a 2D LiDAR. We start by scanning the room to get a reference frame $F_0$ , before allowing the subject to start walking around with the IMU strapped to their foot. To keep track of the position of the subject, we compare the incoming frames $F_i$ from the LiDAR with the reference frame $F_0$ to see what are the points that have moved. The centroid of the points that we obtain after subtracting $F_i$ from $F_0$ represent the subjects position. We then define a constant time period of 2 seconds, and calculate the displacement during these periods by using our registered centroids positions.\
We recorded a total amount of 90 minutes of an adult pedestrian walking freely at a normal pace. We used a 250 $hz$ frequency for the IMU which amounts to more than 1 000 000 samples of the triple axis gyroscope, accelerometer and magnetometer. We also collected data for other motions such as running and standing still. However, we decided to concentrate on the walking part first, and leave multi-motions tracking for future work.
Synchronization
---------------
First, the data collected is aligned based on the timestamps attached to each sample. However, during our experiements, we noticed that the LiDAR data still suffer from a small delay. To synchronize the data further, we use a signal alignment technique based on the fact that integrating the accelerometer data once during a very small period of time guarantees that they will be no significant drift : We start by recording multiple 2 or 3 seconds of the IMU and LiDAR data where we try to produce a single spike by moving the IMU once in the field of view of the LiDAR. We then use the IMU data and LiDAR data to generate 2 velocity graphs $V_i$ and $V_l$ and use the spikes in both signals to align them. After calculating the delay value in all the recorded samples, we are able to calculate an average value of what the delay between the two sensors is, which is 3.89 ms. Fig. 1 shows one of the velocity plots used to calculate the delay average between the IMU and LiDAR.
{height="35mm" width="70mm"}
Stride Lengths Predictions
==========================
Preparing and Segmenting the Data
---------------------------------
We recorded the data in runs of 10 or 5 minutes. We always start by clipping the 3 first and last seconds of each run, which usually correspond to the periods when the subject was getting in or out of the frame of the LiDAR. We then proceed to normalize the data between $[-1,1]$ and use a sliding window to segment it in sequences of 2 seconds each. After aligning the LiDAR and IMU data, we use the time stamps to assign two label dx and dy to each of the previously segmented sequences. The final data contained in the segmented sequences is a concatenation of the data generated by the triple-axis accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer and their magnitudes.
Neural Network
==============
Our network structure consists of two stacked GRU layers [@Chung2014EmpiricalEO] , followed by a drop out layer with a ratio of 0.25. We add on top of that an Attention layer [@Raffel2015FeedForwardNW] and finally 2 dense layers, with the last layer being the final regression one with a linear activation function. We used the same network architecture to predict both $dx$ and $dy$. Both networks were implemented using Keras with a TensorFlow backend, and trained on an Nvidia Tesla K40. The networks were trained for 60 epochs, using a batch size of 5, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as a loss function and an RMSProp optimizer with a strarting learning rate of 0.001 that was decreased by a factor of 0.2 whenever the validation loss stopped improving for more than 10 epochs. The input dataset set was split into a training and validation datasets using a 0.8 split ratio. The testing dataset was not included in the input dataset. We also trained multiple variants of our network to prove the usefulness of the Attention layer. The other trained network (namely : Bilinear-LSTM [@Edel2015AnAM], GRU, 2GRU, 3GRU) followed the same training procedure and used the same data.
Table 1 shows the order and details of the different layer that were used to build our Neural Network.
**Layer** **Input** **Output**
------------------- ----------- ------------
$Input Layer$ (500,12) (500,12)
$GRU_1$ (500,12) (500,256)
$GRU_2$ (500,256) (500,256)
$Drop Out$ (500,256) (500,256)
$Attention Layer$ (500,256) (1,256)
$Dense Layer$ (1,256) (1,64)
$Dense Layer$ (1,64) (1)
: Neural Networl Layers
Results
=======
When it comes to predicitng SL for a freely moving human subject, our tests show that the proposed architecture outperforms any other variant or previously proposed network. Also the attention layer seems to make the training more stable and makes it converge faster. Our models are also very lightweight : only 8mb, and requires only 82ms to produce a prediction, making them ideal for real time deployment on embedded structures.
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 list the different MAE scores of the different networks that were trained. Our method (2GRU+ATT) is shown to have the smallest final error value on both the test and validation datasets. Our final MAE for both the $dx$ and $dy$ models are $0.19$ and $0.20$ respectively for the validation dataset, and $0.25$ and $0.24$ respectively for the testing dataset. Fig. 3 shows a qualitative comparaison of some of the plots generated after feeding the test dataset to our trained network. We are able to reproduce the path followed by the subject by combining the predictions of both the dx and dy models.
{height="45mm" width="70mm"}
{height="45mm" width="70mm"}
{height="30mm" width="41mm"} {height="30mm" width="41mm"} {height="30mm" width="41mm"} {height="30mm" width="41mm"} {height="30mm" width="41mm"} {height="30mm" width="41mm"}
**Ablation Study** : Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show a comparison between the training plots of the NN with and without the Attention Layer for both the $dx$ and $dy$ networks. We can see that the Attention Layer helps the network to be more stable while learning and makes it converge faster.
{height="40mm" width="80mm"}
{height="40mm" width="80mm"}
Conclusion
==========
The initial experimental results shows the proposed method is promising. As more data are collected for training, the prediction model has the potential to become more accurate. In its present form, it provides good estimates of dx and dy displacement when the subject moves straight. But when the subject is turning, the predictions become less accurate. This is largely owing to the fact that the turning segments in our training dataset are disproportionally less than the straight movement. In the future work, we plan to collect more data and to generalize this approach to all typical motions such as walking, running, crawling, etc. The goal is to develop a generalized deep learning model that can track pedestrians even with complex motions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present PIETOOLS, a MATLAB toolbox for the construction and handling of Partial Integral (PI) operators. The toolbox introduces a new class of MATLAB object, `opvar`, for which standard MATLAB matrix operation syntax (e.g. +, \*, ’ etc.) is defined. PI operators are a generalization of bounded linear operators on infinite-dimensional spaces that form a \*-subalgebra with two binary operations (addition and composition) on the space ${\mathbb{R}}\times L_2$. These operators frequently appear in analysis and control of infinite-dimensional systems such as Partial Differential Equations (PDE) and Time-delay systems (TDS). Furthermore, PIETOOLS can: declare `opvar` decision variables, add operator positivity constraints, declare an objective function, and solve the resulting optimization problem using a syntax similar to the sdpvar class in YALMIP. Use of the resulting Linear Operator Inequalities (LOIs) are demonstrated on several examples, including stability analysis of a PDE, bounding operator norms, and verifying integral inequalities. The result is that PIETOOLS, packaged with SOSTOOLS and MULTIPOLY, offers a scalable, user-friendly and computationally efficient toolbox for parsing, performing algebraic operations, setting up and solving convex optimization problems on PI operators.'
author:
- 'Sachin Shivakumar$^{1}$, Amritam Das$^{2}$ and Matthew M. Peet$^{1}$ [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
- 'peet\_bib.bib'
title: ' **PIETOOLS: A Matlab Toolbox for Manipulation and Optimization of Partial Integral Operators** '
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
Linear operators on finite-dimensional spaces are defined by matrices. Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMIs) provide a computational tool for analysis and control of dynamical systems in such finite dimensional spaces. Recently, the development of Partial Integral Equation (PIE) representations of PDE systems has created a framework for the extension of LMI-based methods to infinite-dimensional systems. This PIE representation encompasses a broad class of distributed parameter systems and is algebraic - eliminating the use of boundary conditions and continuity constraints [@shivakumar_2019CDC; @peet_2019TACc; @das_2019CDC]. Such PIE representations have the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{ T}} \dot{{\mathbf{ x}}}(t)+{\mathcal{ B}}_{d1}\dot w(t)+{\mathcal{ B}}_{d2}\dot u(t)&={\mathcal{ A}}{\mathbf{ x}}(t)+{\mathcal{ B}}_1w(t)+{\mathcal{ B}}_2u(t)\\
\hspace{-1cm}z(t)={\mathcal{ C}}_1{\mathbf{ x}}(t)&+{\mathcal{ D}}_{11}w(t)+{\mathcal{ D}}_{12}u(t),\\
\hspace{-1cm}y(t)={\mathcal{ C}}_2{\mathbf{ x}}(t)&+{\mathcal{ D}}_{21}w(t)+{\mathcal{ D}}_{22}u(t)
\end{aligned}$$ where the ${\mathcal{ T}}, {\mathcal{ A}}, {\mathcal{ B}}_{i}, {\mathcal{ C}}_i, {\mathcal{ D}}_{ij}$ are Partial Integral (PI) operators and have the form $$\begin{aligned}
&\left({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x\\{\mathbf{ \Phi}}\end{bmatrix}}\right)(s):= {{\begin{bmatrix}
Px + \int_{-1}^{0} Q_1(s){\mathbf{ \Phi}}(s)ds\\
Q_2(s)x +\left({\mathcal{ P}}_{\{R_i\}}{\mathbf{ \Phi}}\right)(s)
\end{bmatrix}}}.\vspace{-2mm}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&\left({\mathcal{ P}}_{\{R_i\}}{\mathbf{ \Phi}}\right)(s):= \\
&R_0(s) {\mathbf{ \Phi}}(s) +\int_{-1}^s R_1(s,\theta){\mathbf{ \Phi}}(\theta)d \theta+\int_s^0R_2(s,\theta){\mathbf{ \Phi}}(\theta)d \theta
\end{aligned}$$
PI operators, which also appear in partial-integro differential equations [@smyshlyaev2004closed], have been studied in the past [@bergman2013integral; @appell2000partial; @gohberg2013classes], extensively. PI operators are integral operators on the joint space of finite dimensional vectors and square integrable functions. Similar to matrices, PI operators are closed under the algebraic operations of addition, concatenation, composition and adjoint. As a result, LMIs developed for analysis and control of finite-dimensional systems can be generalized to LOIs defined by variables of the `opvar` class. For example, consider the LMI for optimal observer synthesis of singular systems: find $P\succ0$ and $Z$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\begin{bmatrix} -\gamma I&- D_{11}^*&-({P}{B}+ZD_{21})^T T\\
(\cdot)^T&-\gamma I& C_1\\
(\cdot)^T&(\cdot)^T&(\cdot)^T+ T^T({P}{A}+ZC_2)\end{bmatrix}} \prec0
\end{aligned}$$
This LMI can be generalized to an LOI [@das_2019CDC]: Find ${\mathcal{ P}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q \\ Q^T,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}\succ 0$ and ${\mathcal{ Z}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} Z_1,& \hspace{-3mm}\emptyset \\ Z_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{\emptyset\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{\begin{bmatrix} -\gamma I&-{\mathcal{ D}}_{11}^*&-({\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ B}}+{\mathcal{ ZD}}_{21})^*{\mathcal{ T}}\\
(\cdot)^*&-\gamma I&{\mathcal{ C}}_1\\
(\cdot)^*&(\cdot)^*&(\cdot)^*+{\mathcal{ T}}^*({\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ A}}+{\mathcal{ ZC}}_2)\end{bmatrix}} \prec0
\end{aligned}$$
The goal of PIETOOLS is to create a convenient parser for constructing and solving LOIs of this form. To this end, PIETOOLS incorporates all elements typically used for constructing LMIs in the commonly used LMI parser YALMIP [@Lofberg2004]. Specifically, PIETOOLS can be used to: declare PI operators; declare PI decision variables; manipulate PI objects via addition, multiplication, adjoint, and concatenation; add inequality constraints; set an objective function; and solve an LOI.
Significantly, PIETOOLS also includes scripts for conversion of linear TDS and coupled ODE-PDE models into PIEs. Currently, executives are also included for stability analysis, $H_\infty$-gain analysis, $H_\infty$-optimal controller synthesis, and $H_\infty$-optimal observer synthesis. These Demo files and PIETOOLS itself are distributed as a free, third party MATLAB toolbox and are available online at [@toolbox:pietools].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:note\], we introduce the standard notation utilized in the paper, followed by formal definition of Partial-Integral (PI) operators in Section \[sec:def\] followed by a demonstration of MATLAB implementation of the toolbox in Section \[sec:demo\]. In the appendix, we briefly discuss algebraic operations related to PI operators which allow us to solve operator valued tests.
Notation {#sec:note}
========
$\mathbb{S}^m\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ is the set symmetric matrices. For a normed space $X$, define $L_2^n[X]$ as the Hilbert space of square integrable ${\mathbb{R}}^n$-valued functions on $X$ with inner product $\langle x,y \rangle_{L_2} = {\int_{a}^{b}}x(s)^{\top} y(s) ds$. The Sobolov spaces are denoted $W^{q,n}[X]:=\{x\in L_2^n[X] \mid \frac{\partial^k x}{\partial s^k}\in L_2^n[X] \text{ for all }k\le q \}$ with the standard Sobolov inner products. For a given inner product space, $Z$, the operator ${\mathcal{ P}}:Z\to Z$ is positive semidefinite (denoted ${\mathcal{ P}}\succcurlyeq 0$) if ${\left\langle{z},{{\mathcal{ P}}z}\right\rangle}_Z\ge 0$ for all $z\in Z$. Furthermore, we say ${\mathcal{ P}}:Z\to Z$ is coercive if there exists some $\epsilon>0$ such that ${\left\langle{z},{{\mathcal{ P}} z}\right\rangle}_Z \geq \epsilon \Vert z \Vert_Z^2$ for all $z \in Z$. The partial derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial s}{\mathbf{ x}}$ is denoted as ${\mathbf{ x}}_s$. Identity matrix of dimension $n\times n$ is denoted by $I_n$.
PI Operators And PI-operator valued optimization problems {#sec:def}
=========================================================
Linear operators mapping between finite-dimensional spaces can be parametrized using matrices. Partial Integral operators (here onwards referred to as PI operators) are a generalization of a linear mapping between infinite-dimensional spaces, specifically a map from ${\mathbb{R}}^m\times L_2^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^p\times L_2^q$. These operators are frequently encountered in analysis and control of PDEs or TDSs.
We define two class of PI-operators, 3-PI and 4-PI, where 3-PI operators are a special case of 4-PI operators. As the nomenclature insinuates, 3-PI operators, denoted as ${{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{N_i\}}}:L_2^m[a,b]\to L_2^n[a,b]$, are parameterized by 3 matrix-valued functions $N_0: [a,b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times m}$ and $N_1, N_2: [a,b]\times[a,b] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$ which is a bounded linear operator between two normed spaces $L_2^m[a,b]$ and $L_2^n[a,b]$ endowed with standard $L_2$ inner product. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3pi}
&\Big({{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{N_i\}}}{\mathbf{ y}}\Big)(s) = N_0(s){\mathbf{ y}}(s)+ \int_a^s N_1(s,{\ensuremath{\theta}}){\mathbf{ y}}({\ensuremath{\theta}})d{\ensuremath{\theta}}\notag\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+ \int_s^b N_2(s,{\ensuremath{\theta}}){\mathbf{ y}}({\ensuremath{\theta}})d{\ensuremath{\theta}}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, 4-PI operators, parameterized by 4 components, are bounded linear operators between ${\mathbb{R}}^m\times L_2^n[a,b]$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^p\times L_2^q[a,b]$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4pi}
&{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x\\{\mathbf{ y}}\end{bmatrix}}(s) = {\begin{bmatrix} Px + \int_{a}^{b}Q_1(s){\mathbf{ y}}(s)ds\\Q_2(s)x+{{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{R_i\}}}{\mathbf{ y}} (s)\end{bmatrix}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $P:{\mathbb{R}}^m\to{\mathbb{R}}^p$, $Q_1:[a,b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{p\times n}$, $Q_2:[a,b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{q\times m}$ and ${{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{R_i\}}}:L_2^n[a,b]\to L_2^q[a,b]$.
These operators frequently appear in control-related applications for linear TDS or coupled ODE-PDE systems. Linear TDS or coupled ODE-PDE systems with boundary conditions can be rewritten using PI operators (see [@shivakumar_2019CDC]). Stability test of such a system gives rise to an operator-valued feasibility test, as shown below.
\[ex:fea\]\
Test for the stability of a coupled ODE-PDE system, whose dynamics are governed by the equation, in PI format, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ODE-PDE}
{\mathcal{ H}} \dot{{\mathbf{ x}}} = {\mathcal{ A}} {\mathbf{ x}}
\end{aligned}$$ can be posed as an operator-valued feasibility test, shown below. $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Find}, ~{\mathcal{ P}} \succ0, ~s.t.\\
&{\mathcal{ A}}^*{\mathcal{ PH}}+{\mathcal{ H}}^*{\mathcal{ PA}} \preccurlyeq 0
\end{aligned}$$
If there exists a self-adjoint coercive PI operator ${\mathcal{ P}}$, which satisfies the given constraints, then the system governed by Eq. , is stable.
Another application of interest is finding the ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-norm of a coupled ODE-PDE system. This can be posed as an optimization problem minimizing the $L_2$ gain bound from inputs to outputs.
\[ex:opt\]\
Finding ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-norm, $\gamma$, of a coupled ODE-PDE system whose dynamics are governed by the equation in PI format shown below $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ODE-PDE-hinf}
{\mathcal{ H}} \dot{{\mathbf{ x}}} &= {\mathcal{ A}} {\mathbf{ x}} + {\mathcal{ B}}u,\notag\\
y &= {\mathcal{ C}}{\mathbf{ x}}+{\mathcal{ D}}u,
\end{aligned}$$ can be posed as the following optimization problem. $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{minimize} ~\gamma, ~s.t.\\
&{\mathcal{ P}} \succ0,\\
&{\begin{bmatrix} -\gamma I&{\mathcal{ D}}^*&{\mathcal{ B}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ H}}\\{\mathcal{ D}}&-\gamma I&{\mathcal{ C}}\\ {\mathcal{ H}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ B}}&{\mathcal{ C}}^*&{\mathcal{ A}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ H}}+{\mathcal{ H}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ A}}\end{bmatrix}}\preccurlyeq 0
\end{aligned}$$
Although the examples provided here are control-oriented, PIETOOLS is capable of solving other operator-valued feasibility or convex optimization problems, as described in Section \[sec:demo\].
Declaration and Manipulation of `opvar` Objects {#sec:opvar}
===============================================
PIETOOLS introduces the structured `opvar` class of MATLAB object, each element of which consists of a PI operator ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}:{\mathbb{R}}^m\times L_2^n[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}^p\times L_2^q[a,b]$. The structural elements of an `opvar` object are listed in Table \[tab:parameters\]. The elements $P$, $Q1$, $Q2$, $R.R0$, $R.R1$, and $R.R2$ are themselves of the `pvar` class of polynomial introduced in the MULTIPOLY toolbox. Note that the MULTIPOLY toolbox is included in PIETOOLS toolbox, along with a modified version of SOSTOOLS. For this reason, the PIETOOLS path should take precedence over any path containing a preexisting version of MULTIPOLY or SOSTOOLS. In the solvers distributed with PIETOOLS, this is ensured by executing the Matlab command `addpath(genpath(’.’))` from a file within the PIETOOLS directory.
---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Property** **Value**
\[0.5ex\] var1, var2 A `pvar` object
P A matrix with dimensions $p\times m$
Q1 A matrix-valued `pvar` object in var1 with dimensions $p\times n$
Q2 A matrix-valued `pvar` object in var1 with dimensions $q\times m$
R.R0 A matrix-valued `pvar` object in var1 with dimensions $q\times n$
R.R1, R.R2 A matrix-valued `pvar` object in var1 and var2 with dimensions $q\times n$
I A vector with entries `[a,b]`
dim A matrix with values `[p,m;q,n]`
---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: List of properties in `opvar` class and their description
\[tab:parameters\]
`opvar` variables can be defined in MATLAB in two ways. The first method is directly using the `opvar` command, which is used to define opvar objects with known properties. The other method is by declaring an `opvar` decision variable - as described in Section \[sec:vars\].
The command `opvar` takes in string inputs and initializes them as symbolic opvar objects with default properties. These properties can be modified using standard MATLAB assignment. The following code snippet demonstrates a simple example.
&`>> opvar P1 P2;`&\
&`>> P1.I = [0 1];`&\
&`>> P1.P = rand(2,2); P1.Q1 = rand(2,1);`&
The above code snippet would create two `opvar` variables `P1` and `P2` with default values. Next, the interval of `P1` is changed to $[a,b]$. Finally, components $P$ and $Q_1$ are reassigned with random matrices of stated dimensions. This makes `P1` a PI operator mapping ${\mathbb{R}}^2\times L_2[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$.
In addition to defining a new class, PIETOOLS overloads MATLAB operators such as `+, *` and `’` to simplify manipulation of PI-operators. Addition, as defined in Lem. \[lem:add\], of two `opvar` class objects `P1` and `P2` is performed by using the MATLAB operator `+` as shown below.
&`>> P1+P2`&
Composition (see Lem. \[lem:comp\]) of two `opvar` objects `P1` and `P2` uses `*`.
&`>> P1*P2`&
The adjoint operation (see Lem. \[lem:adj\]) of an `opvar` class object `P1` has been assigned to `’` can be computed using the following MATLAB syntax.
&`>> P1’`&
Horizontal and vertical concatenation of `opvar` class objects, `P1` and `P2`, with compatible dimensions can be done using the following two commands, respectively.
&`>> [P1 P2]`&\
&`>> [P1;P2]`&
The above code, returns a new PI-operator stacked in the given order.
Declaring `opvar` Decision Variables {#sec:vars}
====================================
Predefined `opvar` objects can be input using the syntax as described in Section \[sec:opvar\]. In addition, PIETOOLS can be used to set up and solve optimization problems with `opvar` decision variables. Before declaring `opvar` variables, the optimization problem structure must be initialized. This process is inherited from the SOSTOOLS toolbox and consists of the following syntax.\
`>>T = sosprogram([s,th],gam);`\
Here `s`, `th`, and `gam` are `pvar` objects. The structured object `T` carries an accumulated list of variables and constraints and must be passed whenever an additional variable or constraint is declared. The commands `sos_opvar` and `sos_posopvar` both declare `opvar` objects with unknown parameters. The latter function adds the constraint that the associated PI operator be positive. The syntax for both functions are listed as follows.
`sos_opvar`
-----------
&`>> [T,P] = sos_opvar(T,dim,I,s,th,deg);`&
Indefinite `opvar` decision variables can be defined using the `sos_opvar` command. This function has six required inputs:
1. An empty or partially complete problem structure `T` to which to add the variable;
2. A length two vector `I=[a,b]`, indicating the spatial domain of the operator;
3. Two `pvar` objects `s` and `th`, corresponding to the `pvar` objects declared in `sosprogram` when `T` was initialized;
4. A $2\times 2$ matrix `dim=[p m; q n]`, indicating the dimension of domain and range of the operator; Note that when $q=n=1$, the decision variable is a matrix.
5. A length 3 vector `deg=[d1,d2,d3]`, indicating the degrees of the monomial bases $Z_{1}(s)$ and $Z_{2}(s,th)$ used to construct an `opvar` object, used to parameterize the operator - as detailed in Appendix E. Here `d1` is the highest degree of $s$ in $Z_{1}(s)$, `d2` is the highest degree of `s` in $Z_{2}(s,th)$ and `d3` is the highest degree of $th$ in $Z_{2}(s,th)$.
`sos_posopvar` returns an `opvar` object `P` corresponding to an operator ${\mathcal{ P}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P.P,& \hspace{-3mm}P.Q1 \\ P.Q2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{P.R.R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$ that maps from ${\mathbb{R}}^m\times L_2^n[a,b]$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^m\times L_2^n[a,b]$ and the problem structure `T` to which the variable has been appended.
`sos_posopvar`
--------------
&`>> [T,P] = sos_posopvar(T,dim,I,s,th,deg);`&
Positive semi-definite `opvar` decision variables can be defined using the `sos_posopvar` command. This function has six required inputs:
1. An empty or partially complete problem structure `T` to which to add the variable;
2. A length two vector `I=[a,b]`, indicating the spatial domain of the operator;
3. Two `pvar` objects `s` and `th`, corresponding to the `pvar` objects declared in `sosprogram` when `T` was initialized;
4. A $2\times 1$ vector `dim=[m; n]`, indicating the dimension of domain and range of the operator. Note that when $n=0$, this becomes a standard positive matrix variable.
5. A cell structure `deg={d1,[d2,d3]}`, indicating the degrees of the monomial bases $Z_{d1}(s)$ and $Z_{d2}(s,th)$ used to construct a positive `opvar` object, used to parameterize the operator - as detailed in Appendix D. Here `d1` is the highest degree of $s$ in $Z_{d1}(s)$, `d2` is the highest degree of `s` in $Z_{d2}(s,th)$ and `d3` is the highest degree of $th$ in $Z_{d2}(s,th)$.
`sos_posopvar` returns an `opvar` object `P` corresponding to an operator ${\mathcal{ P}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P.P,& \hspace{-3mm}P.Q1 \\ P.Q2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{P.R.R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$ that maps from ${\mathbb{R}}^m\times L_2^n[a,b]$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^m\times L_2^n[a,b]$ and the problem structure `T` to which the variable has been appended. The functions $P.P$, $P.Q1$, $P.Q2$, $P.R.R_i$ are constrained, as described in Theorem \[th:pos\], such that ${\mathcal{ P}}$ is a positive semidefinite operator.
Constraining `opvar` Class Objects And Solving An Optimization Problem
======================================================================
In addition to declaring `opvar` objects with unknown variables by using `sos_opvar` or `sos_posopvar`, the user can add equality constraints or operator positivity constraints to a problem structure.
`sos_opineq`
------------
&`>> T = sos_opineq(T,P);`&
`sos_opineq` adds an operator inequality constraint of the form ${\mathcal{ P}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P.P,& \hspace{-3mm}P.Q1 \\ P.Q2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{P.R.R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}\ge 0$ to a problem structure `T`. The function has two required inputs: a problem structure `T` to which to append the constraint; and an `opvar` structure `P` which is constrained to be positive semidefinite in the augmented problem structure `T` returned by the function.
`sos_opeq`
----------
&`>> T = sos_opeq(T,P);`&
`sos_opeq` adds an operator equality constraint of the form ${\mathcal{ P}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P.P,& \hspace{-3mm}P.Q1 \\ P.Q2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{P.R.R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}= 0$ to a problem structure `T`. The function has two required inputs: a problem structure `T` to which to append the constraint; and an `opvar` structure `P` which is constrained to be zero in the augmented problem structure `T` returned by the function.
To illustrate usage,
&`>> T = sos_opeq(T,P2-P1);`&
imposes the constraint `P2=P1` where `P1` and `P2` are `opvar` objects.
Defining the objective via `sossetobj`
--------------------------------------
Solving optimization problems using PIETOOLS, as introduced in Section \[sec:vars\], may require specification of an objective. This is done by using `sossetobj` function inherited from SOSTOOLS.
&`>>T = sossetobj(T,gam);`&
`sossetobj` adds the objective function `gam` to the problem structure `T`. There are two necessary inputs: The scalar `pvar` object `gam` object which is to be the minimized and the problem structure `T` to which the objective is to be added .
Solving the optimization problem
--------------------------------
Once all elements of the optimization problem have been added to the problem structure `T`, the problem can be solved by using the function `sossolve`, inherited from SOSTOOLS and which requires an instance of SeDuMi available in the Matlab path.
&`>>T = sossolve(T);`&
`sossolve` has a single input which is an ‘unsolved’ problem structure `T`. The function returns the problem structure in a ‘solved’ state. Data on the solution can now be obtained from the problem structure. For more details on `sossetobj` and `sossolve` we refer to the most recent SOSTOOLS documentation in [@papachristodoulou2013sostools].
`sosgetsol_opvar`
-----------------
After execution of `sossolve`, optimal values of the real-valued decision variables may be extracted from the problem structure using the command `sosgetsol`, as described in the SOSTOOLS documentation. To extract a feasible `opvar` decision variable, the `sosgetsol_opvar` function may be used.
&`>>P = sosgetsol_opvar(T,P);`&
`sosgetsol_opvar` This function takes necessary inputs: a solved optimization problem structure `T` and the name of the `opvar` decision variable `P` whose solution is to be retrieved. The function returns an `opvar` object with no decision variables. This object may be manipulated further or used in the definition of a new problem structure. problem structures in the ‘solved’ state cannot be re-used.
------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Function** **Description**
\[0.5ex\] opvar Creates default opvar object with given names
+ Adds two opvar objects
\* Composes two opvar objects
’ Transposes an opvar object
sos\_opvar Returns opvar variable of given dimensions
sos\_posopvar Returns a self-adjoint, opvar variable which is constrained to be positive semidefinite
sos\_opeq Takes an input opvar variable, P, and adds the constraint P = 0
sos\_opineq Takes an input opvar variable, P, and adds the constraint P $\ge$ 0
sosgetsol\_opvar Returns the value of an opvar decision variable after solving the optimization problem
------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: List of functions for `opvar` class and their description
\[tab:functions\]
PIETOOLS scripts for analysis and control PDEs and Systems with Delay
=====================================================================
As described in the Section \[sec:intro\], PDEs and Delay Systems admit PIE representations which can be used to test for stability, find the ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-norm or design the ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-optimal observers and controllers - See [@shivakumar_2019CDC]. PIETOOLS includes the scripts `solver_PIETOOLS_PDE` and `solver_PIETOOLS_TDS`, which take input parameters as described in the header of the file and constructs to the corresponding PIE representation using the script `setup_PIETOOLS_PDE` or `setup_PIETOOLS_TDS`. Once converted to PIE form, the solver file calls one of the following executives based on the user input.
1. `executive_PIETOOLS_stability`: This executive is called if the user sets `stability=1` in the solver file. This tests if the PDE or TDS in PIE form is stable.
2. `executive_PIETOOLS_Hinf_gain`: This executive is called if the user sets `Hinf_gain=1` in the solver file. The executive returns a bound on the ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-gain of the PDE or TDS in PIE form.
3. `executive_PIETOOLS_Hinf_estimator`: This executive is called if the user sets `Hinf_estimator=1` in the solver file. The executive searches for an ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-optimal observer for the PDE or TDS in PIE form.
4. `executive_PIETOOLS_Hinf_controller`: This executive is called if the user sets `Hinf_control=1` in the solver file. The executive searches for an ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-optimal controller for the PDE or TDS in PIE form.
For example, consider the stability test for a linear PDE system using PIETOOLS.
Solution, $u$, of a tip-damped wave equation is governed by $$\begin{aligned}
u_{tt}(s,t) = u_{ss}(s,t),\quad u(0,t)=0, \quad u_s(1,t)=-ku_t(1,t).
\end{aligned}$$ With a simple change of variable, this can be converted to two PDEs first-order differential in time $$\begin{aligned}
&{\begin{bmatrix} u_1\\u_2\end{bmatrix}}_t(s,t) = {\begin{bmatrix} 0~1\\1~0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix} u_1\\u_2\end{bmatrix}}_s(s,t), \\
&u_2(0,t)=0, ~u_1(1,t)=-ku_2(1,t)
\end{aligned}$$ where $u_1 = u_s$ and $u_2 = u_t$.
To test for stability of this system, we seclare the parameters `a,b,A1,B` as follows in the file `solver_PIETOOLS_PDE` and set `stability=1`.
&`a=0; b=1;`&\
&`A1 = [0,1;1,0]; B = [0,1,0,0;0,0,k,1]`&
Solving Optimization Problems Using PIETOOLS - A Summary
========================================================
As discussed in section \[sec:def\], PIETOOLS can solve feasibility tests or optimization problems involving `opvar` decision variables and equality/inequality constraints. This section provides a brief outline of the steps necessary for setting up and solving such an optimization problem.
Recall from Example \[ex:opt\] that to find ${\ensuremath{H_{\infty}}}$-norm of the system defined by Eqn. we may solve the following optimization problem. $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{minimize} ~\gamma, ~s.t.\\
&{\mathcal{ P}} \succ0,\\
&{\begin{bmatrix} -\gamma I&{\mathcal{ D}}^*&{\mathcal{ B}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ H}}\\{\mathcal{ D}}&-\gamma I&{\mathcal{ C}}\\ {\mathcal{ H}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ B}}&{\mathcal{ C}}^*&{\mathcal{ A}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ H}}+{\mathcal{ H}}^*{\mathcal{ P}}{\mathcal{ A}}\end{bmatrix}}\preccurlyeq 0
\end{aligned}$$ To solve this optimization problem using PIETOOLS, the following steps are necessary.
1. Define `pvar` objects.
&`pvar s,th,gam;`&
2. Initialize a problem structure.
&`T = sosprogram([s,th],gam);`&
3. Define relevant `opvar` data-objects.
&`opvar A,B,C,D,H;`&\
&`A=..;B=..;C=..;,D=..;H=..;`&
4. Add decision variables to the problem structure.
&`[T,P] = sos_posopvar(T,dim,I,s,th);`&
5. Add constraints to the problem structure.
&`D = [-gam*I D’ B’*P*H;`&\
&` D -gam*I C;`&\
&` H’*P*B C’ A’*P*H+H’*P*A];`&\
&`T = sosopineq(T,D);`&
6. Add an objective to the problem structure (minimize `gam`).
&`T = sossetobj(T,gam);`&
7. Solve the completed problem structure.
&`T = sossolve(T);`&
8. Extract the solution to the ‘solved’ problam.
&`P_s = sosgetsol_opvar(T,P);`&
Demonstrations of PIETOOLS Usage {#sec:demo}
================================
In this section, a few simple examples are presented to demonstrate the use of PIETOOLS. Apart from control-related applications, described in previous sections, users can set up and solve other convex optimization problems that involve `opvar` variables. For instance, one can: find a tight upper bound on the induced norm of a PI operator - operators which appear in e.g. the backstepping transformation [@krstic2008boundary] and input-output maps of non-linear ODEs [@feijoo2005associated]. Such bounds on the induced norm are obtained as follows.
Find the $L_2$ induced operator norm for Volterra integral operator $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{ A}}x)(s) = \int_{0}^{s} x(t) dt.
\end{aligned}$$
The operator ${\mathcal{ A}}$ is a 4-PI operator with $R_1=1$ and all other elements $0$. The $L_2$ induced operator norm is defined as $min \{\sqrt{\gamma}\mid {\left\langle{{\mathcal{ A}}x},{{\mathcal{ A}}x}\right\rangle}\leq \gamma {\left\langle{x},{x}\right\rangle}, \forall x\in L_2[a,b]\}$. The corresponding optimization problem is $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{min} ~\gamma, s.t.\\
&{\mathcal{ A}}^*{\mathcal{ A}}\leq \gamma.
\end{aligned}$$ Start by defining relevant pvar and `opvar` objects.
&`>> pvar s th gam;`&\
&`>> opvar A; A.R.R1 = 1;`&
Next, initialize a problem structure with $s$, $th$ and $gam$ as `pvar` objects. $gam$ is the objective to be minimized.
&`>> prog = sosprogram([s,th],[gam]);`&\
&`>> prog = sossetobj(prog,gam);`&
Next, add the opvar inequality constraint using the `sos_opineq` function.
&`>> prog = sos_opineq(prog, A’*A-gam);`&
Finally, the problem can be solved and solution extracted using the following commands.
&`>> prog = sossolve(prog);`&\
&`>> Gam = sosgetsol(prog, gam);`&\
&`>> disp(sqrt(Gam));`&\
&`ans =`&\
&` 0.6366`&
The numerical value of $.6366$ obtained from PIETOOLS can be compared to the analytical value of the induced norm of this operator norm which is known to be $\frac{2}{\pi}\approx 0.6366$.
PIETOOLS can also be used to provide certificates of positivity for integral inequalities.
Poincare’s Inequality states that there exists a constant $C$ such that for every function $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ (where $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ is the Sobolev space of zero-trace functions) we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\Vert u\Vert}_{L_p(\Omega)}\leq C {\Vert \nabla u\Vert}_{L_p(\Omega)}
\end{aligned}$$ where $1\leq p < \infty$ and $\Omega$ is a bounded set. This can be rewritten as an optimization problem. $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{min} ~C, s.t.\\
&{\left\langle{u},{u}\right\rangle} - C{\left\langle{u_s},{u_s}\right\rangle}\leq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ For $p=2$ and $\Omega = [0,1]$, it known that for functions $u\in W^{2,2}_0(\Omega)$ with the boundary conditions $u(0)=u(1)=0$ the smallest $C= 1/\pi$. Numerical calculation of this constant $C$ can be reformulated as a PI optimization problem as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{min} ~C, s.t.\\
&{\mathcal{ H^*H}}-C{\mathcal{ H}}_2^*{\mathcal{ H}}_2\leq 0\\
& ({\mathcal{ H}}u) (s) = {\int_{a}^{s}} (s{\ensuremath{\theta}}-{\ensuremath{\theta}}) u({\ensuremath{\theta}})d{\ensuremath{\theta}}+ {\int_{s}^{b}} (s{\ensuremath{\theta}}-s) u({\ensuremath{\theta}})d{\ensuremath{\theta}}\\
&({\mathcal{ H}}_2 u)(s) ={\int_{a}^{s}} {\ensuremath{\theta}}u({\ensuremath{\theta}})d{\ensuremath{\theta}}+ {\int_{s}^{b}} ({\ensuremath{\theta}}-1) u({\ensuremath{\theta}})d{\ensuremath{\theta}}\end{aligned}$$
The set up and solution of this PI optimization problem using PIETOOLS is as follows.
&`pvar s t C;`&\
&`opvar H; H.R.R1 = s*t-t; H.R.R2 = s*t-s;`&\
&`opvar H2; H2.R.R1 = t; H2.R.R2 = t-1;`&\
&`prog = sosprogram([s,t],C);`&\
&`prog = sossetobj(prog,C);`&\
&`prog = sos_opineq(prog, H’*H-C*H2’*H2);`&\
&`prog = sossolve(prog);`&
When implemented, this code returns a smallest bound of $C=.3183$
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have provided a guide to the new MATLAB toolbox PIETOOLS for manipulation and optimization of PI operators. We have provided details on declaration of PI operator objects, manipulation of PI operators, declaration of PI decision variables, addition of operator equality and inequality constraints, solution of PI optimization problems, and extraction of feasible operators. We have demonstrated the practical usage of PIETOOLS, including scripts for analysis and control of PDEs and systems with delay, as well as bounding operator norms and proving integral inequalities. These examples and descriptions illustrate both the syntax of available features and the necessary components of any PIETOOLS script. Finally, we note that PIETOOLS is still under active development. Ongoing efforts focus on identifying and balancing the degree structures in `sos_opineq`
ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by Office of Naval Research Award N00014-17-1-2117 and National Science Foundation under Grants No. 1739990 and 1935453.
Set of PI operator is a \*-subalgebra with two binary operations (addition and composition), i.e., it is a \*-ring with the involution also being an associative subalgebra. This allows operations such as addition, composition, concatenation, and adjoint to be performed in a manner similar to matrices. All these operations result in another PI operator. In this appendix we give the analytic expressions for these operations which are then embedded in operations on the opvar class.
Addition {#sec:alg}
--------
\[lem:add\] For any matrices $A,P\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ and bounded functions $B_1, Q_1: [a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$, $B_2, Q_2: [a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times m}$, $C_0,R_0:[a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$, $C_i,R_i:[a, b]\times [a, b] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$, the following identity holds. $${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} A,& \hspace{-3mm}B_1 \\ B_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{C_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}+{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} L,& \hspace{-3mm}M_1 \\ M_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{N_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P&=A+L, \hat Q_i(s)=B_i+M_i, R_i=C_i+N_i.
\end{aligned}$$
PI operators are linear, and the proof is fairly straightforward. A brief outline of the proof is provided below. Consider, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x\\{\mathbf{ y}}(s)\end{bmatrix}}\\
&= {\begin{bmatrix} Px + \int_{a}^{b}Q_1(s){\mathbf{ y}}(s)ds\\Q_2(s)x+{{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{R_i\}}}{\mathbf{ y}} (s)\end{bmatrix}}\\
&= {\begin{bmatrix} (A+L)x + \int_{a}^{b}(B_1+M_1)(s){\mathbf{ y}}(s)ds\\(B_2+M_2)(s)x+({{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{C_i\}}}+{{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{N_i\}}}){\mathbf{ y}}(s)\end{bmatrix}}\\
&= {\begin{bmatrix} Ax + \int_{a}^{b}B_1(s){\mathbf{ y}}(s)ds\\B_2(s)x+{{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{C_i\}}}{\mathbf{ y}} (s)\end{bmatrix}}+{\begin{bmatrix} Lx + \int_{a}^{b}M_1(s){\mathbf{ y}}(s)ds\\M_2(s)x+{{\mathcal{ P}}_{\{N_i\}}}{\mathbf{ y}} (s)\end{bmatrix}}\\
&= {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} A,& \hspace{-3mm}B_1 \\ B_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{C_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x\\{\mathbf{ y}}(s)\end{bmatrix}}+{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} L,& \hspace{-3mm}M_1 \\ M_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{N_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x\\{\mathbf{ y}}(s)\end{bmatrix}}
\end{aligned}$$
Adjoint
-------
\[lem:adj\] For any matrices $P\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ and bounded functions $Q_1: [a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$, $Q_2: [a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times m}$, $S:[a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$, $R_1, R_2:[a, b]\times [a, b] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$, the following identity holds for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^{m}, y \in L_2^n([a, b])$. $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\langle{x},{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}y}\Big\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times L_2^n[a, b]}\nonumber\\
&=\Big\langle{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}^*x},{y}\Big\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times L_2^n[a, b]},
\end{aligned}$$ where, ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}^*={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} \hat{P},& \hspace{-3mm}\hat{Q}_1 \\ \hat{Q}_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{\hat{R}_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{adjoint_matrix_pf}
&\hat{P} = P^{\top}, &\hat{R}_0(s) = R_0^{\top}(s), \nonumber\\
&\hat{Q}_1(s) = Q_2^{\top}(s), \nonumber &\hat{R}_1(s,\eta) = R_2^{\top}(\eta,s), \nonumber\\
&\hat{Q}_2(s) = Q_1^{\top}(s), &\hat{R}_2(s,\eta) = R_1^{\top}(\eta,s).
\end{aligned}$$
We use the fact that for any scalar $a$ we have $a=a^{\top}$. Let $ x={\begin{bmatrix} x_1\\x_2(s)\end{bmatrix}}$ and $y={\begin{bmatrix} y_1\\y_2(s)\end{bmatrix}}$.
Then [ $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\langle{x},{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}y}\Big\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times L_2^n[a, b]}\\
&~~= x_1^{\top}Py_1+{\int_{a}^{b}}x_1^{\top}Q_1(s)y_2(s)\text{d}s+{\int_{a}^{b}}x_2^{\top}(s) Q_2(s) y_1 \text{d}s \\
&~~~+ {\int_{a}^{b}}x_2(s)^{\top} R_0(s) y_2(s) \text{d}s + {\int_{a}^{b}}{\int_{a}^{s}}x_2^{\top}(s) R_1(s,\eta)y_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta \text{d}s\\
&~~~+{\int_{a}^{b}}{\int_{s}^{b}}x_2^{\top}(s) R_2(s,\eta)y_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta \text{d}s\\
&~~= y_1^{\top}P^{\top}x_1+{\int_{a}^{b}}y_1^{\top}Q_2^{\top}(s)x_2(s)\text{d}s+{\int_{a}^{b}}y_2(s) Q_1^{\top}(s) x_1 \text{d}s \\
&~~~+ {\int_{a}^{b}}y_2^{\top}(s) R_0^{\top}(s) x_2(s) \text{d}s + {\int_{a}^{b}}{\int_{a}^{s}}y_2^{\top}(s) R_2^{\top}(\eta,s)x_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta \text{d}s\\
&~~~+{\int_{a}^{b}}{\int_{s}^{b}}y_2^{\top}(s) R_1^{\top}(\eta,s)x_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta \text{d}s\\
&~~= y_1^{\top}\hat{P}x_1+{\int_{a}^{b}}y_1^{\top}\hat{Q}_1(s)x_2(s)\text{d}s+{\int_{a}^{b}}y_2^{\top}(s) \hat{Q}_2(s) x_1 \text{d}s \\
&~~~+ {\int_{a}^{b}}y_2^{\top}(s) \hat{R}_0(s) x_2(s) \text{d}s + {\int_{a}^{b}}{\int_{a}^{s}}y_2^{\top}(s) \hat{R}_1(s,\eta)x_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta \text{d}s\\
&~~~+{\int_{a}^{b}}{\int_{s}^{b}}y_2^{\top}(s) \hat{R}_2(s,\eta)x_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta \text{d}s\\
&= \Big\langle{y},{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} \hat{P},& \hspace{-3mm}\hat{Q} \\ \hat{Q}_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{\hat{R}_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}x}\Big\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times L_2^n[a, b]}\\
&= \Big\langle{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} \hat{P},& \hspace{-3mm}\hat{Q} \\ \hat{Q}_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{\hat{R}_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}x},{y}\Big\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times L_2^n[a, b]}\\
&= \Big\langle{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}^*x},{y}\Big\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{m}\times L_2^n[a, b]}.
\end{aligned}$$]{} where, $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{P} = P^{\top}, &\hat{R}_0(s) = R_0^{\top}(s), \\
&\hat{Q}_1(s) = Q_2^{\top}(s), &\hat{R}_1(s,\eta) = R_2^{\top}(\eta,s), \\
&\hat{Q}_2(s) = Q_1^{\top}(s), &\hat{R}_2(s,\eta) = R_1^{\top}(\eta,s).
\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
Composition
-----------
\[lem:comp\] For any matrices $A,P\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ and bounded functions $B_1, Q_1: [a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$, $B_2, Q_2: [a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times m}$, $C_0,R_0:[a, b]\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$, $C_i,R_i:[a, b]\times [a, b] \to {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$, the following identity holds. $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} A,& \hspace{-3mm}B_1 \\ B_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{C_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}&{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}= {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} \hat{P},& \hspace{-3mm}\hat{Q}_1 \\ \hat{Q}_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{\hat{R}_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{P} &= AP + \int_a^b B_1(s)Q_2(s)\text{d}s,\\
\hat{Q}_1(s) &= AQ_1(s) + B_1(s)R_0(s)+{\int_{s}^{b}}B_1(\eta)R_1(\eta,s)\text{d}\eta\\
&\qquad+\int_a^s B_1(\eta)R_2(\eta,s)\text{d}\eta,\\
\hat{Q}_2(s) &= B_2(s)P + C_0(s)Q_2(s) + {\int_{a}^{s}}C_1(s,\eta)Q_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta\\
&\qquad+{\int_{s}^{b}}C_2(s,\eta)Q_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta,\\
\hat{R}_0(s) &= C_0(s)R_0(s),\\
\hat{R}_1(s,\eta) &=B_2(s)Q_1(\eta)+C_0(s)R_1(s,\eta)+C_1(s,\eta)R_0(\eta)\\
&\hspace{-0.5cm}+{\int_{a}^{\eta}} C_1(s,\theta)R_2(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta+\int_{\eta}^{s}C_1(s,\theta)R_1(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta\\
&\hspace{-0.5cm}+{\int_{s}^{b}}C_2(s,\theta)R_1(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta,\\
\hat{R}_2(s,\eta) &=B_2(s)Q_1(\eta)+C_0(s)R_2(s,\eta)+C_2(s,\eta)R_0(\eta)\\
&\hspace{-0.5cm}+{\int_{a}^{s}} C_1(s,\theta)R_2(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta+\int_{s}^{\eta}C_2(s,\theta)R_2(\theta,\eta)d\theta\\
&\hspace{-0.5cm}+{\int_{\eta}^{b}}C_2(s,\theta)R_1(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta.
\end{aligned}$$
Suppose $$\begin{aligned}
&{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} A,& \hspace{-3mm}B_1 \\ B_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{C_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}\left({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x_1\\x_2\end{bmatrix}}\right)(s) \\
&\qquad= \left({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} \hat{P},& \hspace{-3mm}\hat{Q}_1 \\ \hat{Q}_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{\hat{R}_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x_1\\x_2\end{bmatrix}}\right)(s)
\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
\left({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} x_1\\x_2\end{bmatrix}}\right)(s)= {\begin{bmatrix} y_1\\y_2(s)\end{bmatrix}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $y_1 = Px_1 + {\int_{a}^{b}}Q_1(s) x_2(s)\text{d}s$ and $y_2(s)= Q_2(s)x_1 + R_0(s)x_2(s)+{\int_{a}^{s}}R_1(s,\eta)x_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta+{\int_{s}^{b}}R_2(s,\eta)x_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta$.
Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} A,& \hspace{-3mm}B_1 \\ B_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{C_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}&{\begin{bmatrix} x_1\\x_2\end{bmatrix}}&\\
&\hspace{-4cm}=\left({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} A,& \hspace{-3mm}B_1 \\ B_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{C_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}{\begin{bmatrix} y_1\\y_2\end{bmatrix}}\right)(s)= {\begin{bmatrix} z_1\\z_2(s)\end{bmatrix}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $z_1 = Ay_1 + {\int_{a}^{b}}B_1(s) y_2(s)\text{d}s$ and $z_2(s)= B_2(s)y_1 + C_0(s)y_2(s)+{\int_{a}^{s}}C_1(s,\eta)y_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta+{\int_{s}^{b}}C_2(s,\eta)y_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta$.
Finding the composition is a straight-forward algebraic operation. We do this by expanding each term separately. Firstly, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\int_{a}^{b}}B_1(s) y_2(s) \text{d}s = {\int_{a}^{b}}B_1(s) \Big(Q_2(s)x_1 + R_0(s)x_2(s)\\
&~~+{\int_{a}^{s}}R_1(s,\eta)x_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta+{\int_{s}^{b}}R_2(s,\eta)x_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta\Big)\text{d}s.\\
&\hspace{-0.35cm}\text{Seperating the terms involving $x_1$ and $x_2(s)$, we obtain}\\
&z_1 = \underbrace{\left(AP+{\int_{a}^{b}}B_1(s)Q_2(s)\right)}_{\hat{P}}x_1+{\int_{a}^{b}}\hat{Q}_1(s) x_2(s) ds
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{Q}_1(s) &= AQ_1(s) + B_1(s)R_0(s)+{\int_{s}^{b}}B_1(\eta)R_1(\eta,s)\text{d}\eta\\
&\qquad+{\int_{a}^{s}}B_1(\eta)R_2(\eta,s)\text{d}\eta
\end{aligned}$$
Next, we expand the terms of $z_2(s)$ and specifically collect the terms having $x_1$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(B_2(s)P + C_0(s)Q_2(s) &+ {\int_{a}^{s}}C_1(s,\eta)Q_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta\Big)x_1 \\
&= \hat{Q}_2(s) x_1
\end{aligned}$$ Next, grouping the terms having $x_2(s)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
C_0(s)R_0(s) x_2(s) = \hat{S}(s) x_2(s).
\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we can group the terms involving $x_2({\ensuremath{\theta}})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\int_{a}^{s}} &\Bigg(B_2(s)Q_1(\eta)+C_0(s)R_1(s,\eta)+C_1(s,\eta)R_0(\eta)\\
&+\int_{\eta}^{s}C_1(s,\theta)R_1(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta+{\int_{a}^{\eta}} C_1(s,\theta)R_2(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta\\
&+{\int_{s}^{b}}C_2(s,\theta)R_1(\theta,\eta)d\theta\Bigg) x_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta \\
&={\int_{a}^{s}} \hat{R_1}(s,\eta)x_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta.
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\int_{s}^{b}}&\Bigg(B_2(s)Q_1(\eta)+C_0(s)R_2(s,\eta)+C_2(s,\eta)R_0(\eta)\\
&+\int_{s}^{\eta}C_2(s,\theta)R_2(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta+{\int_{a}^{s}} C_1(s,\theta)R_2(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta\\
&+{\int_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}}^{b}}C_2(s,\theta)R_1(\theta,\eta)\text{d}\theta\Bigg)x_2(\eta)\text{d}\eta \\
&= {\int_{s}^{b}} \hat{R_2}(s,\eta)x_2(\eta) \text{d}\eta.
\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
Positive PI operators {#sec:positive}
---------------------
In this part of the appendix, we provide the map from positive matrices to positive opvar variables. Implicit in this parameterization is the assumption that the square-root of a PI-operator is also a PI-operator.
\[th:pos\] Suppose $${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}} = {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} I,& \hspace{-3mm}0 \\ 0,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{Z_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}^* {{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} T_1,& \hspace{-3mm}T_2 \\ T_2^T,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{T_3,0,0\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} I,& \hspace{-3mm}0 \\ 0,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{Z_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$$ where $T={\begin{bmatrix} T_1&T_2\\T_2^T&T_3\end{bmatrix}}\ge 0$,
&Z\_0=
Z\_[d1]{}I\_n\
0\
0
, Z\_1=
0\
Z\_[d2]{}I\_n\
0
,&\
&Z\_2=
0\
0\
Z\_[d2]{}I\_n
&
$g(s)=s(L-s)$ or $g=1$, and $Z_{d1}$, $Z_{d2}$ are vectors of monomials up to degree $d1$ and $d2$ respectively. Then ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q \\ Q^T,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}\ge 0$.
Let $T={\begin{bmatrix} T_1&T_2\\T_2^T&T_3\end{bmatrix}}\ge 0$. Then, there exists a $U$ such that $T = U^T U$ where $U = {\begin{bmatrix} U_1&U_2\\U_2^T&U_3\end{bmatrix}}$. Note positive semi-definite matrices always have symmetric square roots. [ $$\begin{aligned}
&{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}} \\
&= {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} I,& \hspace{-3mm}0 \\ 0,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{Z_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}^* {{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} T_1,& \hspace{-3mm}T_2 \\ T_2^T,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{T_3,0,0\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} I,& \hspace{-3mm}0 \\ 0,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{Z_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}\\
&={\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} I,& \hspace{-3mm}0 \\ 0,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{Z_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}^* {{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} U_1,& \hspace{-3mm}U_2 \\ U_2^T,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{U_3,0,0\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}^*{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} U_1,& \hspace{-3mm}U_2 \\ U_2^T,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{U_3,0,0\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}} {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} I,& \hspace{-3mm}0 \\ 0,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{Z\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}\\
&=\left({\mathcal{ T}}\right)^*\left({\mathcal{ T}}\right)
\end{aligned}$$]{} where ${\mathcal{ T}} = {{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} U_1,& \hspace{-3mm}U_2 \\ U_2^T,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{U_3,0,0\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}} {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} I,& \hspace{-3mm}0 \\ 0,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{Z_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$.
Constructing `opvar` objects
----------------------------
In this subsection, we give the map from matrix decision variables to opvar decision variables of the indefinite kind. Specifically, the components of a 4-PI operator ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{ P}}{\tiny{\begin{bmatrix} P,& \hspace{-3mm}Q_1 \\ Q_2,& \hspace{-3mm} \left\{R_i\right\} \end{bmatrix}}}}}$, as defined in , with matrix-valued polynomials for $Q_i$ and $R_i$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opvar_gen}
&P = T_0, &Q_1(s) = T_1 Z_{1}(s)\otimes I_n,\notag\\
&Q_2(s) = T_2 Z_{1}(s)\otimes I_m, &R_0(s) = S_0 Z_{1}(s)\otimes I_n,\notag\\
&R_1(s,{\ensuremath{\theta}}) = S_1 Z_{2}(s,{\ensuremath{\theta}})\otimes I_n, &R_2(s,{\ensuremath{\theta}}) = S_2 Z_{2}(s,{\ensuremath{\theta}})\otimes I_n,
\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{1}(s)$, $Z_{2}(s,{\ensuremath{\theta}})$ are vectors of monomials of length $j$ and $k$ respectively, and $T_0:{\mathbb{R}}^m\to{\mathbb{R}}^p$, $T_1:{\mathbb{R}}^{jn}\to{\mathbb{R}}^p$, $T_2:{\mathbb{R}}^{jm}\to{\mathbb{R}}^q$, $S_0:{\mathbb{R}}^{jn}\to{\mathbb{R}}^q$, $S_1:{\mathbb{R}}^{kn}\to{\mathbb{R}}^q$ and $S_2:{\mathbb{R}}^{kn}\to{\mathbb{R}}^q$ are matrices containing coefficients of the polynomials.
[^1]: $^{1}$ Sachin Shivakumar{[email protected]} and Matthew M. Peet{[email protected]} are with School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85298 USA
[^2]: $^{2}$ Amritam Das{[email protected]} is with Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss some of the challenges that future nuclear modeling may face in order to improve the description of the nuclear structure. One challenge is related to the need for A-body nuclear interactions justified by various contemporary nuclear physics studies. Another challenge is related to the discrepancy in the NNN contact interaction parameters for $^3$He and $^3$H that suggests the need for accurate proton and neutron masses in the future precision calculations.'
author:
- |
V. G. Gueorguiev$^1$, P. Navrátil$^2$, J. P. Vary$^3$, J. P. Draayer$^4$, F. Pan$^5$\
\
*$^1$Institute of Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy,\
*Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia 1784, Bulgaria\
*$^2$Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA\
*$^3$Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA\
*$^4$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University,\
*Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA\
*$^5$Department of Physics, Liaoning Normal University,\
*Dalian 116029, P.R. China********
date: |
Contribution to the XXIX International Workshop on Nuclear Theory,\
June 20 - 26, 2010, Rila Mountains, Bulgaria
title: |
Challenges for Modeling Nuclear Structure:\
Are the Proton and Neutron Masses and A-body Interactions Relevant?
---
Introduction
============
The high precision, QCD derived, nucleon interaction that describes the NN-scatering phase shifts, the deuteron, and the light s- and p-shell nuclei points to the necessity of NNN-interaction terms [@Machleidt; @Petr]. Thus the conventional two-body interaction paradigm is challenged and the need of 3-body and possibly A-body interaction define a new research frontier. The structure of the three-body terms has been studied previously using the meson exchange theory [@TM79]. However, with the advance of the Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) [@TM'99; @TM'01] the structure of the three-body terms is better justified using QCD. While studying the parameters of the 3-body contact terms [@Petr] one faces a discrepancy in the NNN contact interaction parameters needed to fit $^3$He and $^3$H that could be viewed as an argument towards implementing the accurate proton and neutron masses in future precision calculations.
Higher many-body interaction terms (e.g. NNNN-interaction terms) are also part of the interaction as derived from QCD via ChPT [@Epelbaum]. The Okubo-Lee-Suzuki (OLS) effective interaction method, employed in solving the nuclear many-body theory, also introduces interaction terms beyond the common 2-body interaction [@Okubo; @Lee-Suzuki]. All this seems to be pointing to the need of A-body interactions for the description of the nuclear structure. It also raises the question about the importance of the A-body interactions in very heavy nuclei. Fortunately, there is an exactly solvable A-body model - *the extended pairing model* - that is applicable as an A-body interaction to very heavy nuclei; therefore, it can help to address this question [@Feng; @VGG2004; @EPJ05].
In the next section we briefly discuss the microscopic nuclear physics hamiltonian; the types of the high-precision NN-interaction potentials and their failure to properly account for the structure of the nuclei with more than two nucleons. In Sec. \[section2\] we discuss the discrepancy in the values of the $c_D$ and $c_E$ NNN-intercation parameters [@Petr] and try to argue that the application of high-presision nucleon potentials needs more appropriate nucleon masses for high-precision description of the A=3 systems. In Sec. \[section3\] we further extend our argument for A-body nuclear interactions by using the modern OLS effective interaction in finite model space method. In Sec. \[section4\] we briefly discuss the well-know 2-body pairing interaction and its exact solution as a prelude to the A-body Extended Pairing Interaction (EPI); then we discuss the results of apply the EPI to few long isotope chains like Sn, Yb, and Pb nuclei. Last section is our conclusion about the needs of the future nuclear structure modeling.
Modeling the Nuclear Interactions {#section1}
=================================
Unlike the electromagnetic and the gravitational intersection, the mathematical form of the nuclear interaction has been very elusive. It is now clearly understood that this is due to the fact that the nuclear interaction arises nontrivially from the quark structure of the nucleons and thus related to the theory of the QCD. However, the absence of a closed form interaction has not hindered researchers from modeling the structure of nuclei. The field has advanced significantly, based on general quantum mechanical principals and techniques. In particular, the microscopic approach has been very successful especially with the advance of computational techniques and computer power that have allowed for the construction of effective high-precision meson and/or QCD derived NN-potentials. The free parameters of the high-presision NN-potentials are usually fixed by the experimental two-nuceon scattering data and describe the 2-body system extremely well. Unfortunately, these potentials produce unsatisfactory description of the 3- and 4-body systems.
The Nuclear Shell-Model Hamiltonian
-----------------------------------
A nuclear many-body system near equilibrium can be viewed as subject to a mean field Harmonic Oscillator (HO) potential: $ H_{0}=\frac{\vec{p}^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}k^2\vec{x}^2.$ It is well know that one can understand the magic numbers and the shell structure of nuclei within the 3-dimensional HO approximation plus a spin-orbit potential . Using the HO single-particle states one can write a general Hamiltonian with one- and two-body terms: $$H=\sum_{i}\varepsilon_{i}a^{+}_{i}a_{i}+
\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i,j,k,l}V_{ij,kl}a^{+}_{i}a^{+}_{j}a_{k}a_{l}.
\label{H2body}$$ Here, $a_{i}$ and $a^{+}_{j}$ are fermion annihilation and creation operators, $\varepsilon_{i}$ single-particle energies, and $V_{ij,kl}=\left< ij|V|kl\right>$ two-body interaction matrix elements and the index $i$ labels the single particle levels. Despite the significant symmetry relations, $~\varepsilon_{jm}=\varepsilon_{jm'}$ due to rotational symmetry and $V_{ij,kl}=V_{kl,ij}=-V_{ji,kl}=-V_{ij,lk}$ due to the fermion exchange properties and the hermition requirement on the energy operator, the number of independent parameters is often more than a dozen - usually it is of order of few hundred for the valence NN interactions alone. The independent parameters of the interaction (\[H2body\]) are often fitted to experimental data by starting with some initial values that come from a relevant theory or model.
Problems with the High-Precision NN-Potentials
----------------------------------------------
Many of the high-precision NN-potentials commonly used to build the microscopic interactions for multi-nucleon systems have very complicated but methodically developed structure in terms of spin, iso-spin, and angular momentum components although sometimes there is a very complicated radial dependence. For example, the Argonne V18 potential has 18 different terms [@AV18]. Other potentials use non-local terms e. g. CD-Bonn [@CD-Bonn] and Nijmegen [@Nijmegen]. However, when applied to A$>$2 systems all of these potentials have a serious difficulties that were eventually overcome by using three-body interactions [@TM'99; @UIX; @Wiringa].
By the end of the twentieth century it become clear that a two-body interaction by itself is inadequate even for the description of the lightest nuclei $2<A<5$. Comparative studies of various potentials, such as AV18, Nijmegen, CD-Bonn, and N$^3$LO, with or without three body terms have demonstrated the inadequacy of the pure two-body interactions and the need for three-body interaction terms . For example, all these interactions (AV18, Nijmegen, CD-Bonn, and N$^3$LO) describe very well the deuteron properties such as binding energy, radius, and quadruple moment but fail by more than 0.5 MeV to reproduce the binding energy of triton and underbind $^4$He by more than 4 MeV [@Wiringa].
Although the meson-exchange approach was successful, it was clear that this phenomenological models should be derived from the underling QCD. Thus the ChPT approach became a prominent technique that produced the high-precision NN-potential N$^3$LO and then guided the researchers into the structure of the NNN- and NNNN-interactions .
Light Nuclei and the Parameters of the NNN-body Interaction {#section2}
===========================================================
The use of the ChPT in the derivation of the nucleon interactions from QCD assisted in the determination of the mathematical form of various interaction terms along with the relevant parameters. Unfortunately, parameters related to contact terms in the interaction could not be determined. Thus the $c_D$ and the $c_E$ strengths of the two-nucleon contact interaction with one-pion exchange to a third nucleon and the three-nucleon contact interaction are identified freedoms at the present time in the effective ChPT interaction. As such they need to be fixed by comparison with experiment.
Binding Energy of $^3$H, $^3$He, and $^4$He
-------------------------------------------
In order to determine the $c_D$ and $c_E$ parameters of the interaction one searches for the parameter values that reproduce the binding energy of $^3$H and $^3$He within 0.5 keV of the experimental values [@Petr]. As seen from Figure \[CDCEmtAB\] there are two $c_D-c_E$ curves that unfortunately do not intersect. In order to further narrow down the range of $c_D$ values one considers the averaged $c_D-c_E$ curve and evaluates the binding energy of the $^4$He system which results in two possible physical regions denoted by A and B on inset (a) of Figure \[CDCEmtAB\]. Finally, the charge radius of $^4$He points to the region A as the reasonable range of values for the $c_D$ parameter while the $c_E$ parameter is determined by the averaged $c_D-c_E$ curve.
![Relations between $c_D$ and $c_E$ for which the binding energy of $^3$H ($8.482$ MeV) and $^3$He ($7.718$ MeV) are reproduced. (a) $^4$He ground-state energy along the averaged $c_D-c_E$ curve. The experimental $^4$He binding energy ($28.296$ MeV) is reproduced to within 0.5 MeV over the entire range depicted. (b) $^4$He charge radius $r_c$ along the averaged $c_D-c_E$ curve. Dotted lines represent the $r_c$ uncertainty due to the uncertainties in the proton charge radius.[]{data-label="CDCEmtAB"}](CDCEmtAB)
Conceptually, there are three important concerns: First, the ChPT NN-potential was one order higher than the NNN-potential and no NNNN-potential was included. That is, the high-precision NN-potential was N$^3$LO (next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order) while the ChPT NNN-potentail was at the N$^2$LO order [@NNN_N2LO] and the NNNN-potential [@Epelbaum] was not yet readily available. The second concern is that the range of the 3-body interaction parameter $c_D$ is determined by the properties of the 4-body system $^4$He; this, however, was resolved by a later study that used the $\beta^-$ decay of $^3$H into $^3$He and confirmed the physically relevant region A for the parameter $c_D$ [@3Hto3He]. The third concern is related to the fact that these are high-presision studies and at this level of accuracy the difference between the proton and nucleon mass could be important for the A=3 systems.
$^3$H and $^3$He Systems with Modified Nucleon Mass
---------------------------------------------------
It is clear from Figure \[CDCEmtAB\] that the $c_D-c_E$ curves for $^3$H and $^3$He do not intersect in the physically relevant region ($-1 < c_D < 1$). This could be attributed to the absence of the T=3/2 channel in these first calculations. The slight difference in the $c_D$ value as suggested by $^4$He binding energy and its charge radius could be attributed to the inconsistency of the different interaction terms, NN-terms are at N$^3$LO level while the NNN-terms are at N$^2$LO level and the NNNN-terms are not present at all. Another source of these discrepancies could be the conventional use of equal masses for protons and neutrons. We will discuss this option in more detail below.
As seen from Figure \[dBE\_CD\] the binding energy deviation range is $15 < \delta K< 25 $ keV within the physically relevant region ($-1 < c_D < 1$). This is within the accuracy of the kinetic energy K as evaluated for equal mass nucleons $m=m_n=m_p=(m_n+m_p)/2$. Since the averaged relative kinetic energy for the three-nucleon system is about $K\approx 37 $ MeV and the relative nucleon mass deviation $\delta m /m$ is $\approx 0.7 \times 10^{-3}$ with $\delta m =(m_n-m_p)/2$, we have: $$K=\frac{m}{2}v^2 \Rightarrow ~
\delta K=K \frac{\delta m}{m} \approx 26~\textrm{keV}
\label{dK}$$
![Deviation of the binding energy of the three-nucleon systems as computed along the averaged $c_D-c_E$ curve.[]{data-label="dBE_CD"}](dBE_CD)
This shows that there is not a single $c_E$ value that will result in perfect description of the $^3$H and $^3$He systems. One could hope that including the T=3/2 channel would improve the situation. Alternatively, with this level of precision, we are led to investigate corrections to the conventional $m_n = m_p$ approximation. One can test the sensitivity to the conventionally used nucleon mass by changing it to a more appropriate value [@Kamuntavicius'99]. $$m=\frac{1}{A}(Z m_p+(A-Z) m_n).
\label{Nmass_new}$$
If one repeats the calculations related to Figure \[dBE\_CD\] but by employing the nucleon mass value as suggested by (\[Nmass\_new\]), one obtains an interesting result shown in Figure \[dCE\_CD\_anu\].
![Intersecting $c_D-c_E$ curves where the binding energy of $^3$H ($8.482$ MeV) and $^3$He ($7.718$ MeV) are reproduced when using modified nucleon mass as suggested by (\[Nmass\_new\]).[]{data-label="dCE_CD_anu"}](dCE_CD_anu)
From Figure \[dCE\_CD\_anu\] is clear that there are unique $c_D$ and $c_E$ values where both binding energies can be reproduced exactly. The $c_D$ is in agreement with the $c_D$ value estimated from the charge radius of $^4$He (see Figure \[CDCEmtAB\](b)). Since, $^4$He has same number of protons and neutrons, there is no nucleon mass adjustment for this system, so results shown for $^4$He on Figure \[CDCEmtAB\] are still valid. Perhaps by incorporating NNNN-interaction [@Epelbaum] the binding energy for the $^4$He would agree better with the $c_D$ value suggested by the three-nucleon system as calculated with a modified nucleon mass and the $\beta^-$ decay of $^3$H [@3Hto3He].
Beyond the 2-body Interaction - Effective Interactions in a Finite Model Space {#section3}
==============================================================================
In the previous section we discussed results obtained by using QCD derived interactions and the role of the NNN-interaction in the description of the light nuclei. Clearly 3- and 4-body interaction terms are predictions of the ChPT. Thus A-body interactions can be viewed as real physical interactions within the ChPT approach to nuclei. However, there is another way to arrive at A-body interactions which are phenomenological effective interactions since they are related to our inability to handle interacting systems in infinite Hilbert spaces [@AbodyHeff]. Since the quality of a model is judged by its ability to reproduce the experimental data, as far as computational models are concerned, an A-body interaction which gives results that agree well with the data is physically relevant as well.
In practice, we are computationally limited to a finite subspace of the infinite Hilbert space of the full quantum many-body problem. The subspace that we can access is defined by finite set of convenient many-body basis states. For a suitable choice of basis we hope to have good overlaps with low-lying physical states of the system under study. If we imagine the exact solutions are available for analysis and apply a unitary transformation to those eigenstates, we can produce a transformed set of solutions maximally overlaping with our chosen basis space.
![Geometrical interpretation of the Okubo-Lee-Suzuki transformation method for construction of effective Hamiltonian operators.[]{data-label="OLS_H_eff"}](OLS_H_eff)
For example, one may be interested in the lowest two energy states of a system, as shown in Figure \[OLS\_H\_eff\] left, but would like to have some unitarily transformed version of these states that have maximal overlap with the two basis states that define the plane of the page (Figure \[OLS\_H\_eff\] right). By finding the relevant unitary transformation U, one can define an effective Hamiltonian that would have the lowest two states as desired. Then this effective Hamiltonian could be used in the calculations of more complicated multi-particle systems, one would find the unitarily transformed Hamiltonian that describes very well the low-energy states of a 2-body system in a mean field but within a Fock space that would be used later for an A-body system. Unfortunately, this transformation will turn any one- and two-body potential into a many-body effective interaction: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i \ne j}^{A} V_{ij}~\xrightarrow{U=e^{i S}}
V_{eff}=\sum_{k=1}^A\frac{1}{k!}\sum_{i_{1}, \cdots, i_{k}}^A V_{i_{1}, \cdots, i_{k}} \nonumber
\label{H2bodyToAbody}\end{aligned}$$ This way the two-body Hamiltonian (\[H2body\]) becomes an A-body Hamiltonian: $$H=\sum_{i}\varepsilon_{i}a^{+}_{i}a_{i}+
\sum_{k=2}^{A}\frac{1}{(k!)^2}
\sum_{
\begin{split}
_{i_{1},\ldots,i_{k},}\\
^{j_{1},\ldots, j_{k}}
\end{split}}
V_{i_{1},\ldots,i_{k},j_{1},\ldots, j_{k}}a^{+}_{i_1}\cdots a^{+}_{i_k}a_{j_1}\cdots a_{j_k}.
\label{HAbody}$$
For A$>$4, it seems impractical at present to obtain the structure of the A-body interactions as derived from ChPT as it was previously done for the NNN- and the NNNN-interaction terms. Before embarking on the extensive undertaking required for including higher-body effective interactions, it would be very helpful to investigate a simple exactly solvable A-body interaction model that has few parameters and is applicable to real A-body systems.
The Extended Pairing Model {#section4}
==========================
In order to study the relevance of the A-body interactions one should use the general form of the interaction and to try to determine some of the A-body interaction strengths since it seems impractical at present to be able to obtain the structure of the A-body interactions from ChPT for A$>$4. Therefore, as we reasoned earlier one needs simple exactly solvable A-body interaction with few parameters that can be adjusted to the experimental data. Fortunately, there is such an interaction - *the Extended Pairing Interaction* (EPI) [@Feng]. The discovery of this exactly solvable model was a result of research into the solution of the two-body proton-neutron pairing which turned to be exactly solvable as well [@Dukelsky]. However, for our purpose the justification, of the A-body EPI Hamiltonian, is the need for simplicity: thus, one can set all the unknown interaction strengths $V_{i_{1},\ldots,i_{k},j_{1},\ldots, j_{k}}$ in (\[HAbody\]) to be equal to single strength $G$ and to consider only pairs of fermion particles $b^{+}_{i}=a^{+}_{i\uparrow}a^{+}_{i\downarrow}$:
$$H=\sum_{i}2\varepsilon_{i}n_i-G\sum_{i,j}b^{+}_{i}b_{j}-
\sum_{k=2}^{A}\frac{G}{(k!)^2}
\sum_{{i_{1}, \cdots, i_{2k}}}
b^{+}_{i_1}\cdots b^{+}_{i_k}b_{i_{k+1}}\cdots b_{i_{2k}}.
\label{H_extPM}$$
Here $n_i$ counts the number of pairs on the $i$-th level; thus, the value 2 in front of the single particle energy $\varepsilon_{i}$. If one considers a system of only one pair of particles then the $k>1$ terms in (\[H\_extPM\]) disappear since their matrix elements are zero in the one-pair basis. Thus, one gets the standard pairing Hamiltonian: $$H_{P}=\sum_{j}2\varepsilon_{j}n_j-g\sum_{jj'}A^{+}_{j}A_{j'}, ~~
A^{+}_{j}=\sum_{m>0}a^{+}_{j m}a^{+}_{j -m}
\label{H_P}$$
This 2-body Hamiltonian, however, is exactly solvable even for systems with more than one pair since it can be viewed as Richardson-Gaudin model [@RG-models]. For example, the relevant equations for the proton-neutron $T=1$ pairing that were given in Ref. [@Dukelsky] as well as by Links [@Links-JPA35], and Asorey [@Asorey-et-al] are: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{g} &=&\sum_{i=1}^{L}\frac{{{\Omega }_{i}}}{2{{\varepsilon }_{i}}-{\
v_{\alpha }}}+\sum_{\beta \neq \alpha }^{M}\frac{2}{{v_{\alpha }}-{v_{\beta }
}}+\sum_{\gamma =1}^{M-T}\frac{1}{{w_{\gamma }}-{v_{\alpha }}}
\label{Links eqs.} \\
0 &=&\sum_{\alpha =1}^{M}\frac{1}{{v_{\alpha }}-{w_{\gamma }}}+\sum_{\delta
\neq \gamma }^{M-T}\frac{1}{{w_{\gamma }}-{w_{\delta }}}, \quad
E =\sum_{\alpha =1}^{M}{v_{\alpha }}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The spectral parameters $v_{\alpha }$ have the same meaning as pair energies. The $w_{\gamma }$ parameters are related to the iso-spin symmetry of the proton-neutron pairing. By drooping the terms that contain the $w_{\gamma }$ parameters one arrives at the Richardson’s exactly solvable pairing for one type of particles [@Richardson]. If one considers only one pair case ($M=1=p$) in $L$ single particle levels with double degeneracy of each single particle level $i$ ($\Omega_i=(2j+1)/2=1$) then one has the one pair energy eigenvalues of the EPI (\[H\_extPM\]) and the standard pairing (\[H\_P\]): $$\begin{aligned}
E =z, ~ \frac{1}{g} &=&\sum_{i=1}^{L}\frac{{1}}{2{{\varepsilon }_{i}}-{z}}.\end{aligned}$$ This is a special case of the ($p=1$) solution for the extended pairing model [@Feng]: $$E_p^{\zeta}=z^{\zeta}-G(p-1), ~~
\frac{1}{G}=\sum_{i_1 \ldots i_p}\frac{1}{E_{i_1\ldots i_p}- z^{\zeta}}, ~~
E_{i_1\ldots i_p}=\sum_{n=1}^p 2\varepsilon_{i_n}.
\label{E_extPM}$$ In the above equations, we intentionally kept the notation for the 2-body pairing and the A-body pairing slightly different to emphasize their different structures.
Binding Energy of the Sn and Pb Isotope Chains
----------------------------------------------
Deformation is common in very heavy nuclei and this often justifies the success and application of the Nilsson model. For the purpose of our model, we use deformation parameters from Ref. and experimental binding energies from Ref. [@AudiG]. Theoretical relative binding energies (RBE) are calculated relative to a specific core, $^{152}$Yb, $^{100}$Sn, and $^{208}$Pb for the cases considered. The RBE of the nucleus next to the core is used to determine an energy scale for the Nilsson single-particle energies. For an even number of neutrons, we considered only pairs of particles. For an odd number of neutrons, we apply Pauli blocking to the Fermi level of the last unpaired fermion and consider the remaining fermions as if they are an even fermion system. The valence model-space consists of the neutron single-particle levels between two closed shells with magic numbers 50-82 and 82-126. By using (\[E\_extPM\]), values of $G$ are determined so that the experimental and theoretical RBE match exactly.
Here we discuss mostly the Sn isotopes since the Pb and Yb isotopes were discussed in more details in Ref. [@EPJ05] and Ref. [@VGG2004]. In Figure \[Sn\_Isotopes\_particles\] are shown the results for Sn as calculated by using the $^{100}$Sn as core and zero RBE nucleus. The single-particle energy scale is set by the binding energy of $^{101}$Sn. The inset shows the fit to values of $G$ that reproduces the experimental data exactly. The two fitting functions are: $\ln(G(A))=365.0584 - 6.4836 A + 0.0284A^2$ and $\ln(G(A))=398.2277 - 7.0349 A + 0.0307 A^2$ for even/odd values of $A$. The solid line gives the theoretical RBE of the Sn isotopes using these fitting functions.
![Binding energies (BE) of the Sn isotopes relative to the BE of $^{100}$Sn core.[]{data-label="Sn_Isotopes_particles"}](Sn_Isotopes_particles)
The Sn isotope chain is unique in the sense that there are two doubly magic members, the $^{100}$Sn and $^{132}$Sn, that allows us to use $^{132}$Sn as zero RBE system as well. In Figure \[Sn\_Isotopes\_holes\] are shown the results for Sn isotopes when using $^{132}$Sn as zero RBE system. In this case, there are again good even/odd quadratic dependence of the $\ln(G(A))$, however, as for Pb case [@EPJ05] there is a simpler expression that works for even and odd systems simultaneously. In this case we have $G(A)=\alpha\dim(A)^{-\beta}$ with $\alpha=259.436$ and $\beta=0.9985$.
![Binding energy of the Sn isotopes relative to doubly magic $^{132}$Sn core.[]{data-label="Sn_Isotopes_holes"}](Sn_Isotopes_holes)
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have presented evidence for the need to use accurate proton and neutron masses, or at least a properly weighted nucleon mass (\[Nmass\_new\]), in order to improve on the accuracy of the binding energy of light nuclei as computed with the next generation computer codes. This will also allow better understanding of the NNN-, NNNN-, and A-body interactions in nuclei either derived from ChPT or from a phenomenological considerations. Therefore, one has to build A-body computational technology in the next generations of nuclear modeling codes.
While the motivation for considering A-body interaction in the light-nuclei is strong as based on the ChPT QCD derived interactions, one is left to wonder if A-body interactions are also relevant to heavy nuclei. The results obtained with the help of the Extended Pairing Interaction, in particular the Sn isotopes discussed here, seem to confirm the idea that A-body interactions are needed to understand better the binding energy of heavy nuclei. Often the imagination cannot capture all the possible implications and uses of an exactly solvable model. Beside the current applications of the EPI, one can also see that it would be a useful verification tool for A-body computational codes as well.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
V.G. Gueorguiev is grateful to his colleagues from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences for the moral support and scientific encouragement, for their interest in his research, and for the many opportunities over the years to attend and present his research at their regular scientific meetings that they run very successfully over the years despite of the difficult economic times. J.P. Vary acknowledges partial support from DOE (grant DE-FC02-87ER-40371) and from NSF (grant NSF0904874). J.P. Draayer acknowledges partial support from the DOE (Grant DE-SC0005248), NSF (Grant NSF-0904874) and Southeastern Universities Research Association). This work was partly performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344.
[99]{}
R. Machleidt, D.R. Entem, *J. Phys. G***31** (2005) S1235; arXiv:nucl-th/0503025.
P. Navrátil , *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **99** (2007) 042501; arXiv:nucl-th/0701038.
S.A. Coon , *Nucl. Phys. A***317** (1979) 242 – 278; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(79)90462-7
J.L. Friar, D. HŸber, U. van Kolck, *Phys. Rev. C***59** (1999) 53–58; http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.59.53
S.A. Coon and H.K. Han, *Few-Body Systems***30** (2001) 131-141; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s006010170022
V. Bernard , *Phys. Rev. C***77** (2008) 064004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.064004
S. Okubo, *Prog. Theor. Phys.* **12** (1954) 603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.12.603
K. Suzuki and S.Y. Lee, *Prog. Theor. Phys.* **64** (1980) 2091. http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.64.2091
Feng Pan, V.G. Gueorguiev, and J.P. Draayer, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **92** (2004) 112503; http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.112503
V.G. Gueorguiev, Feng Pan, J.P. Draayer (2004); arXiv:nucl-th/0403055.
V. G. Gueorguiev, Feng Pan and J. P. Draayer, *Eur. Phys. J. A***25** (s1) (2005) 515; http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjad/i2005-06-108-y
O. Haxel, J. Jensen, H. Suess, *Phys. Rev.* **75** (1949) 1766–1766; http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.75.1766.2
R.B. Wiringa, V.G.J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, *Phys. Rev. C***51** (1995) 38–51; arXiv:nucl-th/9408016.
R. Machleidt, *Phys. Rev. C***63** (2001) 024001; arXiv:nucl-th/0006014.
V. G. J. Stoks , *Phys. Rev. C***49** (1994) 2950–2962; arXiv:nucl-th/9406039.
B.S. Pudliner , *Phys. Rev. Lett.***74** (1995) 4396; arXiv:nucl-th/9502031.
R.B. Wiringa, A. Arriaga, V.R. Pandharipande, *Phys. Rev. C***68** (2003) 054006; arXiv:nucl-th/0306018.
D.R. Entem and R. Machleidt, *Phys. Rev. C***68** (2003) R041001; arXiv:nucl-th/0304018.
E. Epelbaum. , *Phys. Rev. C***66** (2002) 064001; arXiv:nucl-th/0208023.
D. Gazit, S. Quaglioni and P. Navratil, *Phys. Rev. Lett.***103** (2009) 102502; arXiv:0812.4444.
G.P. Kamuntavicius , *Phys. Rev. C***60** (1999) 044304; arXiv:nucl-th/9907047.
P. Navratil and W.E. Ormand, *Phys. Rev. C***68** (2003) 034305; arXiv:nucl-th/0305090.
J. Dukelsky , *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **96** (2006) 072503; arXiv:nucl-th/0601082.
J. Dukelsky, V.G. Gueorguiev, P. Van Isacker (2004); arXiv:nucl-th/0406001.
J. Links , *J. Phys. A***35** (2002) 6459–6469; arXiv:nlin/0110049.
M. Asorey, F. Falceto, and G. Sierra, *Nucl. Phys. B***622** (2002) 593–614; arXiv:hep-th/0110266.
R.W. Richardson, *Phys. Lett.* **5** (1963) 82; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(63)80039-0
P. Möller, J.R. Nix, and K. L. Kratz, *At. Data Nucl. Data Tables* [**66**]{} (1997) 131; http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/adnd.1997.0746
G. Audi *Nucl. Phys. A***624** (1997) 1; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00482-X
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
-1.0cm -0.5cm -0.5cm
CERN-TH-2016-176
[[[**[ [ Solving the Standard Model Problems in Softened Gravity ]{}]{}**]{}]{}]{}\
[**]{}
——————————————————————————————————————————–
[**Abstract**]{}
[The Higgs naturalness problem is solved if the growth of Einstein’s gravitational interaction is softened at an energy $ \lesssim 10^{11}\,$GeV ([*softened gravity*]{}). We work here within an explicit realization where the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is extended to include terms quadratic in the curvature and a non-minimal coupling with the Higgs. We show that this solution is preserved by adding three right-handed neutrinos with masses below the electroweak scale, accounting for neutrino oscillations, dark matter and the baryon asymmetry. The smallness of the right-handed neutrino masses (compared to the Planck scale) and the QCD $\theta$-term are also shown to be natural. We prove that a possible gravitational source of CP violation cannot spoil the model, thanks to the presence of right-handed neutrinos. Inflation is approximately described by the Starobinsky model in this context, and can occur even if we live in a metastable vacuum. ]{}
——————————————————————————————————————————–
[ ]{}
Introduction and summary {#introduction and summary}
========================
The hierarchy problem consists in finding an extension of the Standard Model (SM) where the Higgs mass $M_h$ is natural: quantum corrections to $M_h$ are small compared to its observed value. A challenge is to achieve this in the presence of gravity. Softened gravity is a scenario in which the growth of Einstein’s gravitational interaction stops at a scale no larger than $10^{11}\,$GeV [@Giudice:2014tma]. In such a situation the gravitational quantum corrections to $M_h$ are not too large solving the hierarchy problem. An important question is whether this scenario can be made realistic and can address the shortcomings of the SM: non-zero neutrino masses, dark matter (DM), baryon asymmetry of the universe (BAU), inflation as well as an explication for the smallness of the QCD $\theta$-term.
Here we show that this can be achieved by simply including three right-handed neutrinos with Majorana masses $M$ below the EW scale. Right-handed neutrinos can account for the observed neutrino oscillations, DM and BAU. We consider a concrete implementation of the softened gravity idea where the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is extended to include all terms quadratic in the curvature as well as a non-minimal coupling $\xi$ between the Higgs and gravity. We address the question of whether this theory might be a candidate UV completion of Einstein gravity.
The same radiatively stable values of the parameters that lead to a natural Higgs mass (found in [@Salvio:2014soa]), also preserve the smallness of $M$ and $\theta$. The concept of naturalness used here is the one based on finite quantities (after renormalization), where unphysical power-law divergences with respect to the momentum cutoff are disregarded [@Vissani:1997ys; @Farina:2013mla; @deGouvea:2014xba; @Clarke:2016jzm].
We also show that a possible gravitational breaking of CP (which could be due to $\theta$) produces no visible effects in the observable quantities, thanks to the presence of the right-handed neutrinos. Inflation is mainly due to the effective Starobinsky scalar $z$ [@Starobinsky] (which automatically emerge from the terms quadratic in the curvature) and the Higgs gives very small contributions even in the natural parameter space.
We find it remarkable that all the above-mentioned problems can be solved in such a simple extension of the SM.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the theory of softened gravity that will be considered in detail in this paper. In section \[The spectrum\] we discuss its spectrum. The following section \[Quantum aspects\] is dedicated to the study of some quantum aspects. Section \[nat\] shows the naturalness of the Higgs mass, the QCD $\theta$ angle and right-handed neutrino masses and Yukawa couplings in this context. In the same section we also discuss the connection between the possible gravitational violation of CP and the neutrino sector. Section \[inf\] presents a detailed analysis of inflation and finally we provide our conclusions and outlook in section \[Conclusions and outlook\]. We provide technical material in two appendices.
The theory {#The model}
==========
The full Lagrangian (density) is given by =( \_[gravity]{}+\_[SM]{}+\_N). \[full-lagrangian\] Here $\mathscr{L}_{\rm gravity}$ represents the pure gravitational Lagrangian plus the possible non-minimal coupling between the Higgs and gravity, which, modulo total derivatives [@Stelle:1977ry], is \_[gravity]{} = + -(+|H|\^2)R - , \[gravity-Lag\] where $f_2$ and $f_0$ play the role of gravitational couplings, ${\bar M_{\rm Pl}}$ is the reduced Planck mass and $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant. $\mathscr{L}_{\rm SM}$ represents the usual SM Lagrangian, minimally coupled to gravity. $\mathscr{L} _{N}$ is the term that depends on the right-handed neutrinos $N_i$ (i=1,2,3): \_[N]{}= i\_i N\_i+ (12 N\_i M\_[ij]{}N\_j + Y\_[ij]{} L\_iH N\_j + [h. c.]{}) ,where $M_{ij}$ and $Y_{ij}$ are the elements of the Majorana mass matrix $M$ and the neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix $Y$, respectively.
Note that the new gravitational terms associated with the couplings $f_0$, $f_2$ and $\xi$ are necessary for the renormalization of the theory: even if we do not introduce them in the classical theory radiative corrections generate them.
The spectrum {#The spectrum}
============
We now turn to the spectrum. As usual there is a massless spin-2 graviton. Also, the term $(\frac13 R^2 - R_{\mu\nu}^2)/f_2^2$ in (\[gravity-Lag\]) corresponds to a ghost: a field with an unusual minus sign in front of its kinetic term. In the presence case this field has spin-2 and mass $M_2 \equiv f_2 {\bar M_{\rm Pl}}/\sqrt{2}$ [@Stelle:1976gc]. In the next section we will discuss a possible sensible way of interpreting such a field.
The term $R^2/(6f_0^2)$ leads instead to the scalar $z$. To see this one can write the scalar-tensor part of the Lagrangian, $\Lag_{\rm st}$, in the $E$instein frame [@Salvio:2014soa; @Kannike:2015apa; @Salvio:2015kka] \[eq:Einstein\] \_[st]{} = , where everything is computed with the new metric g\^E\_g\_, $\bar M_{\rm Pl}'^2 \equiv {\bar M_{\rm Pl}}^2+2\xi v^2$ (note that $v\simeq 174\,$GeV and in practice one can take $\bar M_{\rm Pl}'^2 = \bar M_{\rm Pl}^2$) and \_ (|D\_H|\^2 + ) ,V\_E . \[scalar-EF\] The potential $V$ is the SM one: $V(H) = \lambda (|H|^2-v^2)^2 + \Lambda$.
The minimum of $V_E$ occurs when the Higgs is at the electroweak (EW) scale, $v$, and $z\approx \langle z\rangle \equiv \sqrt{6{\bar M_{\rm Pl}}'^2}$ (here we neglect tiny corrections due to $\Lambda/{\bar M_{\rm Pl}}\neq 0$). Notice that at $z=\langle z\rangle$ the kinetic terms of the scalars are canonically normalized, therefore the squared mass matrix for scalars, $\mathscr{M}_0^2$, is the Hessian matrix of $V_E$ computed at this point of minimum. This procedure leads to \_0\^2 (
[cc]{} M\_0’\^2 & -M\_0’ m\
-M\_0’ m & (1+\^2)m\^2
), where $M_0'^2\equiv f_0^2 {\bar M_{\rm Pl}}'^2/2$, $m\equiv 2\sqrt{\lambda} v$ and $ \epsilon\equiv \sqrt{\frac{6}{4\lambda}} f_0 \xi$ (note that $\lambda$ is required to be positive by the stability of the potential $V$). As usual, when $\lambda <0$ we have a tachyonic instability[^1]. For $M_0'\gg m$, which we expect because $M_0' \propto{\bar M_{\rm Pl}}$, the mixing becomes small and the scalar masses are approximately $M_0'$ and $m$. We will see in section \[Higgs-Starobinsky system\] that this approximation is very accurate.
To analyse the neutrino sector we take (thanks to the complex Autonne-Takagi factorization) $M$ real and diagonal without loss of generality: $M=\mbox{diag}(M_1, M_2, M_3),$ where the $M_i$ are real mass parameters. The neutrinos acquire a Dirac mass matrix $m_D = v Y,$ which can be parameterized as $ m_D =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hspace{-0.1cm}m_{D1}\,, & \hspace{-0.2cm}m_{D2}\, , & \hspace{-0.2cm} m_{D3}\hspace{-0.1cm}
\end{array}\right), $ where $m_{Di}$ are column vectors. Integrating out the heavy neutrinos $N_i$, one then obtains the usual see-saw formula for the light neutrino Majorana mass matrix m\_= + + . \[see-saw\] By means of a unitary (Autonne-Takagi) redefinition of the left-handed SM neutrinos we can diagonalize $m_\nu$ to obtain the mass eigenvalues $m_1, m_2$ and $m_3$ (the left-handed neutrino Majorana masses). The experimental constraints on neutrino masses and oscillations (see [@Capozzi:2016rtj] for recent determinations) can be satisfied by choosing appropriately the unitary matrix $U_\nu$ that implements such transformation (the PMNS matrix) and the $m_i$ .
Here the $N_i$ are also responsible for DM [@Dodelson:1993je; @Asaka:2005pn; @Canetti:2012kh] and BAU [@Akhmedov:1998qx; @Asaka:2005pn; @Canetti:2012kh]. For example we find that all bounds to account for neutrino masses and oscillations (within 1$\sigma$) [@Capozzi:2016rtj], for DM and BAU [@Canetti:2012kh] can be satisfied for M\_1 \~[keV]{}, M\_[2,3]{} \~[GeV]{}, |Y\_[ij]{}|< 10\^[-7]{}. \[RHvalue\] This low-scale right-handed neutrinos can be searched in the laboratory or through astrophysical observations (see for example [@Canetti:2012kh; @Adhikari:2016bei] and reference therein). This proposal can therefore be tested.
Quantum aspects {#Quantum aspects}
===============
The theory with Lagrangian (\[full-lagrangian\]) by itself does not eliminate the Landau poles of the SM, which, however, occur many orders of magnitude above the Planck scale where no experiments or observations can be made. We will therefore avoid this problem by assuming that there is a minimal length much larger than the Landau pole scales, but still much shorter than the Planck length.
The Lagrangian in (\[full-lagrangian\]) defines a renormalizable theory of gravity [@Stelle:1976gc] (actually of all interactions). The price to pay is the presence of a ghost (which we have seen in the previous section). Such a field emerges because of the presence of 4 time-derivatives in the Lagrangian [@Ostro]. The spectrum of such a theory, however, becomes bounded from below at the [*quantum level*]{} if negative norm states are introduced (see e.g. [@Salvio:2015gsi] and references therein). In particular the quanta of the ghost field have to have negative norm, while all remaining quanta have positive norm. Recently, Ref. [@Salvio:2015gsi] showed (assuming a single 4-derivative degree of freedom) that such a quantization can be obtained with normalizable wave-functions and a well-defined Euclidean path-integral.
The remaining problem of having a sensible probabilistic interpretation of negative-norm states could be bypassed by the Lee-Wick idea [@Lee:1969fy], which assumes all stable states in the theory to have positive norm. Indeed, theories of this sort are sensible as long as we only look at the energy spectrum and transition probabilities between asymptotic (stable) states ($S$-matrix elements). Ref. [@Antoniadis] argued that the assumption of Lee and Wick is satisfied in the theory of gravity above. One of the purposes of this section is to [*explicitly prove*]{} that the ghost is unstable in this theory.
Ghost decay
-----------
Given that the ghost at hand has spin-2, a direct calculation of its decay involves the complications of the corresponding Lorentz indices. For this reason one would like to use the optical theorem and compute equivalently the imaginary part of the ghost propagator. However, the optical theorem is derived in theories with positive norms only and requires a generalization here, given that the ghost state has negative norm.
To obtain such generalization consider the time evolution operator $U$, which is defined as usual as the linear operator that transforms the state at the initial time into the state at the generic time. The usual procedure is to define the operator $T$ by U1+iT By using the unitarity condition (which is fulfilled even in the presence of negative norms [@Salvio:2015gsi]) we obtain i(T\^-T)=T\^T.If we now take the matrix element between an initial state $|i\rangle$ and a final state $|f\rangle$ we find i(T\^\_[fi]{}-T\_[fi]{})= (T\^T)\_[fi]{} \[optical1\]where $T_{fi}\equiv \langle f |T| i\rangle$, $T^\dagger_{fi}\equiv \langle f |T^\dagger| i\rangle$ and $(T^\dagger T)_{fi}\equiv \langle f |T^\dagger T| i\rangle$. In theories with positive norms only the completeness relation is $1=\sum_n|n\rangle\langle n|$, where $\{|n\rangle\}$ is an orthonormal basis, $\langle n'|n\rangle=\delta_{n'n}$. In the presence of both negative and positive norms, however, the scalar product between two generic states $|\alpha\rangle$ and $|\beta\rangle$ can be written as |= (, ), \[2scalarProducts\] where $(. \, , .)$ is a positively defined scalar product and $\eta$ is assumed to be a diagonalizable operator with eigenvalues $+1$ and $-1$ [@Pauli1943], so $\eta^2=1$. The completeness relation now reads $\eta=\sum_n|n\rangle \langle n|$, so 1= \^2=\_n|nn| =\_n|nn| \_n,where we have constructed the basis $\{|n\rangle\}$ with the eigenvectors of $\eta$. By inserting this into Eq. (\[optical1\]) we get i(T\^\_[fi]{}-T\_[fi]{})=\_n \_n T\_[nf]{}\^\* T\_[ni]{},which is the generalization of the optical theorem we were looking for.
To apply this formula to compute a decay we set the initial and final states equal to each other ($|i\rangle =|f\rangle = |\alpha\rangle$) and so 2 [Im]{}(T\_)=\_n\_n|T\_[n]{}|\^2.\[optical2\]Notice that $|T_{n\alpha}|^2=|U_{n\alpha}-\langle n|\alpha \rangle|^2$, where $U_{n\alpha}\equiv \langle n|U|\alpha\rangle$. We are interested here in the decay of a negative norm particle; we therefore focus on states $|\alpha\rangle$ that are normalizable and set $\langle \alpha|\alpha\rangle= \pm 1$. We would like to apply Eq. (\[optical2\]) within perturbation theory at first order, so we can take $T_{\alpha\alpha}=0$ and $\eta_n=1$ in the right-hand side: the former equality holds because at zero order $T$ does not transform the ghost into itself or into itself plus additional states (for kinematical reasons) and the latter holds because the ghost is the only state with negative norm. Then $|T_{n \alpha}|^2$ is the transition probability[^2] for the process $\alpha\rightarrow n$ and the right-hand side of eq. (\[optical2\]) is the total probability that the state $|\alpha\rangle$ decays.
The next step to compute the ghost decay is to rewrite the 4-derivative terms as 2-derivatives where the ghost field is explicit in the Lagrangian. This is the analogue of what we have done in section \[The spectrum\] to have the field of the scalar $z$ explicit and has been done in Ref. [@Hindawi:1995an]. In this case the trick is to introduce a rank two Lagrange multiplier $\pi_{\mu\nu}$, which is explicitly defined in [@Hindawi:1995an]. We eliminate the linear mixing between $\pi_{\mu\nu}$ and the fluctuation of the metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ around the flat space (as well as with all the other fields) by introducing |[h]{}\_ h\_+\_+ \_, where $\delta z\equiv z -\langle z\rangle$. The field $ \bar{h}_{\mu\nu}$ corresponds to the usual massless graviton, $\pi_{\mu\nu}$ represents the ghost and $\delta z$ the quantum scalar field associated with the fluctuations of $z$ around its vacuum expectation value.
We also find (-M\_2\^2)\_ = 0, \^ \_= 0 , \_\^[ ]{}= 0 \[linearized level pi\] where the indices are raised and lowered here with $\eta_{\mu\nu}$. This confirms that $\pi_{\mu\nu}$ is a massive spin-2 field and can be expanded as follows: \_(x) = \_[i, ]{}(e\_\^i()a\_[i]{}() e\^[-ikx]{}+ |e\_\^i()a\_[i]{}\^() e\^[ikx]{}),\[quantum-pi\]where $V$ is the space volume (that should be taken to $\infty$ at the end), $\omega_\pi(\vec{k})=\sqrt{M_2^2+\vec{k}^2}$ and $e_{\mu\nu}^i(\vec{k})$ are[^3] the polarization tensors corresponding to the wave number $\vec{k}$; the index $i$ labels the helicity state. The operators $a_{\pi i}(\vec{k})$ and $a_{\pi i}^\dagger(\vec{k})$ are annihilation and creation operators respectively and fulfill the commutation relations =0,= - \_[ij]{}\_[’]{}.\[a-comm\] Note the minus sign on the right-hand side, which has been introduced because we are dealing with ghosts (see Ref. [@Salvio:2015gsi]).
The $e^i_{\mu\nu}(\vec{k})$ transform covariantly as a rank two tensor. Notice that the second equation in (\[linearized level pi\]) gives p\^e\^i\_() = 0. \[gauge-momentum\]In the massive spin-2 case we are considering there are five helicity states (so $i=1,2,3,4,5$). In this case one can easily obtain the $e^i_{\mu\nu}(\vec{p})$ in the rest frame, $p_\mu=(M_2, 0,0,0)$, and then use general Lorentz boosts to obtain the polarization tensors in an arbitrary frame. In the rest frame (\[gauge-momentum\]) becomes $e^i_{0\mu}=0$, which, together with the traceless condition $e^{i\,\, \mu}_{\mu}=0$ (the third equation in (\[linearized level pi\])), can be fulfilled by the basis given in Appendix \[Polarization tensors\]. One can directly check that e\^i\_()e\^[j]{}() =\^[ij]{}and \_[i=1]{}\^5 e\^i\_()|e\^i\_() = P\^[(2)]{}\_(p),\[sum-helicity\] where P\^[(2)]{}\_ = 12 T\_T\_ + 12 T\_ T\_-13 T\_T\_, and $T_{\mu\nu}(p) = \eta_{\mu\nu} - p_\mu p_\nu/p^2$. The equality in (\[sum-helicity\]) can be shown by considering first the rest frame, where the $e^i_{\mu\nu}$ are simple and explicitly given above, and then noticing that both $\sum_{i=1}^5 e^i_{\mu\nu}(\vec{p})\bar e^i_{\rho\sigma}(\vec{p})$ and $P^{(2)}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(p)$ are rank four tensors and so they coincide if they are equal in a given frame.
Finally, by using the generalized optical theorem in eq. (\[optical2\]) we obtain that the decay rate $\Gamma$ of the gravitational ghost state with momentum $p_\mu$ is = ()\^2 15 P\^[(2)]{}\_(p) [Im]{} \^(p) where $\Pi^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ is the amputated loop Feynman amplitude (multiplied by $-i$). The factor $1/5$ appears because we have averaged with respect to the initial polarization.
That this decay rate is not zero can be explicitly checked by considering the decay into two real scalars with mass $m$, for instance two Higgs in the final state. In this case we find ([ghost]{} ) = , where the function $B_0$ is defined in Appendix \[appA\], eq. (\[B0def\]). In the same appendix it is also shown B\_0(p\^2,m\^2,m\^2) = (p\^2-4m\^2).\[ImB0value\]By using this result we find ([ghost]{} ) = . This expression can be simplified by going to the ghost rest frame $p=(M_2,0,0,0)$ and assuming $M_2\gg 2m$ ([ghost]{} ) =
Of course, the interactions of $\pi_{\mu\nu}$ with the other fields of the theory under study cannot slower the decay, but they make it faster. This definitely shows that the ghost is unstable and the Lee-Wick idea may be implemented. Other challenges that have to be faced before considering this theory a completely satisfactory UV completion of Einstein’s gravity will be mentioned in section \[Conclusions and outlook\].
RGEs and threshold effects
--------------------------
In order to address naturalness issues in this model (see section \[nat\]) we need the RGEs: they encode the leading quantum corrections. The one-loop RGEs for the dimensionless couplings for energies above all mass thresholds are (see e.g. [@Avramidi:1985ki; @Buttazzo:2013uya; @Salvio:2014soa; @Salvio:2015cja] and reference therein) &=& - f\^4\_2 , \[RGEf2\]\
&=& 53 [f\_2]{}\^4 + 5 [f\_2]{}\^2 [f\_0]{}\^2 + 56 [f\_0]{}\^4 +[f\_0]{}\^4 , \[RGEf0\]\
&=& (1+6)(y\_t\^2-34 g\_2\^2 - g\_1\^2+2+13 [Tr]{}(Y\^Y))\
&&+(1+6)(2+3) - 53 , \[RGExi\]\
& =& , =- ,= -14 g\_3\^4,\
& =& y\_t\^2(9 y\_t\^2-16g\_3\^2-- + 2[Tr]{}(Y\^Y )+ f\_2\^2),\
& =&Y , \[RGEY\]\
& =&(24+12y\_t\^2--9g\_2\^2+4 [Tr]{}(Y\^Y)+5 [f\_2]{}\^2+[f\_0]{}\^2 (1+6)\^2)\
&&- 6y\_t\^4 +++ - 2 [Tr]{}((Y\^Y)\^2)+(5 [f\_2]{}\^4+[f\_0]{}\^4(1+6)\^2), \[eq:RGEnodim0\] where $t=\ln(\bar{\mu}/\bar{\mu_0})/(4\pi)^2$, $\bar{\mu}$ is the $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization scale[^4] and $\bar{\mu}_0$ is a reference energy. Here we have ignored the Yukawa couplings of the SM that are smaller than the top Yukawa, $y_t$, and the $g_i$ are the gauge couplings.
Going below the mass thresholds $M_2$ and $M_0'$ one can neglect the contributions due to $f_2$ and $f_0$ respectively. One can wonder whether the scalar threshold due to $z$ induces a tree-level shift of the quartic Higgs coupling, along the lines of [@RandjbarDaemi:2006gf]. We now show that such a shift is negligible. This effect can emerge because setting the heavy scalar (in this case $\delta z \equiv z - \langle z\rangle$) equal to zero is not compatible with the equations of motion. This occurs if there are scalar couplings of the schematic form (heavy) x (light) x (light) in the Lagrangian (in this case $\delta z \delta h^2$, where $\delta h \equiv h - \sqrt{2}v$). Using Eq. (\[scalar-EF\]) leads to such a coupling, $\sim f_0^2 \xi {\bar M_{\rm Pl}}\, \delta z \delta h^2$ (modulo order one factors and neglecting contributions suppressed by $v^2/{\bar M_{\rm Pl}}^2$ and the tiny value of $\Lambda$). The shift $\delta \lambda$ in the quartic coupling is given by the square of the coefficient of the (heavy) x (light) x (light) term, in this case $\sim f_0^2 \xi {\bar M_{\rm Pl}}$ times the propagator of $z$ at zero external momentum [@RandjbarDaemi:2006gf]: $ \delta \lambda \sim f_0^2 \xi^2$. In sections \[nat\] and \[inf\] we will see that the requirement of successful inflation and Higgs mass naturalness implies $f_0 \sim 10^{-5}$ and $\xi \approx -1/6$, so that $f_0^2 \xi^2 \sim 10^{-11}$ and this effect is negligibly small.
As far as the RGEs of the mass parameters are concerned, we find that $m^2$, $M$ and ${\bar M_{\rm Pl}}^2$ obey &=& m\^2 (12 +6 y\_t\^2 -92 g\_2\^2 - g\_1\^2+2 [Tr]{} (Y\^Y) +5 f\_2\^2+ f\_0\^2 (1+6)+6\^2+2G)\
&& + 8 [Tr]{}(Y\^Y M\^M) -5f\_2\^4 [|M\_[Pl]{}]{}\^2-f\_0\^4(1+6)[|M\_[Pl]{}]{}\^2, \[RGEm2\]\
&=& M Y\^Y+ (Y\^ Y)\^T M + f\_2\^2 M+MG,\[RGEM\]\
& =& - m\^2+(M\^M) -4m\^2 +(-+2G)[|M\_[Pl]{}]{}\^2.\[RGEPlanck\] Here $G$ is a gauge-dependent quantity: for example, using the same gauge fixing action as in Ref. [@Salvio:2014soa], \[eq:gf\] S\_[gf]{} = - d\^4x f\_\^2 f\_,f\_= \_( h\_ - c\_g 12 \_ h\_), where $h_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}-\eta_{\mu\nu}$, leads to G= +.The gauge dependence cancels as it should in the RGEs of $M/{\bar M_{\rm Pl}}$ and $m^2/{\bar M_{\rm Pl}}^2$.
Naturalness {#nat}
===========
Notice that the $\beta$-function in (\[RGEM\]) vanishes as $M\rightarrow 0$. Therefore, by starting from small values (such as those in (\[RHvalue\])) at low energy, one does not end up with a much larger $M$. This occurs because $M$ breaks lepton symmetry, while all other fields (gravity included) preserves it. Such small values of $M$ are therefore natural even taking into account gravity. This is because our softened gravity preserves global lepton symmetry.
The same is true for $Y$, given the structure of the $\beta$-function in (\[RGEY\]). As a result, the naturalness of the EW scale $m$ leads to the same conditions obtained in [@Salvio:2014soa] (as it can be seen from Eq. (\[RGEm2\])): the order of magnitude of $f_2^4$ and $f_0^4(1+6\xi)$ should not exceed $M_h^2/{\bar M_{\rm Pl}}^2$. This condition is preserved by the RG-running (see Eqs. (\[RGEf2\]), (\[RGEf0\]) and (\[RGExi\])). The smallness of these couplings corresponds to the softening of gravity. Notice that one important ingredient to ensure this result is the fact that the small values of $M$ and $Y$ (see for example (\[RHvalue\])) ensures that neutrinos do not give unnaturally large corrections to the Higgs mass. This is opposed to the standard leptogenesis scenario [@Fukugita:1986hr], which occurs through the decay of very heavy [@Davidson:2002qv] right-handed neutrinos and can introduce a fine-tuning in the Higgs mass [@Farina:2013mla].
In a similar way we also show now that the smallness of the $\theta$-term is natural in this context. In the SM the $\beta$-function of $\theta$ starts at least at 7 loops and is at most of order $10^{-15}$ [@Burgess:2007zi]. This is because one needs to construct a flavor invariant CP-breaking term out of the quark Yukawa couplings. Therefore in the SM the running of $\theta$ is negligibly small. The right-handed neutrino sector contains other sources of CP breaking and can potentially introduce a larger running. However, in order to connect the $\theta$-vertex with a right-handed neutrino you need three loops (you should insert a quark, a Higgs and a right-handed neutrino). This leads to a $1/(4\pi)^6$ suppression. Moreover, you have at least an extra factor that is quadratic in the $Y_{ij}$, which have to be very small given that all right-handed neutrinos are below the EW scale (see e.g. Eq. (\[RHvalue\])). Therefore, also the right-handed neutrino sector preserves the smallness of the $\theta$-running. Finally, notice that gravity, given that it is softened and CP-preserving in our context, does not reintroduce a sizable running.
It is now a good point to comment on the possible CP-breaking extension of the softened gravity theory at hand. Given that we limit to terms in the Lagrangian which are at most quadratic in the curvature, we could add a “gravitational $\theta$-term": \^R\_\^[ ]{}R\_, \[gravTheta\]which may potentially affect the observable predictions of the theory. This term (as well as some phases in the quark mass matrix) could be (partially) due to removing the QCD $\theta$-term via a chiral transformation of the quarks [@Delbourgo:1972xb]. Since it can be rotated away with an anomalous chiral transformation its coefficient in the Lagrangian cannot be much larger than $2\pi$ times $1/(4\pi)^2$. For such a small value the gravitational $\theta$-term could only affect very energetic phenomena, such as inflation. Moreover, the presence of right-handed neutrinos helps: one can perform a U(1) transformation of $N_i$, that is $N_j\rightarrow \exp(i \beta) N_j$, where $\beta$ is a real number, which removes completely such gravitational term and, as side effect, only rescales $M_j$ and $Y_{ij}$ in the following way $M_j\rightarrow \exp(2 i \beta) M_j,$ $Y_{ij} \rightarrow \exp(i \beta) Y_{ij}.$ This rescaling produces no effect in neutrino observables, which can therefore be compatible with data. This is because the neutrino mass matrix in (\[see-saw\]) is invariant under such transformation.
Inflation {#inf}
=========
Let us finally turn to inflation. In a similar context [@Kannike:2015apa; @Salvio:2015kka; @Salvio:2015jgu] showed that inflation is mainly triggered by the Starobinsky effective scalar $z$, rather than the Higgs. We show that the same happens here even in the natural parameter space.
Multifield inflation formalism {#Multifield inflation formalism}
------------------------------
Although the theory studied here has only two scalar fields (in the unitary gauge), it is convenient to start from a formalism suitable for a general number of scalars (as the equations will be shorter). This formalism has been studied in the past [@info], but we will obtain weaker slow-roll conditions, therefore we present the explicit derivation here. We also take advantage to elucidate some points in multifield inflation.
We rewrite the scalar-tensor Lagrangian in (\[eq:Einstein\]) as \_[st]{} = , where the field metric $K_{ij}$ and the potential $U$ are generic functions of the scalar fields $\phi^i$. In our case we are interested in the case $\phi^i = \{z,h\}$, where $h$ is the physical Higgs field, but we keep the formalism general as explained above.
Next we consider the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. ds\^2\_Eg\^E\_dx\^dx\^= dt\^2 -a(t)\^2 . We neglect from now on the curvature contribution $k$ as during inflation the energy density is dominated by the scalar fields. Then the Einstein equations (EEs) and the scalar equations imply the following equations for $a(t)$ and the spatially homogeneous fields $\phi^i(t)$ H\^2&=& , \[EHt\]\
2 a(t) a(t)+a(t)\^2 &=& ,\
2 a(t) a(t)+a(t)\^2 &=& ,\
2 a(t) a(t)+a(t)\^2 &=& ,\
\^i +\^i\_[jk]{}\^j\^k +3H\^i+U\^[,i]{} &=&0,\[scalarEq\] where $H\equiv \dot a/a$ and a dot denotes a derivative with respect to $t$. Also for a generic function $F$ of the scalar fields, we defined $F_{,i}\equiv \partial F/\partial \phi^i$, the affine connection $\gamma^i_{jk}$ in the scalar field space is \^i\_[jk]{}(K\_[lj,k]{}+K\_[lk,j]{}-K\_[jk,l]{}) and $K^{ij}$ denotes the inverse of the field metric (which is used to raise and lower the scalar indices $i,j,k, ...$); for example $F^{,i}\equiv K^{ij}F_{,j}$. The $rr$-, $\theta \theta$- and $\phi \phi$-components of the EEs are only one independent equation, thus the EEs can be simplified to H\^2&=& ,\
H&=& - .
Notice that the term suppressed by $f_2^2$ in the Lagrangian has no effect because it is equal to (modulo total derivatives) to the square of the Weyl tensor which vanishes on the FRW metric. We assume that term has no effect on inflation at the quantum level either[^5].
### The slow-roll approximation
We now describe the slow-roll approximation within this formalism. The scalar fields roll slowly down the potential when K\_[ij]{} \^i\^j U, |\^i +\^i\_[jk]{}\^j\^k|3H \^i,|\^i +\^i\_[jk]{}\^j\^k|U\^[,i]{}.\[slow-roll-cond\]Then from Eqs. (\[EHt\]) and (\[scalarEq\]) we obtain H\^2 ,\^i-. \[slow-roll-eq\](in our notation $U^{,i}\equiv K^{ij} U_{,j}$, where $U_{,i}\equiv \partial U/\partial \phi^i$). By using (\[slow-roll-eq\]) in the first condition in (\[slow-roll-cond\]) we obtain [*the first slow-roll condition*]{} 1. \[1st-slow-roll\] Eq. (\[slow-roll-eq\]) tell us -, \[eqHepsilon\]which is guaranteed to be small by (\[1st-slow-roll\]). From (\[slow-roll-eq\]) we find - - - , where for a generic vector $V^i$ on the scalar field space, we defined the covariant derivative $V^i_{\, \, \,;j}\equiv \partial V^i/\partial \phi^j+\gamma^i_{jk} V^k$. Notice that in the formula above the index $i$ is not summed and in the last step we have neglected $\dot H/H^2$ that we have just proved to be small. Therefore, from (\[slow-roll-cond\]) we obtain [*the second slow-roll condition* ]{} || 1 \^[i]{}\_[ j]{} \[SlowRoll2\] It is easy to check that $\epsilon$ and $\eta^i_{\,\,\, j}$ reduce to the well-known single field slow-roll parameters in the presence of only one field. The second slow-roll condition is weaker than the one found in [@info] where it is assumed $|\eta^{i}_{\,\,\, j}| < 1$ and $U^{,j}/U^{,i}$ of order one.
Combining the two equations in (\[slow-roll-eq\]) we obtain the following dynamical system for $\phi^i$: \^i=-, \[dynamical1\]which can be solved with a condition at some initial time $t_0$: that is $\phi^i(t_0)=\phi^i_0$. Once the functions $\phi^i(t)$ are known we can obtain $H(t)$ from the first equation in (\[slow-roll-eq\]). Let us introduce the number of e-folds $N$ by N(\_0) \_[t\_e]{}\^[t\_0(\_0)]{} dt’ H(t’), \[Ndef\]where $t_e$ is the time when inflation ends. Dropping the label on $t_0$ and $\phi_0$ as they are generic values we have N() \_[t\_e]{}\^[t()]{} dt’ H(t’). \[Ndef2\]Notice that we write that $t$ is a function of $\phi$: this is because once the initial position $\phi$ in field space is fixed the time required to go from $\phi$ to the field value when inflation ends is fixed too because the dynamical system in (\[dynamical1\]) is of the first order. Note, however, that $H$ also generically depends on $\phi$. Definition (\[Ndef2\]) implies =H,\[dN/dt\]which can be used in (\[slow-roll-eq\]) to obtain a simpler dynamical system for $\phi^i$ where the independent variable is $N$ instead of $t$: =- . \[SlowRollEqN\]
### Observable predictions
One can then extract predictions for observable quantities such as the power spectrum $P_\mathcal{R}(k)$ of scalar fluctuations, the spectral index $n_s$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$. The measured values at $k= 0.002\, \mbox{Mpc}^{-1}$ are $ P_\mathcal{R}(k) = (2.14 \pm 0.05) \times 10^{-9}$ [@Planck2015], $n_s= 0.965 \pm 0.006$ [@Ade:2013uln; @Planck2015] and $r< 0.09$ [@Planck2015]. The power spectrum $P_\mathcal{R}(k)$ is (see eq. (40) of [@Sasaki:1995aw]) P\_(k)=()\^2 N\_[,i]{}N\^[,i]{},\[power-spectrum\]computed at horizon exit $k=aH$. The spectral index $n_s$ of scalar perturbations can be computed as n\_s=1+By using now $d\ln k=d\ln aH\simeq H dt$, where we noticed that during a nearly exponential expansion $\dot a/a\simeq \ddot a/\dot a$, and eq. (\[power-spectrum\]) we find n\_s1 +2 +2 . \[nsFormula\]where $N$ is the quantity defined in (\[Ndef2\]). The second term on the right-hand side can be substituted by $-2\epsilon$ (eq. (\[eqHepsilon\])), while the third one can be computed by using N\_[,i]{}&=& N\_[;i]{}=\^[j]{} N\_[;i,j]{}= (\^j N\_[,j]{} )\_[;i]{} -(\^j)\_[;i]{} N\_[,j]{}= H\_[:i]{} -N\^[,j]{} (\_j)\_[;i]{} ,\
(\_j)\_[;i]{}&&-()\_[;i]{} = -.\[phiji\] This leads to n\_s =1-2- + where we used (\[slow-roll-eq\]). This formula does not contain a term with the Riemann tensor, unlike eq. (42) of [@Sasaki:1995aw] n\_s =1+ - + -, because the slow-roll eqs. (\[slow-roll-eq\]) have been used to evaluate $(\dot \phi_j)_{;i}$ in eq. (\[phiji\]).
Also the tensor-to-scalar ratio can now be easily computed by using a textbook formula for the tensor power spectrum P\_t(k) = ()\^2 to obtain r=. \[r\]
Higgs-Starobinsky system {#Higgs-Starobinsky system}
------------------------
![[*Inflationary path of the scalar fields.* ]{} []{data-label="attractor"}](attractor.pdf)
We now apply the formalism of section \[Multifield inflation formalism\] to the Higgs-Starobinsky system defined by (\[eq:Einstein\]) and (\[scalar-EF\]).
A qualitative analysis of the potential $U=V_E$ shows that inflation is mainly triggered by $z$ because, even if $\lambda > 0$, namely the case in which Higgs inflation [@Bezrukov:2007ep] is possible [@Bezrukov:2008ej; @Bezrukov:2009db; @Salvio:2013rja], the fields $\{z, h\}$ are rapidly attracted to the line $h=0$ (the running forces $\lambda$ to sizable values and the potential barrier for $h\neq 0$ is too steep to allow Higgs inflation). Matching the observed $P_\mathcal{R}(k)$, leads to $f_0 \sim 10^{-5}$ and therefore $\xi\approx -1/6$ to achieve Higgs mass naturalness, as discussed in section \[nat\]. Note that inserting $f_0 \sim 10^{-5}$ in $M_0'$ leads to $M_0' \gg m$ as we anticipated in section \[The spectrum\].
In figure \[attractor\] we show the presence of the above-mentioned attractor even for the natural values $\xi\approx -1/6$ and $f_0 \sim 10^{-5}$. It is only when the fields reach the attractor that the slow-roll conditions in (\[1st-slow-roll\]) and (\[SlowRoll2\]) are satisfied. The curves have been obtained by solving the field equations (\[SlowRollEqN\]) in the slow-roll approximation.
By using Eqs. (\[nsFormula\]) and (\[r\]) we obtain the predictions for the observable quantities, $n_s \approx 0.97$ and $r\approx 0.0031$ for a number of e-folds $N\approx 59$. We obtain results that are very close to Starobinsky’s predictions $n_s \approx 0.97$ and $r\approx 0.0035$ [@Kannike:2015apa] for the reasons explained above. It is interesting to note that the softened gravity theory under study gives a justification for the $R^2$ term in the Lagrangian: as we have previously mentioned, even if we do not introduce it in the classical Lagraingian, quantum corrections generate it.
For negative values of $\lambda$ at the inflationary scales, which are suggested by recent calculations [@Bezrukov:2012sa; @Degrassi:2012ry; @Buttazzo:2013uya], one should instead require directly that the Higgs is at the EW minimum of the SM potential[^6]: large field values of the Higgs above the SM potential barrier would lead to a run away for the Higgs field, which would not eventually roll towards the EW vacuum.
Therefore the inflationary nature of the model is close to that of Starobinsky’s inflation, in good agreement with current cosmological observations: the differences with Starobinsky’s predictions are within current uncertainties, but future observations may give us more information (we will discuss this point in section \[Conclusions and outlook\])
Conclusions and outlook {#Conclusions and outlook}
=======================
We have presented a softened gravity theory that, besides having a natural Higgs mass, also possesses a natural QCD $\theta$ angle. Three right-handed neutrinos below the EW scale can explain the neutrino oscillations, DM and BAU and, at the same time, protects the theory from gravitational violation of CP invariance. Contrary to the standard lore, we have shown (within the softened gravity theory studied here) that the smallness of the right-handed Majorana neutrino masses and Yukawa couplings required to explain neutrino oscillations, DM and BAU is not a fine-tuning: their smallness is preserved by the RGEs (which we have determined explicitly), even if the gravity corrections are included. Moreover, low-scale right-handed neutrinos give negligible corrections to the Higgs mass. Therefore, the softened gravity idea is not separate from the idea of low-scale neutrinos, these two ingredients mutually reinforce each other.
The implementation of softened gravity that we have used here present a spin-2 heavy ghost in its spectrum. We have shown that this is an unstable state and therefore the basic condition for a Lee-Wick interpretation of this theory is fulfilled. Open problems for the future include the non-perturbative formulation of the theory and the study of its causal structure (which could perhaps be done following the ideas of [@Salvio:2015gsi] and [@Grinstein:2008bg], respectively).
Moreover, we have shown that inflation and its predictions are close to those of Starobinsy’s $R^2$ model. Given the current observational uncertainties they look actually the same. However, we have found some differences such that they can be distinguished by future observations such as CMBpol [@Baumann:2008aq]. For instance, future sensitivity for $r$ can well be at the level of $10^{-3}$ or below [@Baumann:2008aq; @Creminelli:2015oda]. We hope that the present work can stimulate future experimental as well as theoretical efforts in distinguishing these theories. A future theoretical goal could be for instance an improved calculation of the inflationary predictions by going beyond the slow-roll approximation.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We thank A. Strumia, G. Villadoro and M. Shaposhnikov for useful discussions. This work was supported by the grant 669668 – NEO-NAT – ERC-AdG-2014.
Polarization tensors {#Polarization tensors}
====================
The polarization tensors for a massive spin-2 field are [@Veltman] \[basis\] e\^1\_= (0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 ), e\^2\_= (0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 ),\
e\^3\_= (0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 ), e\^4\_= (0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 ), e\^5\_= (0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
0 & 1/2 & 0 & 0\
0 & 0 & 1/2 & 0\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 ).
Imaginary part of loop functions {#appA}
================================
By using the formula 1[ab]{} = \_0\^1 we find that the function $B_0$, which is defined by B\_0(p\^2,m\_1\^2,m\_2\^2)d\^dq\[B0def\] in dimensional regularization (with space-time dimension $d$), can be written as B\_0(p\^2,m\_1\^2,m\_2\^2)= d\^dq\_0\^1 dx and then by introducing the new loop variable $k=q+x p$ B\_0(p\^2,m\_1\^2,m\_2\^2)d\^dk\_0\^1 dx and setting $m_1=m_2 \equiv m$ B\_0(p\^2,m\^2,m\^2)d\^dk\_0\^1 dx ,where F(p\^2,x)m\^2+ x(x-1)p\^2.${\rm Im}\, B_0(p^2,m^2,m^2)\neq 0$ only when $F(p^2,x)$ is negative, that is for $x_-< x< x_+$ where $x_\pm=(1\pm\sqrt{1-4m^2/p^2})/2$, which is possible only for $p^2>4m^2$. By performing the Wick rotation one therefore finds B\_0(p\^2,m\^2,m\^2)=1[\^2]{} \_[x\_-]{}\^[x\_+]{} dx [Im]{} d\^4 k\_E , where the label $E$ reminds us that we are now in the Euclidean space (not to be confused with the Einstein frame label). By using spherical coordinates in this space we obtain B\_0(p\^2,m\^2,m\^2)=2 (p\^2-4m\^2) \_[x\_-]{}\^[x\_+]{} dx [Im]{} \_0\^ . \[ImB01\]We have = 12 (+(|F|+i-r\^2)).We can now split the integral $\int_0^\infty dr$ in the integral $\int_0^{\sqrt{|F|+\delta}} dr$ plus $\int^\infty_{\sqrt{|F|+\delta}} dr$, where $\delta$ is a positive number, and notice that only the former can give rise to an imaginary part. So \_0\^ =12 [Im]{} (-+i) =12 [Im]{} (-1)= By inserting this result in (\[ImB01\]) we find B\_0(p\^2,m\^2,m\^2)= (p\^2-4m\^2).
[2]{}
[^1]: Note, however, that the possible metastability of the EW vacuum (which corresponds to $\lambda<0$ at very high field values) does not rule out this model because the corresponding life-time exceeds the age of the universe [@Buttazzo:2013uya; @Salvio:2016mvj].
[^2]: In the present work we define the probability as the absolute value squared of the amplitude. One should keep in mind, however, that other definitions are possible [@Salvio:2015gsi].
[^3]: $\bar e_{\pi\mu\nu}^i(\vec{k})$ represents the corresponding complex conjugate object.
[^4]: All renormalized couplings in this work are defined in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme.
[^5]: This is the case when $M_2$ is roughly above the Hubble rate during inflation $H_{\rm inf}$, otherwise there are two modifications in the analysis below[@Salvio:2017xul] (see also [@Clunan:2009er; @Deruelle:2012xv; @Ivanov:2016hcm] for previous less general results):
- there is an extra iscurvature scalar mode corresponding to the helicity-0 component of the spin-2 massive ghost (which, however, satisfies the most recent bounds on isocurvature power spectra [@Planck2015]);
- one has to take into account an extra suppression factor $1/(1+2H_{\rm inf}^2/M_2^2)$ in front of the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, which will be given in eq. (\[r\]). Given that the observations only give us an upper bound on $r$, this modification leaves the model viable.
[^6]: The quantum and thermal probability of jumping to the true minimum has been recently considered even in the presence of the extra gravitational terms in Eq. (\[gravity-Lag\]) [@Salvio:2016mvj]. The conclusion is that the lifetime of the EW vacuum can well be much bigger than the age of the universe without tension with any experiment.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract:
- 'We study the historical process that led to the worldwide adoption, throughout mathematical research papers and textbooks, of the denomination “Vandermonde determinant”. The mathematical object can be related to two passages in Vandermonde’s writings, of which one inspired Cauchy’s definition of determinants. Influential citations of Cauchy and Jacobi may have initiated the naming process. It started during the second half of the 19^th^ century as a teaching practice in France. The spread in textbooks and research journals began during the first half of 20^th^ century, and only reached full acceptance after the 1960’s. The naming process is still ongoing, in the sense that the volume of publications using the denomination grows significantly faster than the overall volume of the field.'
- 'Nous étudions le processus historique qui a conduit à l’adoption dans le monde entier de la dénomination déterminant de Vandermonde. L’objet mathématique peut être relié à deux passages dans les écrits de Vandermonde, dont l’un a inspiré Cauchy pour sa définition des déterminants. Les citations de Cauchy et Jacobi ont pu déclencher le processus de dénomination. Celui-ci a démarré au cours de la seconde moitié du <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xix</span> siècle comme une pratique pédagogique. Cette pratique a précédé, plutôt que suivi, la diffusion dans les livres et les articles de recherche, qui a commencé pendant la première moitié du <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xx</span> siècle, et n’a atteint un réel consensus qu’après les années 1960. Le processus de dénomination est encore en cours, au sens où l’usage du nom croît significativement plus vite que le volume global de publications du domaine.'
author:
- |
Bernard Ycart\
Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann\
Université Joseph Fourier and CNRS UMR 5224\
51 rue des Mathématiques 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France\
`[email protected]`
title: 'A case of mathematical eponymy: the Vandermonde determinant'
---
**Keywords:** Eponymy, Vandermonde determinant, history of determinants
**MSC 2010:** 01A90, 97A30, 15-03
Introduction
============
The Vandermonde determinant has become a standard example of Stigler’s law of eponymy: “No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer” (see [@Stigler1999 p. 277]). The source? An authority: Henri Lebesgue (1875–1941). On October 20 1937, he gave a conference at Utrecht University, entitled “L’[œ]{}uvre mathématique de Vandermonde”. The text of that conference was published in 1939, reproduced in 1956, and again in a 1958 monography to which we shall refer: [@Lebesgue1958]. In order to enhance Vandermonde’s main achievement on the resolution of algebraic equations [@Vandermonde1770], Lebesgue downplays his three other memoirs [@Lebesgue1958 p. 21][^1]:
> Thus the Vandermonde determinant is not due to Vandermonde; his theory of determinants is not very original, his notation of factorials is unimportant; his study of situation geometry is somewhat childish, what is left?
Actually, the memoir on combinatorics [@Vandermonde1772a] contains more than just a notation for factorials: the identity $$\binom{n}{k}=\sum_{i=0}^k \binom{m}{i}\binom{n-m}{k-i}$$ is still referred to as “Vandermonde’s theorem” in probability and combinatorics textbooks (e.g. p. 315 of [@Santos2011]). Though “childish”, the memoir on situation geometry [@Vandermonde1772b] made him regarded as a precursor of knot theory (see [@Przytycki1992]). The life of Alexandre Théophile Vandermonde (1735–1796), his engagement during the French revolution, his interests in music, mechanics, and political economy, and his short mathematical carrier, have all been amply documented: see [@Lebesgue1958], [@Hecht1971], [@Gillispie1976], [@Faccarello1993], and [@Sullivan1997]. We shall not attempt a new biography nor a mathematical assessment of Vandermonde’s contribution. Neither shall we review here the early history of determinants. T. Muir’s *Theory of determinants in their historical order of development* is the indispensable basis, and we shall often refer to the first two volumes: [@Muir1906; @Muir1911]. Our focus here is exclusively on the Vandermonde determinant, and more precisely on how that particular object came to be known under that name. We call Vandermonde Determinant, and denote by VD hereafter, the following determinant, depending on $n$ variables $a_1,\ldots,a_n$. $$\left|
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1&a_1&a_1^2&\ldots&a_1^{n}\\
1&a_2&a_2^2&\ldots&a_2^{n}\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&&\vdots\\
\vdots&\vdots&&\ddots&\vdots\\
1&a_n&a_n^2&\ldots&a_n^{n}
\end{array}
\right|$$ The VD has different mathematically equivalent interpretations, as a product of differences or an alternating polynomial, that will be developed in section \[cauchy\]. Lebesgue makes the following assertion [@Lebesgue1958 p. 21]:
> What could have been personal, is the Vandermonde determinant? Yet it is not there, nor anywhere else in Vandermonde’s work.
Why then was Vandermonde’s name given to that determinant? Lebesgue has a conjecture.
> Vandermonde considers linear equations of which the unknowns are denoted by $\xi 1, \xi 2, \xi3, \ldots$, and the coefficient of $\xi i$ in the $k$^th^ equation by $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{k}}{i}$. The resolution of such a system, e.g. of $$\begin{array}{lcl}
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{1}\xi 1+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{2}\xi 2+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{3}\xi 3+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{4}&=&0,\\[1.5ex]
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{1}\xi 1+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{2}\xi 2+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{3}\xi 3+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{4}&=&0,\\[1.5ex]
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{1}\xi 1+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{2}\xi 2+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{3}\xi 3+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{4}&=&0,
> \end{array}$$ will give determinants such as $$\left|
> \begin{array}{ccc}
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{1}&
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{2}&
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{3}\\[1.5ex]
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{1}&
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{2}&
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{3}\\[1.5ex]
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{1}&
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{2}&
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{3}
> \end{array}
> \right|~;$$ Forgetting for a while the convention of notations that has been made, interpret the upper indices as exponents, you get a Vandermonde determinant. And perhaps, it is this mix-up that saves Vandermonde’s name from a more complete oblivion.
As we shall see, no trace of such a mix-up can be found in the literature. Quite on the contrary, the mutation of exponents into indices in a VD is the very foundation of Cauchy’s theory of determinants [@Cauchy1812b]. Vandermonde himself [@Vandermonde1771] had made the observation that changing one of the indices of a general determinant into an exponent led to an alternating function. That remark did not escape either Cauchy nor Jacobi; this may have been the most solid argument in favor of the naming. On the other hand, it does not quite make the VD a counterexample to Stigler’s law: linear systems with Vandermonde matrices had been written and solved long before Vandermonde, by Isaac Newton (1642–1727) and Abraham de Moivre (1667–1754). Nevertheless, our purpose here is not to decide whether it is right or wrong to name that determinant after Vandermonde (the reader will be given enough elements to form his/her own opinion). Neither is it to enter the debate on mathematical eponymy (see [@Henwood1980; @Smith1980]). The naming of the VD is taken as a fact; and the *history of that fact*, we believe, is of independent interest. A mere attribution (citation: “a determinant introduced by Vandermonde”) must be distinguished from an actual naming (eponymy: “a Vandermonde determinant”). The respective roles of citation (as a moral norm) and eponymy (as a reward) in the sociology of science have long been separated, following the pioneering studies of R.K. Merton (e.g. [@Merton1968]). We refer to [@Small2004] for different theories of citation in science, and to [@Beaver1976] for a historical perspective on eponymy. Eponymy has evolved together with successive sociological practices of science. In mathematics, it became a widespread habit essentially during the 19^th^ century. Relatively few studies have been devoted to mathematical eponymy; among them Stigler’s articles (see [@Stigler1999] and references therein) stand out. The naming of a mathematical notion is in many cases a long term process that extends over several generations of mathematicians, and can be traced through historical accounts, textbooks, and research publications. By *naming process* we mean the penetration of the name as a function of time, “penetration” being taken in the marketing sense: the proportion of mathematicians knowing or using the name, measured as a proportion of texts where it can be found. Lebesgue addressed his 1937 audience as follows.
> \[…\] the name of Vandermonde would be ignored by the vast majority of mathematicians if it had not been attributed to the determinant that you know well, and which is not his!
The sentence seems to imply that the denomination “Vandermonde determinant” was familiar to any mathematics student or professor in 1937. We believe that the naming process started as a teaching practise during the second half of the 19^th^ century in France. Initially, it was more like a rumor than an identified decision grounded on historical facts; actually, many mathematicians clearly resisted it. As [@Stigler1999 p. 283] expresses it:
> \[…\] resistance to eponymic recognition of close associates may in fact be the norm of scientific behavior, one which serves the role of protecting the practice from degenerating to a regional or factional basis, with the consequent fall in the reward’s incentive power.
This raises the question of the differential penetration of the naming according to the countries, and the possible influence of nationalisms, which we did not try to assess; it may be the case that in 1937 the denomination was more familiar to Lebesgue than to his Dutch audience. The naming process of the VD slowly gained momentum during the first half of the 20^th^, but the denomination became universally used by mathematicians only after the 1960’s. It may be considered that the naming process is still ongoing, in the sense that its growth rate remains higher than that of the field. To support our assertions, we have examined a selection of influential textbooks, conducted a systematic search through available databases, and statistically studied numerical output data from MathSciNet. The first pedagogical publication we could find using the denomination, appeared in 1886; the first textbook in 1897; the first research paper in 1914. We have made a systematic query for the expressions “Vandermonde determinant” and “Vandermonde matrix”, on the MathSciNet database. The occurrences start in 1929 and remain quite sporadic until 1960. After 1960, the numbers of occurrences grow exponentially. We have compared the growth rate with that of the (much larger) number of occurrences of “determinant” or “matrix”. A statistical test has shown that the growth rate for “Vandermonde determinant” or matrix is significantly higher than the global rate of increase for determinant or matrix. With all necessary precautions on the use of quantitative methods (see [@Goldstein1999]), our conclusion is that the naming process, far from being an immediate recognition of Vandermonde’s achievements, is a rather recent, and still developing phenomenon. It appears to be posterior, and related, to the spread of matrix theory (see [@Brechenmacher2010]). The paper is organized as follows. Section \[alternants\] gives a historical sketch of the mathematical objects under consideration (difference-products and alternating functions). Vandermonde’s notations will be briefly examined in \[notation\], then Cauchy’s definition of determinants, based on difference-products, will be exposed in \[cauchy\]. In \[newton\], Newton’s and de Moivre’s anteriority on the Vandermonde matrix through the divided differences method will be reviewed. In \[V123\], Vandermonde’s actual contributions will be discussed. Section \[process\] is devoted to the naming process, that will be examined from three different points of view. Historical accounts will be described in \[historical\], focusing on the credits explicitly given to Vandermonde. The appearance of the naming in textbooks is described in \[textbooks\]. The quantification of the naming process in research papers is treated in \[databases\].
Difference-products and alternating functions {#alternants}
=============================================
Vandermonde’s notation {#notation}
----------------------
Before describing the mathematical objects under study, we shall briefly comment on Vandermonde’s notations, of which Lebesgue thought they could have induced a mix-up between indices and exponents. Here is Vandermonde’s definition of determinants [@Vandermonde1771 p. 517]:
> I suppose that one represents by $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{1}$, $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{1}$, $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{1}$, &c. $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{2}$, $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{2}$, $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{2}$, &c. $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{3}$, $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{2}}{3}$, $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{3}}{3}$, &c. as many different general quantities, of which any one be $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{a}$, another one be $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{\beta}}{b}$, &c. & that the product of both be ordinarily denoted by $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{a}\cdot\stackrel{\scriptstyle{\beta}}{b}$. Of the two ordinal numbers $\alpha$ & $a$, the first one, for instance, will designate from which equation the coefficient $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{a}$ is taken, and the second one will designate the rank that the coefficient has in the equation, as will be seen hereafter.
>
> I suppose moreover the following system of abbreviations, and that it be set [$$\begin{array}{l}
> \begin{array}{c|c}\alpha&\beta\\\hline a&b\end{array}
> \;=\;
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{a}\cdot\stackrel{\scriptstyle{\beta}}{b}
> -
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{b}\cdot\stackrel{\scriptstyle{\beta}}{a}
> \\[3ex]
> \begin{array}{c|c|c}\alpha&\beta&\gamma\\\hline a&b&c\end{array}
> \;=\;
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{a}
> \cdot\;
> \begin{array}{c|c}\beta&\gamma\\\hline b&c\end{array}
> \;+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{b}
> \cdot\;
> \begin{array}{c|c}\beta&\gamma\\\hline c&a\end{array}
> \;+
> \stackrel{\scriptstyle{\alpha}}{c}
> \cdot\;
> \begin{array}{c|c}\beta&\gamma\\\hline a&b\end{array}
> \end{array}$$ ]{} \[…\]
Vandermonde’s notations probably looked much less strange in the 19^th^ century than they do nowadays. Referring to them, T. Muir said [@Muir1906 p. 24]:
> \[…\] we observe first that Vandermonde proposes for coefficients a positional notation essentially the same as that of Leibnitz\[sic\], writing $\stackrel{\scriptstyle{1}}{2}$ where Leibnitz wrote $12$ or $1_2$.
Indeed, Vandermonde’s notations were quite similar to some of the many systems tried by Leibniz (see [@Knobloch2001]). During the first half of the 19^th^ century, different ways of denoting the coefficients of an array or a linear system coexisted (see [@Muir1906]): ${^ij}$, $i_j$, $(i,j)$, ${^ia_j}$, $a_i^{(j)}$… In the first treatise ever published on determinants, W. Spottiswoode used $(i,j)$ [@Spottiswoode1851]. C.L. Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) was the only one who ever denoted coefficients by $i\!\big\rmoustache\! j$ [@Dodgson1867]. G. Dostor’s classical treatise [@Dostor1877] proposed two notations, “juxtaposed” and “superposed” indices. Suarez and Gascó describe and use 6 different notations [@Suarez1882]. The modern notation $a_{i,j}$ was already present in Cauchy’s memoir [@Cauchy1812b p. 113]. But Cauchy himself mostly preferred multiple letter notations such as $a_i,b_i,c_i,\ldots,e_i,f_i$ (e.g. p. 121).
Cauchy’s definition {#cauchy}
-------------------
Cauchy’s two founding memoirs [@Cauchy1812a; @Cauchy1812b] were read to the Institute on November 30 1812, but were only published in 1815. After a thorough analysis of both, T. Muir concludes with a very lively description of the respective roles of Vandermonde and Cauchy [@Muir1906 p. 131].
> If one bears this in mind, and recalls the fact, temporarily set aside, that Cauchy, instead of being a compiler, presented the subject from a perfectly new point of view, added many results previously unthought of, and opened up a whole avenue of fresh investigation, one cannot but assign to him the place of honour among all the workers from 1693 to 1812. It is, no doubt, impossible to call him, as some have done, the formal founder of the theory. This honour is certainly due to Vandermonde, who, however, erected on the foundation comparatively little of a superstructure. Those who followed Vandermonde contributed, knowingly or unknowingly, only a stone or two, larger or smaller, to the building. Cauchy relaid the foundation, rebuilt the whole, and initiated new enlargements; the result being an edifice which the architects of to-day may still admire and find worthy of study.
What was that “perfectly new point of view”? Previously, Bézout, Laplace, and Vandermonde had all defined determinants by induction using, explicitly or not, what is now known as Laplace’s formula: the development of a determinant along one of its lines or columns. Cauchy’s definition [@Cauchy1812b p. 113] is radically different:
> Let $a_1, a_2,\ldots,a_n$ be several different quantities in number equal to $n$. It has been shown above, that by multiplying the product of these quantities, or $$a_1a_2a_3\ldots a_n$$ by the product of their respective differences, or else by $$(a_2-a_1)(a_3-a_1)\ldots(a_n-a_1)(a_3-a_2)\ldots(a_n-a_2)\ldots(a_n-a_{n-1})$$ one obtained as a result the alternating symmetric function $$S(\pm a_1a_2^2\ldots a_n^n)$$ which, as a consequence, happens to be always equal to the product $$a_1a_2\ldots a_n
> (a_2-a_1)\ldots(a_n-a_1)(a_3-a_2)\ldots(a_n-a_2)
> \ldots(a_n-a_{n-1})\;.$$ Let us suppose now that one develops this later product and that, in each term of the development, one replaces the exponent of each letter by a second index equal to that exponent: by writing, for instance, $a_{r,i}$ instead of $a_r^i$ and $a_{i,r}$ instead of $a_i^r$, one will obtain as a result a new alternating symmetric function which, instead of being represented by $$S(\pm a_1^1a_2^2\ldots a_n^n)\;,$$ will be represented by $$S(\pm a_{1,1}a_{2,2}\ldots a_{n,n})\;,$$ the sign $S$ being relative to the first indices of each letter. Such is the most general form of the functions that I shall designate in what follows under the name of *determinants*.
In order to understand Cauchy’s reasoning, one must keep in mind that his main focus was on functions of $n$ variables: [@Cauchy1812b] came as a sequel to [@Cauchy1812a] where he discussed functions of $n$ variables that take less than $n!$ different values when the variables are permuted. He called “symmetric alternating functions” (fonctions symétriques alternées) those functions taking only two opposite values (they will be referred to as “alternating functions”). Among them, the polynomials in $n$ variables are multiples of the “product of differences”, later called difference-product (see [@Muir1906]). The difference-product develops into a sum of monomials with alternating signs. Those signs depend on the permutation of the variables and their exponents, and the “rule of signs” had been described by Cauchy before defining determinants. (On the discovery by Leibniz in 1683 of the rule of signs, see [@Knobloch2001]). Different expressions in $n$ variables $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n$, may both be mathematically equivalent, and have different interpretations. We shall distinguish between:
- difference-product: $\displaystyle{\prod_{1\leqslant i<j\leqslant n} (a_j-a_i)}$,
- alternating polynomial: $\displaystyle{\sum_{\sigma\in\mathcal{S}_n}
(-1)^{\varepsilon(\sigma)}\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\sigma(i)-1}}$,
- Vandermonde determinant: $\mbox{det}(a_i^j)_{1\leqslant i\leqslant n, 0\leqslant j \leqslant n-1}$.
They are written in modern notations: $\mathcal{S}_n$ is the group of permutations of $\{a_1,\ldots,a_n\}$ onto itself and $\varepsilon(\sigma)$ denotes the signature of the permutation $\sigma$. Needless to say, the group of permutations and the signature as a homomorphism are anachronistic. Cauchy had recognized in the development of the difference-product, the same rule of signs as that of a general determinant. Hence his idea of using $$\prod_{i=1}^n a_i \prod_{1\leqslant i<j\leqslant n}^n (a_j-a_i)
=
\sum_{\sigma\in\mathcal{S}_n} (-1)^{\varepsilon(\sigma)}\prod_{i=1}^n a_i^{\sigma(i)}$$ as a general definition, after mutating the exponent of each variable into a second index. As pointed out by [@Muir1906 p. 247], the year 1841 marked a new spurt for determinant theory, fueled by the publication in Crelle’s journal of Jacobi’s monograph, divided into 3 papers. There Jacobi rebuilds the whole theory, taking Cauchy’s approach upside down. Here is Muir’s account [@Muir1906 p. 254].
> At the outset, there is a reversal of former orders of things; Cramer’s rule of signs for a permutation and Cauchy’s rule being led up by a series of propositions instead of one of them being made a convention or definition. This implies, of course, that a new definition of a signed permutation is adopted, and that conversely this definition must have appeared as a deduced theorem in any exposition having either of this rules as its starting point.
In other words, when Cauchy’s started from the difference-product, then defined a general determinant by mutating exponents into indices, Jacobi first defined positive and negative permutations, then defined the determinant as a polynomial, with coefficients $\pm 1$ according to the sign of the permutation. Eventually, Jacobi’s definition prevailed upon Cauchy’s, which was forgotten. Cauchy undoubdtedly saw both pedagogical and mathematical advantages to his approach. When he writes his famous “Cours d’Analyse” in 1821, he follows exactly the same path as in his 1812 memoir. He recommends the difference-product as a general method for solving linear systems of equations, and applies it immediately to the Lagrange interpolation problem (pp. 71, 72, 426, 429 of [@Cauchy1821]). The third of Jacobi’s memoirs in Crelle’s Journal [@Jacobi1841] deals with alternating functions. Cauchy responds with [@Cauchy1841] in which he treats quotients of alternating functions by difference-products. In particular, he calculates the determinant $\mathrm{det}\left(\frac{1}{a_i+b_j}\right)_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant n}$ (formula (10) p. 154 of [@Cauchy1841]) in a quite simple way. (Interestingly enough, the denomination “Cauchy determinant” for that example seems to be rarely used outside France, whereas the particular case $a_i=i, b_j=j-1$ is universally known as “Hilbert matrix”). One year before 1841, the difference-product approach had been rediscovered by James Joseph Sylvester (1814-1897) [@Sylvester1840], who (without any reference to Cauchy) called “zeta-ic multiplication” Cauchy’s operation of mutating exponents into indices in a polynomial. Muir’s comment [@Muir1906 p. 235] is somewhat ironic.
> This early paper, one cannot but observe, has all the characteristics afterwards so familiar to readers of Sylvester’s writings, – fervid imagination, vigorous originality, bold exuberance of diction, hasty if not contemptuous disregard of historical research, the outstripping of demonstration by enunciation, and an infective enthousiasm as to the vistas opened by his own work.
Newton, de Moivre, and the interpolation problem {#newton}
------------------------------------------------
The difference-product could hardly be considered an original notion in Cauchy’s time. Apart from being a very natural way of combining $n$ variables, it appears in the Lagrange interpolation problem. This other interesting case of mathematical eponymy is connected to ours, as we shall now see. For a history of interpolation, see [@Fraser1919], and section 10.4 of [@Chabert1999]. If $(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_n,y_n)$ are the Cartesian coordinates of the points to be interpolated and $P=a_0+a_1x+\cdots+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}$ the unknown polynomial, then its coefficients $a_0,\ldots a_{n-1}$ satisfy the following linear system. $$\tag{LIS}
\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
a_0+a_1x_1+\cdots+a_{n-1}x_1^{n-1}&=&y_1\\
a_0+a_1x_2+\cdots+a_{n-1}x_2^{n-1}&=&y_2\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots \\
a_0+a_1x_n+\cdots+a_{n-1}x_n^{n-1}&=&y_2
\end{array}\right.$$ Assuming the $x_i$’s are all different, the solution is the Lagrange interpolation polynomial: $$\tag{LIP}
P(X)=\sum_{i=1}^n y_i \prod_{j\neq i}\frac{X-x_j}{x_i-x_j}\;.$$ It may seem fair that whoever first wrote the system of equations (LIS) should get the credit for discovering the Vandermonde matrix and whoever wrote (LIP) for computing its inverse (and implicitly the VD). The naming “Lagrange interpolation” comes from one of the lessons that Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736–1813) gave at the École Normale in Paris in 1795 [@Lagrange1795]. There, Lagrange did not pretend to expose his own research:
> Newton is the first one who has posed that problem. Here is the solution he gives. \[…\]
Indeed, in the *Principia Mathematica*, Isaac Newton (1642–1727) had described a method to determine “a curved line of parabolic type which passes through any number of points” [@Newton1687 pp. 695–696]: what is now known as Newton’s divided differences method. In the *Principia*, Newton did not explicitly write (LIS). However, in a famous letter to Oldenburg dated October 24 1676, he mentions a manuscript, *Methodus differentialis*, that appeared in print only after the *Principia*, in 1711. There, the system (LIS) is explicitly written (see p. 10 of [@Fraser1919], where the *Methodus Differentialis* is reproduced and translated), but the explicit solution (LIP) is not given. One may think that writing down (LIP) would have seemed useless and even misleading to Newton: he must have been aware that his method was both faster and numerically more stable than the direct application of (LIP). The first one to explicitly write (LIP) is Newton’s friend Abraham de Moivre (1667–1754), in 1730 (on de Moivre’s relationship with Newton, see [@Bellhouse2007]). Instead of interpolation, de Moivre’s motivation was to calculate the coefficients in a linear combination of geometric series, when that linear combination is supposed equal to another series. The coefficients turn out to be the solution of a system equivalent to (LIS). In theorem <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span> pp. 33–35 of the *Miscellanea analytica* [@Moivre1730], de Moivre explicitly writes a general system with power coefficients, and gives its solution, thus being the first one to write the inverse of a Vandermonde matrix. Actually, de Moivre had already published particular cases of that result in the first edition of his *Doctrine of chances* [@Moivre1718 p. 132]. There he said:
> And if a general theorem were desired, it might easily be formed from the inspection of the foregoing.
>
> These theorems are very useful for summing up readily those series which express the probability of the plays being ended in a given number of games.
Indeed, de Moivre’s motivation came from probability problems arising from dice games: the theorem is used for the solution of problem <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span>, p. 77 of *Miscellanea analytica*, and in later editions (1738 and 1756) of the *Doctrine of chances*. De Moivre gives full credit to Newton both for the interpolation problem and the divided differences method. The following extract of his preface to the *Doctrine of chances* [@Moivre1718 p. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">x</span>] is worth quoting: its last sentence has a particular resounding with our subject.
> There are other sorts of series, which tho’ not properly infinite, yet are called series, from the regularity of the terms whereof they are composed; those terms following one another with a certain uniformity, which is always to be defined. Of this nature is the Theorem given by Sir *Isaac Newton*, in the fifth *Lemma* of the third Book of his *Principles*, for drawing a curve through any given number of points: of which the demonstration, as well as other things belonging to the same subject, may be deduced from the first Proposition of his *Methodus Differentialis*, printed with some other of his tracts, by the care of my intimate friend, and very skilful mathematician, Mr. W. Jones. The abovementionned theorem being very useful in summing up any number of terms whose last differences are equal (such as the numbers called triangular, pyramidal, &c. the squares, the cubes, or other powers of numbers in arithmetic progression) I have shewn in many places of this book how it might be applicable to these cases. I hope it will not be taken amiss that I have ascribed the invention of it to its proper author, tho’ ’tis possible some persons may have found something like it by their own sagacity.
De Moivre’s anteriority on the difference-product has been pointed out on several occasions, in particular by [@Tee1993]; but of course, de Moivre does not express difference-products as determinants. Actually, the difference-product, and the explicit expression of the inverse matrix have been rediscovered many times, until late in the 20^th^ century: see *e.g.* [@Klinger1967].
Vandermonde’s writings {#V123}
----------------------
We shall now examine what in Vandermonde’s work can be connected to the VD. About his “Memoir on elimination”, Vandermonde says ([@Vandermonde1771], footnote p. 516):
> This memoir was read to the Academy for the first time on the 20^th^ of January 1771. It contained different things that I have suppressed here because they have been published since by other Geometers.
These “other Geometers” certainly include Laplace, whose memoir though posterior, was published in the same volume as Vandermonde’s. Guessing what exactly did Vandermonde suppress cannot but remain conjectural. Just like Cauchy in 1812, Vandermonde wrote about determinants as a byproduct of symmetric functions; his memoir on elimination is a sequel to the memoir on the resolution of equations. The publications dates, 1774 and 1776, are misleading: [@Vandermonde1770] was read to the academy “sometime in November 1770”, *i.e.* only two months before [@Vandermonde1771]. Vandermonde undoubtedly had the first memoir in mind when he wrote the second, and both should be examined as a whole. Here are two quotations, that we have numbered for later reference.
- [@Vandermonde1770 p. 369]:
> And yet, $(a^2b+b^2c+c^2a-a^2c-b^2a-c^2b)$, which equals $(a-b)(a-c)(b-c)$, squares as $$\begin{array}{c}
> a^4b^2+a^4c^2+b^4c^2+c^4a^2+c^4b^2\\
> -2(a ^4bc+b^4ac+c^4ab)-2(a^3b^3+a^3c^3+b^3c^3)\\
> +2(a^3b^2c+a^3c^2b+b^3a^2c+b^3c^2a+c^3a^2b+c^3b^2a)\!-\!6a^2b^2c^2.
> \end{array}$$
- [@Vandermonde1771 p. 522]:
> Those acquainted with the abbreviated symbols that I have named *partial types of combination*, in my *Memoir on the resolution of equations*, will recognize here the formation of the *partial type* depending on the second degree, for any number of letters; they will easily see that, by taking our $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta$, &c. for instance, as exponents, all terms with equal signs in the development of one of our abbreviations, will also be the development of the *partial type* depending on the second degree, & formed with an equal number of letters.
Actually, the difference-product of four variables appears in the following passage [@Vandermonde1770 p. 386]:
> The first of these cubes is $$\begin{array}{l}
> (A^3B^3)-\frac{3}{2}(A^3B^2C)+6(A^3BCD)+6(A^2B^2C^2)-3(A^2B^2CD)\\
> +\frac{3}{2}(a-b)(a-c)(a-d)(b-c)(b-d)(c-d)\sqrt{-3}\;;
> \end{array}$$ \[…\] as the square of the product of differences between the roots is a function of *types*, \[…\]
However, the development is not explicitly written, and we have not found that sentence ever referred to. In [@Vandermonde1770], Vandermonde details the resolution of second and third degree equations (hence \[V1\]), then states his general method, and illustrates it by the fourth degree equation. The rest of the paper is devoted to a discussion on the symmetric functions of the roots. Admittedly, the difference-product of three variables appears in \[V1\], and its development is given; but this does not establish that Vandermonde saw it as a determinant. \[V2\] certainly proves that he knew determinants were related to his “partial types depending on the second degree” (*i.e.* alternating functions), through changing indices into exponents. He probably knew exactly to which “partial type” did the VD correspond, at least in dimension 3, and probably in dimension 4. There is no evidence he actually wrote a VD as a particular determinant, nor that he wrote difference-products of more than four variables. The impressive tables displayed on the three pages after p. 374 of [@Vandermonde1770] show that he certainly had the capacity for much more difficult formal calculations. But they also prove that he did not have a general expression for symmetric nor alternating functions. The long footnote of pp. 374–375 seems to imply that he was on his way towards greater generality.
> \[…\] By considering this formula as a multivariate finite difference equation, in which the difference of each variable is equal to unity, I can integrate & satisfy the conditions, by a particular procedure of which I propose to render an account in one of the future volumes.
It is not very surprising that, by manipulating symmetric functions of 3 or 4 variables, Vandermonde had been led to write difference-products. Whether or not he viewed them as determinants may not be the most important. More interesting is the relation that he had seen in \[V2\]. He undoubtedly knew that by making an exponent of the second index in a determinant, an alternating function was obtained. But conversely, had he realized that *any* determinant could be obtained from a difference-product by the reverse operation? \[V2\] comes in [@Vandermonde1771], immediately after his 4 pages “proof” of the alternating property, before which he had announced:
> Instead of generally proving these two equations \[the alternating property\], which would demand an awkward rather than difficult calculation, I shall content myself with developing the simplest examples; this will suffice to grasp the spirit of the proof.
The alternating property of the difference-product is trivial; and with Cauchy’s definition, proving that a determinant changes sign when exchanging two columns becomes obvious. We do not think that Vandermonde would have written his four pages of “simplest examples” had he anticipated Cauchy’s definition. Lebesgue appreciation on Vandermonde’s contribution to the resolution of equations might still have some truth in it when applied to Vandermonde’s determinants [@Lebesgue1958 p. 38]:
> Vandermonde never came back on his algebraic researches because at first he felt only imperfectly their importance, and if he did not understand it better afterwards, it is precisely because he had not reflected deeply on them; \[…\]
The naming process {#process}
==================
Historical accounts {#historical}
-------------------
We have searched historical notes in textbooks or research papers, for connections being made between Vandermonde and the VD. Many accounts have been given of Vandermonde’s contribution to the resolution of equations: see [@Neumann2007] or [@Stedall2011] for recent references. Among the most famous, [@Nielsen1929] and [@Waerden1985] (as many others) do not mention the VD. Similarly Vandermonde’s founding role is acknowledged in most historical accounts of determinant theory, but there again, his relation to the VD is seldom mentioned: throughout history, there seems to have been some embarrassment on the subject.
Muir’s masterly treatise is quite significant, and it may have had some later influence on the naming. As many other authors, Muir calls “difference-product” the VD and “alternants” those determinants stemming from alternating functions or generalizing the VD; he has been quite an active contributor of the field in the last decades of the 19^th^ century. In each volume, he devotes a chapter to alternants. Here are the first lines of that chapter in Volume 1 [@Muir1906 p. 306]:
> The first traces of the special functions now known as *alternating functions* are said by Cauchy to be discernible in certain work of Vandermonde’s; and if we view the functions as originating in the study of the number of values which a function can assume through permutation of its variables, such an early date may in a certain sense be justifiable. To all intents and purposes, however, the theory is a creation of Cauchy’s, and it is almost absolutely certain that its connection with determinants was never thought of until his time.
In volume 2, Muir feels obliged to set some records straight [@Muir1911 p. 154], p. 154:
> Further, as exagerated statements regarding Vandermonde’s contribution to the subject have been widely accepted, it seems desirable to point out the exact foundation on which such statements rest. In a paper read in November 1770 Vandermonde says (p. 369), “Or $a^2b+b^2c+c^2a-a^2c-b^2a-c^2b$, qui égale $(a-b)(a-c)(b-c)$ a pour carré $a^4b^2+\ldots$” This is the whole matter.
As we have seen, there are essentially two ways to connect Vandermonde’s writings to the VD:
- : Vandermonde has written the difference-product of three variables and its development, hence a particular case of the VD.
- : Vandermonde has anticipated Cauchy’s definition by remarking that changing one of the indices into an exponent gives an alternating function.
Clearly, Muir is on the \[V1\] side, as all historians have been since. It was not quite so in the 19^th^ century. As Muir points out, Cauchy had studied Vandermonde’s two memoirs on the resolution of equations and on elimination, and quotes them. In [@Cauchy1812b p. 110], \[V1\] is explicitly cited:
> Thus, supposing for instance $n=3$, it will be found $$\begin{aligned}
> S^2(\pm a_2a_3^2)&=&
> a_2a_3^2+a_3a_1^2+a_1a_2^2-a_3a_2^2-a_2a_1^2-a_1a_3^2\\
> &=&(a_2-a_1)(a_3-a_1)(a_3-a_2)\;.\end{aligned}$$ This last equation has been given by Vandermonde in his memoir on the resolution of equations.
Cauchy does not explicitly acknowledge that \[V2\] inspired his definition of determinants from difference-products, but the following quotation clearly alludes to \[V2\] [@Cauchy1812a p. 70].
> The smallest divisor of this product is equal to $2$ and it is easy to make sure, that, in any order, it is possible to form functions having only two different values. Vandermonde has given ways to compose functions of that kind. In general, to form with quantities $$a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n$$ an order $n$ function with index $2$, it will suffice to consider the positive or the negative part of the product $$(a_1-a_2)(a_1-a_3)\cdots(a_1-a_n)(a_2-a_3)\cdots(a_2-a_n)\cdots(a_{n-1}-a_n)$$ whose factors are the differences of the quantities $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n$ taken two by two.
We could find in the literature only 4 other citations of \[V2\]. The earliest comes in the very first words of [@Jacobi1841]; admittedly, it is worth many others.
> The famous Vandermonde once elegantly observed that the proposed determinant $$\sum \pm a_0^{(0)}a_1^{(1)}a_2^{(2)}\ldots a_n^{(n)}\;,$$ if indices are changed into exponents, comes from the product formed from the differences of all elements $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n$ $$\begin{array}{r}
> P=(a_1-a_0)(a_2-a_0)(a_3-a_0)\cdots(a_n-a_0)\\
> (a_2-a_1)(a_3-a_1)\cdots(a_n-a_1)\\
> (a_3-a_2)\cdots(a_n-a_2)\\
> \cdots\cdots\\
> (a_n-a_{n-1})
> \end{array}$$
The next citation that we are aware of, appears in [@Terquem1846].
> A very ingenious observation of the same geometer \[Vandermonde\], about indices considered as exponents, has given birth to Mr. Cauchy’s beautiful theory of *alternating functions* and to his proof of Cramer’s formulae.
Our third citation comes from the preface of Spottiswoode’s treatise. There he comments [@Cauchy1812b] as follows [@Spottiswoode1851 p. vi]:
> The second part of this paper refers immediately to determinants, and contains a large number of very general theorems. Amongst them is noticed a property of a class of functions closely connected with determinants, first given, so far as I am aware, by Vandermonde; if in the development of the expression $$a_1a_2\cdots a_n
> (a_2-a_1)\cdots(a_n-a_1)(a_3-a_2)\cdots(a_n-a_2)\cdots(a_n-a_{n-1})$$ the indices be replaced by a second series of suffixes, the result will be the determinant $$S(\pm a_{1,1}a_{2,2}\ldots a_{n,n})\;.$$
The last citation appears in [@Prouhet1856] who, before writing the difference-product of $n$ variables “according to a theorem due to Vandermonde” gives \[V2\] as a reference. It is likely that, since Cauchy’s definition never prevailed and soon fell into oblivion, so went with it Vandermonde’s “elegant observation”. From then on, \[V1\] has been the commonly accepted source for the naming. The position usually adopted is clearly expressed by an anonymous contributor to the “Nouvelles annales de Mathématiques” [@Anonymous1860 p. 181].
> Vandermonde \[…\] decomposes into factors a polynomial that can be considered as a 3^rd^ order determinant: but nothing indicates that he had the general theorem in mind, not even that he had considered that polynomial as a determinant.
The same view has been expressed many times, from R. Baltzer [@Baltzer1857 p. 50] to J. Stedall [@Stedall2011 p. 190], through S. Günther [@Gunther1875 p. 66] and G. Kowalewski [@Kowalewski1942 p. 315]; it appears in the Encyclopedia of Mathematics [@Remeslennikov1993 p. 363]. Only two of the early authors were less carefull in their attribution: F. Brioschi speaks of an “important relation due to Vandermonde” [@Brioschi1854 p. 75], and G.A. Gohierre de Longchamps devotes a section to “Vandermonde’s theorem” [@Gohierre1883 p. 82]. Since the publication of Lebesgue’s conference [@Lebesgue1958], his mix-up conjecture has been cited by several authors: see *e.g.* [@Edwards1984 p. 18], [@Blyth2002 p. 197]; it even appears in Gillispie’s Dictionary of Scientific Biography, [@Gillispie1976 p. 571]. It has probably fostered the widely accepted idea that the attribution of the VD to Vandermonde is a misnomer. J. Dieudonné states it quite clearly [@Dieudonne1978 p. 59].
> This naming, due to Cauchy, is not historically justified, since Vandermonde never explicitly introduced such a determinant.
Yet, Dieudonné was aware of Cauchy’s use of the exchange between exponents and indices, that he presents as an “elegant trick”…
Textbooks
---------
We have made a selection of 24 treatises and textbooks having appeared in the 19^th^ and 20^th^ centuries, partially or completely devoted to determinants, and where the VD appears as a mathematical object, if only as a simple example or exercise. All of them have had several editions or translations, which we regard as a criterion of (relatively) large diffusion. Our selection is arbitrary, and we have examined only a very small sample of the full textbook production of these times. We have not systematically searched outside the area of linear algebra, though we are aware that early occurrences of the naming can be found in other fields. For instance, in one of the earliest and most influential treatises on numerical analysis, when the authors expose Newton’s divided difference method, they write the interpolation system, its determinant, and add [@Whittacker1924 p. 23]:
> Now a difference-product may be expressed as a determinant of the kind known as Vandermonde’s\[…\]
As another example, Pólya and Szegő’s famous textbook contains a “generalized Vandermonde determinant” [@Polya1945 p. 43]. Nevertheless, we consider our sample as representative, in the statistical sense: our conclusion being that the denomination remains sporadic until 1950, we believe it would be confirmed on a broader corpus. Table \[tab:books\] gives the references, the publication country (including translations), and the name given to the VD for each book in our sample.
Reference Countries Page Naming
------------------- -------------------- ------ --------------------
[@Brioschi1854] Italy 75 none
[@Baltzer1857] Germany, France 50 none
[@Salmon1859] Great-Britain 13 none
[@Bertrand1859] France, Italy 333 none
[@Trudi1862] Italy 31 none
[@Gunther1875] Germany 66 difference product
[@Dostor1877] France 142 none
[@Scott1880] Great-Britain 115 difference product
[@Mansion1880] Belgium 27 none
[@Suarez1882] Spain 360 none
[@Gohierre1883] France 82 none
[@Hanus1886] USA 187 difference product
[@Chrystal1886] Great-Britain 53 none
[@Pascal1897] Italy, Germany 166 Vandermonde
[@Kronecker1903] Germany 304 none
[@Hawkes1905] USA 218 none
[@Weld1906] USA 169 alternant
[@Wedderburn1934] USA 26 none
[@Barnard1936] Great-Britain, USA 126 none
[@Aitken1939] USA 42 alternant
[@Kowalewski1942] Germany 315 none
[@Gantmacher1953] Russia, USA 99 Vandermonde
[@Bourbaki1970] France, USA 532 Vandermonde
[@Lang1970] USA 155 Vandermonde
: Textbooks including the VD, and whether ot not it is given a name.[]{data-label="tab:books"}
Before the second half of the 20^th^ century, the denomination “Vandermonde determinant” can hardly be found in textbooks. Among the early treatises on determinants, [@Brioschi1854 p. 75] mentions “an important relation due to Vandermonde”, and [@Gohierre1883] devotes a section to “Vandermonde’s theorem”. These attributions may have had some influence on the naming practice, but they are not *actual namings* of the VD as a mathematical object. Ernesto Pascal (1865–1940) seems to be the first one to actually name the VD in a textbook. His hesitations are very revealing. The running head of [@Pascal1897 p. 166] is indeed “Vandermonde determinant”. But the title of the section is “Vandermonde or Cauchy determinant”. Pascal cites [@Jacobi1841] and mentions:
> It is usually called also Cauchy determinant, this last author having considered it in general, whereas Vandermonde studied it in a particular case.
Many authors, although quite aware of Vandermonde’s contributions, remain very cautious regarding the naming. Siegmund Günther (1848–1923) devotes the first chapter of his treatise to a careful historical exposition, where Vandermonde’s role is thoroughly analyzed. Yet later on, the VD is named “Differenzenproduct” and attributed to Vandermonde for $n=3$ and to Cauchy for the general case [@Gunther1875 p. 66]. Leopold Kronecker (1823–1891) cannot be suspected of downplaying Vandermonde’s achievements (see [@Lebesgue1958]). However, when he writes his “Lessons on the theory of determinants”, he attributes the VD to Cauchy [@Kronecker1903 p. 304] and does not name it. In his “Lessons on number theory”, the VD is named “Differenzenprodukt” [@Kronecker1901 p. 396]. Joseph Bertrand (1822–1900) has known Cauchy, and he is among the rare authors to follow Cauchy’s definition of determinants. His “Traité élémentaire d’algèbre” had several editions since 1851. The determinants appear in the 1859 Italian edition [@Bertrand1859 p. 333] but no name is given to the VD.
Research papers {#databases}
---------------
In order to evaluate the penetration of the expression “Vandermonde determinant” in the mathematical literature, we have searched through several databases: Gallica, Google Books, Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum, Internet Archive, Jstor, Mathematical Reviews (or “MathSciNet”), Numdam, and Zentralblatt Math[^2]. The earliest traces of the attribution that we could find in articles are:
1. [@Prouhet1856 p. 87]: “According to a theorem due to Vandermonde”
2. [@Anonymous1860 p. 181]: “This theorem, ordinarily attributed to Vandermonde,\[…\]”
3. [@Neuberg1866 p. 517]: “This last determinant, by virtue of the theorem known as *Vandermonde’s*,\[…\]”
We cannot be sure that earlier appearances do not exist elsewhere. However we find it significant that the earliest references were found in pedagogy rather than research journals. They come from professors at the undergraduate level, sharing their solutions to particular problems. In quotations 2 and 3, some hesitation can be felt in the expressions “ordinarily attributed to” or “known as”. As we have already seen, [@Prouhet1856] cites \[V2\] to support the attribution, whereas [@Anonymous1860] clearly resists it; both implicitly admit that the attribution to Vandermonde is already a usual practice. After 1886, maybe under the influence of [@Gohierre1883], the attributions become more assertive. The first two actual namings seem to be:
1. [@Marchand1886 p. 164]: “The numerator is a Vandermonde determinant.”
2. [@Weill1888] : ”On a form of Vandermonde determinant” (title of the paper).
The first occurrence of the naming in a research journal was found through Jstor: [@Bennett1914]. This indicates that the denomination was already in use both among researchers and outside France, before World War One. For our quantitative study, we chose to focus on MathSciNet, that seemed to give more easily interpretable results. As an example of the difficulties encountered with other bases, Zentralblatt has references to which the keyword “Vandermonde determinant” is associated, whereas it does not appear in the article: an example is [@Jonquieres1895] whose denomination for the VD is “déterminant potentiel”; these false detections were difficult to sort. However we believe that searching in another database would give similar results (compare Figure \[fig:MSN1\] below with those of Annex 1.2 in [@Brechenmacher2010]). We are aware of the limits to our quantitative approach. The MathSciNet database does not contain all published articles; moreover, we could not check each reference to make sure it was relevant. Nevertheless, we consider that MathSciNet is a representative sample, in the statistical sense, of the total mathematical production: we believe that our estimation of exponential growth rates would not be significantly (again in the statistical sense) modified if computed on another database. We first searched for the other historical denominations, “alternant”, “difference-product” and “power determinant”. No publication could be found for “power determinant”, which seems to have disappeared (maybe for ambiguity reasons). Similarly, only two non ambiguous occurrences were found for “difference-product”. The name “alternant” is also ambiguous: it appears in “alternant code” and “alternant group”. After disambiguation, here are the occurrences per decade. $$\begin{array}{|c|cccccccc|}
\hline
\mbox{dates}&<1940&40\mbox{'s}&50\mbox{'s}&60\mbox{'s}&70\mbox{'s}&
80\mbox{'s}&90\mbox{'s}&>2000\\
\hline
\mbox{alternant occurrences}&10&7&8&12&4&9&5&4\\
\hline
\end{array}$$ The occurrence of “alternant” (as a determinant) did not completely disappear, but it has remained sporadic, and has not increased with the total mathematical production. Let us now turn to the Vandermonde denomination. It can be found under different forms.
- Vandermonde determinant or matrix,
- Vandermonde’s determinant or matrix,
- Vandermondian.
The second one has 16 occurrences before 2011, the third one only 7. The first occurrence of “Vandermondian” was found in [@Farrel1959]; however, the term seems to be more current in the physical literature than in the mathematical one: see [@Vein1999], section 4.1 p. 51. It may be the case that the use of the Vandermonde determinant in the modelling of the quantum Hall effect (see [@Scharf1994]) boosted its popularity among physicists. This would match the effect that quantum mechanics had on the development of matrix theory, as described by [@Brechenmacher2010]. The query “Vandermonde determinant” includes “Vandermonde’s determinant” (and determinants); applied with the option “Anywhere”, it returns 273 occurrences. The query “Vandermonde matrix” (including plural) returns 363 occurrences. Our query was the disjunction of these two, and it returned 623 occurrences (less than the sum of the previous two because “determinant” and “matrix” together are found in 13 references). The first occurrence appears in 1929. We have made the same query for each year from 1929 to 2010. The corresponding numbers will be referred to as “Vandermonde data”. They remain quite sporadic during the first half of the 20^th^ century (0, 1, 2, or 3 occurrences per year before 1958); then they gradually increase. Of course that increase was expected, since the total mathematical production grows exponentially: the increase in the output of any given query should be considered only relatively to the increase of the total production in the field. For the same years (1929–2010), we have made the query “determinant or matrix”. The corresponding series will be referred to as “global data”. The total number was 202219. In order to compare both series, we have plotted on the same graphic (Figure \[fig:MSN1\]), the Vandermonde and the global data, after dividing each by its sum. Of course the Vandermonde data are more irregular; however, both curves seem to grow exponentially, with a higher rate for the Vandermonde data.
![Occurrences of “Vandermonde determinant” or “Vandermonde matrix” (dashed) compared to “determinant” or “matrix” (solid) in the MathSciNet database. For each curve, the data per year have been divided by their sum.[]{data-label="fig:MSN1"}](MSN1.pdf){width="10cm"}
In order to provide a statistical justification to the previous assertions, our treatment was the following. Firstly, the last two years (2009 and 2010) were truncated: they show a decrease that we do not consider as significant; it is probably due to the delay in entering new publications in the base. Then the data were binned over periods of 5 years (to account for sporadicity at the beginning of the Vandermonde series). Saying that the data grow exponentially means that they can be adjusted by a function of the type $y=\exp(ax+b)$ where $x$ is a year, $y$ a number of publication, and $a$ is the exponential growth rate. Equivalently, the logarithm of the data can be adjusted by a linear function of the years: $ax+b$. The parameters $a$ and $b$ were estimated by a least-squares linear regression of the log-data over the years (see *e.g.* chap. 14 of [@Utts2004] as a general reference). Figure \[fig:MSN2\] displays the graphical results of the two linear regressions. Both regressions were found to be significant, with respective p-values of $3.6~10^{-12}$ and $3.1~10^{-7}$. The exponential growth rate (*i.e.* the slope of the regression line) was found to be $0.0079$ for the global data, and $0.0131$ for the Vandermonde data. In other words, the global number of publications is multiplied by $\mathrm{e}^a\simeq 1.0079$, or else increases by $0.79\%$ per year on average, whereas the Vandermonde data increase by $1.31\%$. To test whether the $0.52\%$ observed difference between growth rates was significant, we used another linear regression, that time on the logarithm of the *ratios*, *i.e.* on the difference of the two previous sets. The new slope is of course the difference of the two previous ones, and it was found to be significantly positive, with a p-value of $6.9~10^{-4}$.
![Linear regressions for the logarithms of occurrences of “Vandermonde determinant” or “Vandermonde matrix” (dashed line, empty diamonds) and “determinant” or “matrix” (solid line and diamonds) in the MathSciNet database. The data are binned by 5-year periods over the 80 years 1929-2008.[]{data-label="fig:MSN2"}](MSN2.pdf){width="10cm"}
Having shown that the denomination “Vandermonde determinant or matrix” has a higher growth rate than “determinant or matrix” alone, the question of the interpretation arises. Comparing exponential growth rates may be a way of measuring the scientific dynamism of a research field. A field with a faster growth than the global production could be considered as booming; on the contrary a field with a lower growth rate would be seen as slowing down; among two fields, the more dynamic would be the one with a significantly higher growth rate. Here, the problem is different. The hypothesis of a higher dynamics of research on the VD compared to the rest of linear algebra can be ruled out: the VD has long been an undergraduate-level basic tool rather than a subject of research of its own. There remains two possible explanations.
1. The fields of research using the Vandermonde determinant or matrix as a tool, are more fertile than those using other determinants or matrices.
2. Mathematicians using a Vandermonde determinant or matrix tend more and more to give it its usual name.
We could not find any evidence supporting the first hypothesis, and we believe that the occurrence of the VD as an object is no more frequent in today’s mathematical research than it was some decades ago. The only explanation we find plausible is that when mathematicians encounter a VD, they tend more and more to use the standard denomination, which has become a universally accepted shortcut.
Conclusion
==========
In our study of the historical process that led to the worldwide adoption, throughout mathematical research papers and textbooks, of the denomination “Vandermonde determinant”, we have established the following points. Although Vandermonde is not the first discoverer of the object, although he never expressed it in full generality, there still exist two connections between his writings and the VD: he has written down and developed the difference-product of 3 variables, and he has observed that changing indices into exponents in a general determinant gave an alternating function. Even if Vandermonde’s calculation of the 3 variables difference-product was the only one eventually retained by historians, his second observation about changing exponents into indices probably inspired Cauchy’s definition of determinants, and was quoted by Jacobi. Both may have sparked off the naming process. It started during the second half of the 19^th^ century, essentially as a teaching practice. For quite a long time, textbook and research paper authors resisted the naming, for which no sufficient justification existed in their view. The naming process eventually gained momentum during the second half of the 20^th^ century and from then on, its penetration of the mathematical community has been increasing. This was proved by a statistical treatment of numerical data from the MathSciNet database, that consisted in comparing the exponential growth rates of the naming to that of the global production. Thus we believe that we have brought answers to the questions where?, when?, and how? The most important question may be the one we did not address: why? The sociological explanation of eponymy as a reward, may not be the only one. We believe that the pedagogical function of eponymy, which has been overlooked until now, should be taken into account. Here are some of the questions that would deserve an investigation. As the computation of the VD became a classical exercise or example, did the pressure to name it increase? More generally, do students prefer a mathematician’s name rather than an impersonal one? Is a theorem easier to memorize when given a person’s name? Does a mathematician necessarily transmit as a researcher the denominations he has learned as a student? Many questions remain to be asked, but we do not think that they are proper to mathematics, nor that can be answered by mathematicians alone: maybe the time has come for a collaboration between specialists of mathematics, pedagogy, and onomastics (see *e.g.* [@Nuessel2011])…
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author is indebted to the two anonymous referees for important remarks and helpful hints.
[A]{}
A.C. Aitken, *Determinants and matrices*, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1939.
R. Baltzer, *Theorie und Anwendung der Determinanten*, Hirzel, Leipzig, 1857.
S. Barnard & J.M. Child, *Advanced algebra*, Macmillan & Co., New-York, 1936
D.D. Beaver, Reflections on the natural history of eponymy and scientific law, *Social Studies of Science*, 6, 1976, pp. 89–98.
D.R. Bellhouse & C. Genest, Maty’s biography of Abraham de Moivre, translated, annotated and augmented, *Statistical Science*, 22(1), 2007, pp. 109–136.
A.A. Bennett, An algebraic treatment of the theorem of closure, *Ann. Math.*, 2^nd^ ser., 16(1/4), 1914, pp. 97–118.
G. Bertrand, *Trattato di algebra elementare*, Le Monnier, Firenze, 1859.
T.S. Blyth & E.F. Robertson, *Further linear algebra*, Springer, New York 2002.
*Elements of Mathematics: Algebra <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>*, Springer, New York, 1989.
F. Brechenmacher, Une histoire de l’universalité des matrices mathématiques, *Revue de Synthèse*, 131(4), 2010, pp. 569-603.
*La teorica dei determinanti, e le sue pricipali applicazioni*, Bizzoni, Pavia, 1854.
A.L. Cauchy, Mémoire sur le nombre des valeurs qu’une fonction peut acquérir lorsqu’on y permute de toutes les manières possibles les quantités qu’elle renferme, *Journal de l’École Polytechnique*, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xvii</span>^e^ Cahier, Tome <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">x</span>, 1815, pp. 64–90.
A.L. Cauchy, Mémoire sur les fonctions qui ne peuvent obtenir que deux valeurs égales et de signes contraires par suite des transpositions opérées entre les variables qu’elles renferment, *Journal de l’École Polytechnique*, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xvii</span>^e^ Cahier, Tome <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">x</span>, 1815, pp. 91–169.
A.L. Cauchy, *Cours d’Analyse de l’École Royale Polytechnique* Debure, Paris, 1821.
A.L. Cauchy, Mémoire sur les fonctions alternées et sur les sommes alternées, in *Exercices d’Analyse et de Physique Mathématique* tome <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, Bachelier, Paris 1841, pp. 151–159.
J.L. Chabert & É. Barbin, *A history of algorithms: from the pebble to the microchip*, Springer, New York, 1999.
G. Chrystal, *Algebra*, Black, London, 1886.
E. de Jonquières, Sur les dépendances mutuelles des déterminants potentiels, *CRAS Paris* 120, 1895, pp. 408–410.
A. de Moivre, *The doctrine of chances*, London, 1718.
A. de Moivre, *Miscellanea analytica de seriebus et quadraturis*, London, 1730.
J. Dieudonné, *Abrégé d’histoire des mathématiques 1700–1900*, Tome <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>, Hermann, Paris, 1978.
C.L. Dodgson, *An elementary treatise on determinants*, Mac Millan, London, 1867.
*Éléments de la théorie des déterminants*, Delagrave, Paris, 1877.
H.M. Edwards, *Galois theory*, Springer, New York, 1984.
G. Faccarello, Du conservatoire à l’École Normale : quelques notes sur A.T. Vandermonde (1735–1796), *Cahiers d’Histoire du CNAM*, 2/3 1993, pp. 15–57.
A.B. Farrel, A special Vandermondian determinant, *Amer. Math. Monthly*, 66, 1959, pp. 564–569.
D.C. Fraser, Newton’s interpolation formulas, reprinted from *The Journal of the Institute of Acturaries*, vol. li, pp.77–106 (Oct. 1918) and pp. 211–232 (April 1919). Layton, London, 1919.
F.R. Gantmacher, *The theory of matrices*, Chelsea, New York, 1959.
C.C. Gillispie, *Dictionary of scientific biography, vol. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xiii</span>*, Scribner, New York, 1976.
G.A. Gohierre de Longchamps *Cours de Mathématiques spéciales*, Delagrave, Paris, 1883.
C. Goldstein, Sur la question des méthodes quantitatives en histoire des mathématiques : le cas de la théorie des nombres en France (1870–1914), *Acta historiae rerum naturalium nec non technicarum* 3(28), 1999, pp. 187–214.
S. Günter, *Lehrbuch der Determinanten-theorie für Studirende*, Besold, Erlangen 1875.
P.H. Hanus, *An elementary treatise on the theory of determinants*, Ginn & Co., Boston, 1886.
H.E. Hawkes, *Advanced algebra*, Gin & Co., Boston, 1905.
M.R. Henwood & I. Rival, Eponymy in Mathematical nomenclature: what’s in a name, and what should be?, *Math. Intelligencer*, 2(4), 1980, pp. 204–205.
J. Hecht, Un exemple de multidisciplinarité : Alexandre Vandermonde, *Population*, 26(4), 1971, pp. 641–676.
C.G. Jacobi, De fonctionibus alternatibus earumque divisione per productum et differentiis elementorum conflatum, *J. Reine Angew. Mathematik*, vol. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xxvii</span> 1841, pp. 360–371.
The Vandermonde matrix, *Amer. Math. Monthly*, 74(5), 1967, pp. 571–574.
G. Kowalewski, *Determinantentheorie*, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1942.
E. Knobloch, Déterminants et élimination chez Leibniz, *Revue d’Histoire des Sciences*, 54(2), 2001, pp. 143–164.
L. Kronecker, *Vorlesungen über Zahlentheorie* Vol. 1, Teubner, Leipzig, 1901.
L. Kronecker, *Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Determinanten* Teubner, Leipzig, 1903.
J.L. Lagrange, Leçon cinquième : sur l’usage des courbes dans la solution des problèmes, in *Séances des Écoles Normales recueillies par les sténographes et revues par les professeurs*, Reynier, Paris, 1795.
S. Lang, *Introduction to linear algebra*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1970.
H. Lebesgue L’[œ]{}uvre mathématique de Vandermonde, in *Notices d’Histoire des Mathématiques*, Université de Genève 1958, pp. 18–39.
P. Mansion, *Éléments de la théorie des déterminants*, Mons, 1880.
E. Marchand, Sur le changement de variables, *Annales scientifiques de l’É.N.S.* 3^e^ série, tome 3, 1886, pp. 137–138.
R.K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered, *Science*, 159(3810), 1968, pp. 56–63.
T. Muir, *The theory of determinants in the historical order of development, Volume I* Mac Millan, London, 1906.
T. Muir, *The theory of determinants in the historical order of development, Volume II* Mac Millan, London, 1911.
M. Neuberg, Question 590, *Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques*, 2^e^ série, tome 5, 1866, p. 511–525.
From Euler through Vandermonde to Gauss, in R.E. Bradley & C.E. Sandifer eds. *Leonhard Euler: life and legacy*, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
I. Newton, *Philosophi[æ]{} Naturalis Principia Mathematica*, London 1687.
N. Nielsen, *Géomètres français sous la Révolution*, Levin & Munksgaard, Copenhague, 1929.
A note on the name of mathematical problems and puzzles, *Names: J. Onomastics*, 50(1), 2011, pp. 57–64.
E. Pascal, *Determinanti, teoria ed applicazioni*, Hoepli, Milano, 1897.
G. Pólya and G. Szegő, *Problems and theorems in analysis*, Springer, New York, 1998.
Un Professeur, Solution de la question 515, *Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques*, 1(19) 1860, pp. 181–183.
J.H. Przytycki, History of the knot theory from Vandermonde to Jones, in *<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xxiv</span>^th^ National Congress of the Mexican Mathematical Society*, Mexico City, 1992, pp. 173–185.
E. Prouhet, Notes sur quelques identités, *Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques*, 1^e^ série, tome 15, 1856, pp. 86–91.
V.N. Remeslennikov, Vandermonde determinant in M. Hazewinkel ed. *Encyclopedia of Mathematics* vol. 9, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993, p. 363.
G. Salmon, *Lessons introductory to the modern higher algebra*, Hodges, Smith & Co., Dublin, 1859.
D.A. Santos, *Probability: an introduction*, Jones & Bartlett, Sudbury MA, 2011.
R.F. Scott, *A treatise on the theory of determinants, and their applications to geometry and analysis*, Cambridge, 1880.
T. Scharf, J.Y. Thibon, and B.G. Wybourne, Powers of the Vandermonde determinant and the quantum Hall effect, *J. Phys. A: Math. Gen*, 27, 1994, pp. 4211–4219.
H. Small, On the shoulders of [Robert Merton]{}: towards a normative theory of citation, *Scientometrics*, 60(1), 2004, pp. 71–79.
J.D.H. Smith, In defense of eponymy, *Math Intelligencer*, 3(2), 1980, pp. 89–90.
W. Spottiswoode, *Elementary theorems relating to determinants*, London, 1851.
J. Stedall, *From Cardano’s great art to Lagrange’s reflections: filling a gap in the history of algebra*, Heritage of European Mathematics, European Mathematical Society, 2011.
S.M. Stigler, *Statistics on the table: the history of statistical concepts and methods*, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1999.
A. Suarez & L. Gascó, *Lecciones de combinatoria con las determinantes y sus principales aplicaciones* Alufre, Valencia, 1882.
C.R. Sullivan, The first chair of political economy in France: Alexandre Vandermonde and the *Principles* of Sir James Steuart at the Ecole normale of the year <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>, *Franch Historical Studies*, 20(4), 1997, pp. 635–664.
J.J. Sylvester, On derivation of coexistence: Part I. Being the theory of simultaneous simple homogeneous equations, *Philosophical Magazine*, vol. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xvi</span>, 1840, pp. 37–43.
G.T. Tee, Integer sums of recurring series, *New Zealand J. of Math.*, 22, 1993, pp. 85–100.
O. Terquem, Notice sur l’élimination, *Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques*, 1^e^ série, tome 5, 1846, pp. 153–162.
N. Trudi, *Teoria de’ determinanti e loro applicazioni*, Pellerano, Napoli, 1862.
J.M. Utts & R.F. Heckard, *Mind on Statistics*, Thomson, Belmont, CA, 2004.
A.T. Vandermonde, Mémoire sur la résolution des équations, in *Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences avec les mémoires de mathématiques et de physique pour la même année tirés des registres de cette académie. Année <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mdcclxxi</span>*, Paris 1774, pp. 365–413.
A.T. Vandermonde, Mémoire sur l’élimination, in *Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences avec les mémoires de mathématiques et de physique pour la même année tirés des registres de cette académie. Année <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mdcclxxi</span> seconde partie*, Paris 1776, pp. 516–532.
A.T. Vandermonde, Mémoire sur les irrationnelles des différents ordres avec une application au cercle, in *Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences avec les mémoires de mathématiques et de physique pour la même année tirés des registres de cette académie. Année <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mdcclxxii</span> première partie*, Paris 1775, pp. 489–498.
A.T. Vandermonde, Remarques sur les problèmes de situation, in *Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences avec les mémoires de mathématiques et de physique pour la même année tirés des registres de cette académie. Année <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mdcclxxii</span> seconde partie*, Paris 1776, pp. 566–574.
B.L. van der Waerden, *A history of algebra: from al Khawārizmī to Emmy Noether*, Springer, New York 1985.
R. Vein & P. Dale, *Determinants and their applications in mathematical physics*, Applied Mathematical Sciences 134, Springer, New York, 1999.
J.H. Wedderburn, *Lectures on matrices*, AMS Colloquium publications, vol. 17, 1934.
G. Weill, Sur une forme du déterminant de Vandermonde; *Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques*, (3) vii, pp. 427–429, 1888.
L.G. Weld, *Determinants*, Wiley, New York, 1906.
E.T. Whittacker & G. Robinson, *The calculus of observations*, Old Bailey, London 1924.
[^1]: all translations are B.Y.’s
[^2]: <http://gallica.bnf.fr>, <http://books.google.com>, <http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de>, <http://www.archive.org>, <http://www.jstor.org>, <http://www.ams.org/mathscinet>, <http://www.numdam.org/>, <http://www.zentralblatt-math.org/zbmath>.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Shape Dynamics is a theory of gravity that waives refoliation invariance in favor of spatial Weyl invariance. It is a canonical theory, constructed from a Hamiltonian, 3+1 perspective. One of the main deficits of Shape Dynamics is that its Hamiltonian is only implicitly constructed as a functional of the phase space variables. In this paper, I write down the equations of motion for Shape Dynamics to show that over a curve in phase space representing a Minkowski spacetime, Shape Dynamics possesses Poincaré symmetry for appropriate boundary conditions. The proper treatment of such boundary conditions leads us to completely formulate Shape Dynamics for open manifolds in the asymptotically flat case. We study the charges arising in this case and find a new definition of total energy, which is completely invariant under spatial Weyl transformations close to the boundary. We then use the equations of motion once again to find a non-trivial solution of Shape Dynamics, consisting of a flat static Universe with a point-like mass at the center. We calculate its energy through the new formula and rederive the usual Schwarzschild mass.'
author:
- Henrique Gomes
- |
**Henrique Gomes[^1]\
*University of California at Davis\
*One Shields Avenue Davis, CA, 95616, USA****
title: Poincaré invariance and asymptotic flatness in Shape Dynamics
---
Introduction
============
Shape Dynamics is a theory of gravity. It is a canonical theory, constructed from a Hamiltonian, 3+1 perspective. Classically, it differs little from a gauge-fixation of the canonical form of General relativity [@SD:FAQ]. To be more precise, a gauge-fixed version of Shape Dynamics is identical to General Relativity in a particular gauge of its own - the so called CMC gauge. In the quantum realm however, the differences might be great. That is because Shape Dynamics does not possess refoliation invariance. Instead, it has complete spatial Weyl invariance. From an effective field theory point of view, this would already imply a vastly different scenario: gauge-invariant terms in Shape Dynamics are spatially conformal-diffeomorphism invariant, as opposed to invariant under space-time diffeomorphisms.
Regarding a classical distinction, it can be shown that there are global solutions of general relativity that cannot be put completely into a Shape Dynamics formulation, just as there might be solutions of Shape Dynamics that might not have a GR counterpart. General relativity is experimentally very tightly constrained on one hand, but on the other it gives rise to singularities and is not understood as a quantum theory. It is interesting therefore to have an example of a theory that differs from general relativity, but not too much. This provides a good motivation to study classical aspects of Shape Dynamics.
Shape Dynamics is grounded upon certain uniqueness and existence results for a particular type of initial value formulation of GR [@York:1972sj]. Its Hamiltonian, although guaranteed to exist and be unique under a generous set of circumstances, is given only implicitly as a solution of a second order differential equation over each point in phase space. Despite this abstract quality, it has already served to yield much insight into Weyl invariance on GR [@SD1; @SD:LT], holographic renormalization [@HJSD], symmetry doubling in GR [@SymDoub], AdS/CFT [@Flavio; @and; @Sean], and more general symmetry trading [@SymDoub; @SD:FAQ].
In this paper we aim to take Shape Dynamics into two somewhat different directions. First, we would like to study particular solutions of Shape Dynamics, and not just general theoretical features. For this it is not enough to formulate the theory implicitly, by merely finding its Hamiltonian. We must in fact find a manageable way to write the equations of motion for Shape Dynamics, which can then be studied over each solution separately. We do this in section \[sec:eom\]. Using the equations of motion, we will see the emergence of Poincaré invariance from Shape Dynamics, which arises naturally over a curve in phase space that represents a Minkowski spacetime. Given that the field invariance present in Shape Dynamics (spatial dilatation and spatial diffeomorphism invariance) is vastly different than that present in ADM (on shell spacetime diffeomorphisms), the formal equivalence of the two theories has seemed puzzling in some respect. We hope this result will go some ways towards elucidating this puzzle.
The study of the Minkowski analogue in Shape Dynamics will naturally bring us to focus our attention on the second purpose of this paper: the formulation of Shape Dynamics for open spatial manifolds. In the open manifold case Shape Dynamics possesses simpler equations of motion than for the closed manifold setting, in which Shape Dynamics has so far concentrated. On the other hand closed topology is simpler in that it does not require us to deal with boundary conditions, whereas the open spatial manifold case involves this complication.
These considerations require us to formulate and understand the construction of Shape Dynamics in the presence of boundaries and, in particular, in the asymptotically flat case. Limiting our field space to obey one set of natural boundary conditions will produce, for a curve of Minkowski initial data, a theory with full Poincaré symmetry.[^2] That Poincaré symmetry and its charges arise is an accident of the particular lapse propagators in Shape Dynamics. As an indirect consequence of this “accident", in an explicit calculation of the charges arising in the boundary formulation we find an extra term to the mass charge of ADM. This charge is seen to correct the ADM mass so that the mass for asymptotically flat Shape Dynamics is preserved under asymptotic spatial Weyl transformations.
Lastly, we will use the equations of motion of Shape Dynamics once more to find a solution for static phase space data, consisting of a flat metric and vanishing momenta, with a point mass at the center of the Universe. We show that we can find a unique solution for Shape Dynamics in this instance. The lapse is uniquely fixed to be the one for Schwarzschild solution in isotropic coordinates, and if one reconstructs the spatial metric one obtains the full isotropic Schwarzschild solution. The Shape Dynamics definition of mass is used for this solution and we still obtain in a simple manner the correct Schwarzschild mass.
We start in section \[sec:LT\] with the ADM Hamiltonian and its constraint algebra. We then briefly present the construction of Shape Dynamics in the closed manifold case, for those unacquainted. In section \[sec:ps\_red\] we study phase space reduction in the presence of boundaries in its generality. This is a rather abstract and technical section, and can be skipped at a first reading, in favor of the concrete results of section \[sec:Boundaries\]. Section \[sec:ps\_red\] consists in defining the leftover total Hamiltonian, and its consistency with the reduction procedure. We see that the only instance in which we are left with a non-trivial evolution generator for Shape Dynamics is if the boundary conditions on the lapse allow lapses that propagate maximal slicing on the boundary. We end the section by writing out the equations of motion of Shape Dynamics for the open manifold case. Section \[sec:Boundaries\] is where we concentrate our more concrete results. We look at the solution over Minkowski-like initial data and find both 3-dimensional conformal symmetry and 4-dimensional Poincaré symmetry. These symmetries, however, don’t close on themselves, and would thus prompt a tower of constraints. By investigating the proper formulation of the boundary generators we find the root of the inconsistency: in order to ensure finiteness and differentiability of the constraints the two symmetries cannot be simultaneously well-defined. The charges resulting from these investigations are calculated, and seen to coincide with ADM, except for the energy. The new energy is shown to be Weyl invariant. Finally we find a non-trivial ansatz and solution for Shape Dynamics which reproduces the Schwarzschild solution in preferred isotropic coordinates. We summarize our results in section \[sec:conclusions\]. In appendix \[appendix:LFE\_CMC\] we comment on how each set of symmetries excludes the other in the closed, CMC slicing case. In appendix \[app:Boundaries\] we concentrate some of the auxiliary calculations for the boundary variations, and in appendix \[appendix:central\] we show that central terms don’t prevent the constraints in Shape Dynamics with our appropriate boundary conditions from forming a Poincaré algebra.
From ADM to Shape Dynamics {#sec:LT}
==========================
The ADM constraints
-------------------
Let us begin by writing out the constraints of canonical GR in its 3+1 ADM form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:scalar constraint}S(x):= \frac{G_{abcd}\pi^{ab}\pi^{cd}}{\sqrt g}(x)-R(x)\sqrt g(x)=0\\
\label{equ:momentum constraint} H_a:={\pi^{a}_b}_{;a}=0\end{aligned}$$ The scalar constraint generates on-shell refoliations of spacetime, while the momentum constraint generates foliation preserving diffeomorphisms.
The algebra of the constraints is
\[equ:ADM\_algebra\] $$\begin{aligned}
\{S(N_1),S(N_2)\}&=&H_b(g^{ab}(N_1\partial_a N_2-N_2\partial_a N_1))\label{equ:ADM_alg:SS}\\
\{S(N),H^a(\xi_a)\}&=&-S(\mathcal{L}_{\vec\xi} N)\\
\{H_a(\xi^a),H_ b(\eta^b)\}&=& H_a([\vec\xi,\vec\eta]^a)\end{aligned}$$
where we use the notation for smearing $S(N)=\int d^3 x N(x)S(x)$ and $H^a(\xi_a)= \int d^3 x H^a(x)\xi_a(x) $, $N\in C^\infty(M)$ and $\xi^a\in \Gamma^\infty(TM)$ is a smooth vector field.
The algebra of constraints above can be put in a general form {H\^(\_),H\^(\_)}=H(\[, \]\_) where $H_0=S$, $\xi^0=N$ in the above, and $[\xi, \eta]_{\mbox{\tiny SD}}$ is the so called *hypersurface deformation algebra of vector fields*, and stands for the commutator of vector fields orthogonally decomposed along the hypersurface.
Shape Dynamics
--------------
Here we will briefly review the construction of Shape Dynamics as a theory equivalent to ADM gravity on a compact Cauchy surface $\Sigma$ without boundary. For details see [@SD:LT].
We start with the standard ADM phase space $\Gamma_{ADM}=\{(g,\pi):g\in \mathrm{Riem},\pi\in T_g^*(\mathrm{Riem})\}$, where $\mathrm{Riem}$ denotes the set of Riemannian metrics on the 3-manifold $\Sigma$ with the usual first class ADM constraints. Now we extend the ADM phase space with the phase space of a scalar field $\phi(x)$ and its canonically conjugate momentum density $\pi_\phi(x)$. The trivial embedding of the original system into this extended phase space introduces an additional first class constraint ${Q}(x)=\pi_\phi(x)\approx 0$.
To obtain a non-trivial embedding of the theory on the extended phase space we use the canonical transformation $t_\phi$ generated by the generating functional \[equ:can\_gen\]F=d\^3x(g\_[ab]{}e\^[4]{}\^[ab]{}+\_), with $\hat \phi(x):=\phi(x)-\frac 1 6 \ln\langle e^{6\phi}\rangle_g$ where the mean ${\ensuremath{\lf\langle \cdot \rt\rangle }}$ is defined as $\langle f\rangle_g:=\frac 1 {V_g} \int d^3x\sqrt{|g|} f(x)$ and the 3-volume is $V_g:=\int d^3x\sqrt{|g|}$. The triangle brackets - which we call “means" - and the volumes technically appear as a manner to force the appearance of a non-zero global Hamiltonian in Shape Dynamics. We will have more to say about this later. The transformations effected by the generating functional on the canonical variables are: \[equ:can\_transf\]
[rcl]{} t\_ g\_[ab]{}= e\^[4 (x)]{} g\_[ab]{}&,& t\_\^[ab]{}=e\^[-4 ]{} (\^[ab]{}-1 3 \_g (1-e\^[6]{})g\^[ab]{})\
& & \
t\_ \_=\_-4((x)-(x)\_g)&,& t\_ = .
At this point we obtain the first class set of constraints $$\begin{aligned}
t_\phi S(x)= S(t_{\hat\phi}g_{ab}(x),~ t_{\hat\phi} \pi^{ab}(x)),~
t_\phi H(x)= H(t_{\hat\phi} g_{ab}(x),~ t_{\hat\phi} \pi^{ab}(x))\\
~&~& ~\\
\mbox{and}~~~
t_{\hat\phi} Q(x)=\pi_\phi(x)-4(\pi-\langle\pi\rangle\sqrt g)(x)\end{aligned}$$ We call this system *the Linking Theory*.
As the last step to obtain Shape Dynamics, we perform a phase space reduction to go back to the original phase space consisting of just the variables $(g,\pi)$. The gauge fixing condition we impose is $\pi_\phi(x)=0$. For the phase space reduction to be well-defined, the gauge orbit must intersect the constraint surface exactly once.
At the constraint surface $\pi_\phi=0$, the constraint $ S(t_{\hat\phi}g_{ab}(x), t_{\hat\phi} \pi^{ab}(x))=0$ is: \[equ:non\_homogeneous LY\] t\_( )=e\^[-4]{}(R-8(\^2+\_[,a]{}\^[,a]{}))-(\^[ab]{}\_[ab]{}-\^2)=[$\lf\langle \mbox {l.h.s} \rt\rangle $]{} Where $\hat\Omega=e^{\hat\phi}$, and ${\ensuremath{\lf\langle \mbox {l.h.s} \rt\rangle }} $ means that the left hand side of equation has to be a spatial constant. Generically this equation has a one parameter family of solutions, one for each constant value of ${\ensuremath{\lf\langle \mbox {l.h.s} \rt\rangle }} $. It is only when one restricts the conformal factor $\Omega$ to be also volume-preserving, that is $V_{\Omega^4 g}=V_g$, that we obtain uniqueness [@SD1].
The effect of using the volume preserving Weyl transformations then is that one does not get exactly the Lichnerowicz-York equation: \[equ:LY\]e\^[4]{}(R-8(\^2+\_[,a]{}\^[,a]{}))-(\^[ab]{}\_[ab]{}-\^2)=0 which says that the left hand side of is zero (with the additional requirement that $\phi$ be volume preserving, $\phi\rightarrow \hat\phi$). But a non-homogeneous form where the left hand side of has to be equal to a spatial constant. This is the form of the equation we have to solve for Shape Dynamics in case the manifold is compact without boundary, and it allows the appearance of a global Hamiltonian, as we have mentioned before (see also appendix \[appendix:LFE\_CMC\]). It corresponds to a constant mean curvature foliation of ADM [@SD1], i.e. $\pi={\ensuremath{\lf\langle \pi \rt\rangle }}\sqrt{g}$. Removing the total volume-preserving restriction, the generated conformal transformations would be related not to CMC gauge, but to maximal slicing. However, in the closed manifold case using the unrestricted conformal transformations would yield an identically vanishing Hamiltonian upon phase space reduction of the Linking theory.
The end result is the following set of first class constraints, together with the usual Poisson bracket for the metric variables, defining Shape Dynamics $$\label{equ:pureSDconstraints}
\begin{array}{rcl}
H_{\mbox{\tiny{SD}}}&=&{\ensuremath{\lf\langle t_{\phi_o}\left(\frac{S(x)}{\sqrt g}\right) \rt\rangle }}\\
~&~& ~\\
H^a(\xi_a)&=&\int d^3x( \pi^{ab}\mathcal{L}_\xi g_{ab})\\
~&~& ~\\
D(\rho)&=&\int d^3x \rho\left(\pi-\langle \pi\rangle\sqrt{|g|}\right),
\end{array}$$ Here $\rho$ is the parameter of the gauge transformation that will be effected by the constraint (i.e. it is the Lagrange multiplier of that constraint), $\phi_o$ is the solution of .
For maximal slicing $\pi=0$, Shape Dynamics for closed manifolds has a zero Hamiltonian, and is equivalent to ADM only as a theory of initial data. But for open manifolds there are boundary terms, and it is unclear what one would obtain using the above construction. We will discuss the construction in section \[sec:ps\_red\]. As it happens, in case our manifold has a boundary, we can implement maximal slicing and still have an evolution Hamiltonian. For maximal slicing, the required conformal transformations are general, i.e. not necessarily volume preserving. This simplifies some of the equations, for instance the equation defining the conformal factor, t\_S(x)=e\^[2]{}g(R-8(\^2+\_[,a]{}\^[,a]{}))-(\^[ab]{}\_[ab]{}-\^2)=0 which is equivalent to the original Lichnerowicz-York equation , [@York:1972sj]. In the maximal slicing case, we still have $$\label{equ:maximal_SDconstraints}
\begin{array}{rcl}
H^a(\xi_a)&=&\int d^3x( \pi^{ab}\mathcal{L}_\xi g_{ab})\\
~&~& ~\\
D(\rho)&=&\int d^3x \rho\pi,
\end{array}$$ The construction of the evolution Hamiltonian however, will be the subject of sections \[sec:ps\_red\] and \[sec:Boundaries\].
### Remarks on the Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian and the propagating lapse.
That a one parameter family of solutions for exists is also indicated by a one-dimensional kernel for the propagation of the gauge-fixing $\pi_\phi=0$. This kernel is the kernel of the Poisson bracket: $\{\pi_\phi(x),t_{\hat\phi} S(N)\}$ [@SD:LT]. We will often regard the equation obtained from this as an operator on functions $N(x)$. The equation is given by: \[equ:tphi\_LFE\_abstract\]{t\_ S(N), \_(x)}=[$\frac{\delta t_{\hat\phi} S}{\delta \phi}$]{}N
Thus Shape Dynamics leaves out a generator with the kernel of as a constraint which is not gauge-fixed by $\pi_\phi=0$. We usually call this particular choice of lapse, the one that propagates our gauge-fixing, the solution to the lapse fixing equation: *the propagating lapse, $N_o$*. This is not great nomenclature, but by force of habit we will resort to it many times in this paper. Using the propagating lapse and the LY factor $\phi_o$, we can alternatively write the Shape Dynamics propagating Hamiltonian as $t_{\phi_o}S(N_o)$. This form of the Hamiltonian, as we will see, will be more useful in the presence of boundaries.
If we do not impose that the Weyl transformation be volume-preserving (which is equivalent to requiring maximal slicing) the only solution to on a closed manifold is $N_o=0$. And thus Using the $t_{\phi_o}S(N_o)$ form of the Hamiltonian, it is also easy to see that there is no Hamiltonian generating evolution.
Equation has a “secondary status" to the defining equation , since is a map tangential to $t_{\hat\phi} S(x)$ along $\phi$, and thus a unique solution to implies a unique solution to . That is, if there is a unique solution to equation , it will automatically project any lapse onto the preferred lapse $N_o$. Thus we obtain, upon phase space reduction, $t_{\hat{\phi}}S(N)\mapsto t_{{\phi_o}}S(N_o)$, which is the left over evolution Hamiltonian in Shape Dynamics for closed manifolds.
This is true both in the closed case and in the open case, and prompts one in many instances not to worry about the lapse fixing equation. However, in the present work we will need to pay it its due attention, because as we will see, we are technically unable to obtain the equations of motion of Shape Dynamics directly from the implicit function $\phi_o$.
Phase space reduction in the presence of boundaries {#sec:ps_red}
===================================================
Boundary terms
--------------
In the presence of a spatial boundary, the variational derivatives of the constraints are not well-defined [@RT]. This happens because one obtains terms from integration by parts that contain variations of the fields and its derivatives on the boundary, and these variations do not necessarily vanish. The antidote for this lack of differentiability is to add appropriate boundary terms to the constraints, whose variations should exactly cancel the boundary elements [of the variation of the bulk Hamiltonian]{}. It is through the addition of such boundary terms that one defines energy and momentum for generally covariant theories, since on-shell the constraints vanish and only the boundary terms survive.
More explicitly, suppose that $H^\mu$ is the constraint whose boundary variation we have to cancel, and $\xi_\mu$ is its appropriate smearing. Then we define (following [@Carlip]): |H\^(\_)=H\^(\_)+B\^(\_)=\_d\^3 x \_H\^+\_d\^2y \_B\^ where the variation of the boundary term cancels the boundary terms of the variations on the bulk. [^3] In the Linking theory, we can straightforwardly find the terms that the $B^\mu(\xi_\mu)$ ought to cancel.
The evolution Hamiltonian for Shape Dynamics in the presence of boundaries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To render the constraints in the Linking Theory differentiable we must add to them boundary terms, as explained in the previous section. In particular, we must add a boundary term to the scalar constraint $t_\phi S(x) \rightarrow t_\phi(S(N)+B(N))$. By solving the LY equation , which is just $t_\phi S(x)=0$, with specified boundary conditions on $\phi$, one is still left with the boundary generator $t_\phi(S(N)+B(N))\mapsto t_{\phi_o}B(N_o)$, where $\phi_o$ is the solution for $t_\phi S(x)=0$ with the given boundary conditions, and $N_o$ is a solution of the lapse fixing equation with its own boundary conditions. In other words, by solving $t_\phi S(x)=0$ there is no “left over" constraint at the bulk. However, we still get the Hamiltonian generator at the boundary, $t_\phi(S(N)+B(N))\mapsto t_{\phi_o}B(N_o)$.[^4]
Regarding the propagating lapse, by the usual (min-max) arguments for invertibility of the equation , seen as a differential operator this equation is invertible for functions *with compact support*.[^5] It forms an invertible Dirac bracket for bulk functions, but allows a non-trivial Hamiltonian at the boundary. Given boundary conditions that only allow functions with compact support, the only propagating lapse is the zero lapse. The solution should be non-zero if there is to be any evolution left, and this requires that the boundary conditions allow for a non-zero solution of the lapse fixing equation, i.e. a propagating lapse, for the homogeneous boundary geometry (e.g. flat boundary geometry).
We reach the conclusion that Shape Dynamics on open manifolds and maximal slicing possesses an evolution generator of dynamics *only* at the boundary, and is in that sense holographic. Of course, this Hamiltonian is non-local, containing integrals over the bulk in the implicit solution $\phi_o$, and this allows us to recover a non-trivial time evolution in the bulk as well.
Let us briefly mention that the formulation $t_\phi S(x)=0$ of the constraint in the Linking theory lends itself more naturally to phase space reduction than for instance $\phi(x)-\phi_o(x) =0$, since it is harder to see what is to be the leftover Hamiltonian. One way this could be done would be to formulate appropriate restrictions on the conformal factor $\phi$ as additional, reducible constraints, and then insert the solution of the LY equation therein. We will not follow this route.
Algebra of constraints
----------------------
To calculate the algebra of the symmetries, we will need the algebra for the different generators. These can be obtained easily, by first writing down the Hamiltonian for the Linking Theory with full symmetry trading (i.e. in maximal slicing) in a closed space, as t\_(N, \^a, )=t\_S(N)+H\_a(\^a)+4\_+(\_-4)() calculating the brackets and performing phase space reduction. The total Hamiltonian for Shape Dynamics is given by: (N\_o\^[(i)]{}, \^a, )=t\_[\_o]{}(S(N\_o\^[(i)]{} ))+H\_a(\^a)+4() where $\rho$ is the gauge parameter of the Weyl transformation.
The algebra of constraints of SD emerging from this is easily calculated with the canonical transformation properties of the transformation $t_\phi$.[^6] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equ:SD_algebra} [\mathcal{H}(N_o^{(i)}, \xi^a, \rho), \mathcal{H}(N_o^{(i')}, \xi'^{a'}, \rho')]=\\
\mathcal{H}\left((\xi'^{a'}{N^{(i)}_o}_{,a'}-\xi^{a}{N^{(i')}_o}_{,a}), ~(g^{cd}({N^{(i)}_o}_{,c}N_o^{(i')}-{N^{(i')}_o}_{,c}N_o^{(i)})+ [\mathbf{\xi},\xi']^d),~ \xi'^{a'}\rho_{,a'}-\xi^{a}\rho'_{,a}\right)\end{gathered}$$ where only the solutions of the lapse fixing equation are allowed in the smearing. Upon the addition of boundary terms, all we have to do is to rewrite the projection of the constraint by the projection of the constraint with its boundary term, as in $t_{\phi_o}S(N_o)\mapsto t_{\phi_o}(S+B)(N_o)=t_{\phi_o}B(N_o)$. Furthermore, the algebra may change by the central terms, which we address in the appendix since they don’t arise for the boundary conditions we will be exploring.
Equations of Motion {#sec:eom}
-------------------
### Preliminaries
Now that we have made clear what we mean by the construction of Shape Dynamics on a manifold with boundary, we can write the equations of motion for the maximal slicing case. We will accomplish this by exploring one of the properties of the Dirac brackets occurring in our phase space reduction. Let us start by illustrating the procedure with the closed manifold case.
In the closed manifold case what we want to ultimately calculate is the Poisson bracket $\{g_{ab}, t_{\hat\phi_o}S(N_o) \}$. We have that $t_{\hat\phi}S(x)-t_{\hat\phi}S(N_o)\sqrt g$ is second class with respect to $\pi_\phi$, and under reduction $t_\phi(\frac{ S(x)}{\sqrt g})\mapsto t_{\hat\phi_o}S(N_o)$, where $N_o$ is such that $\{t_{\hat\phi}S(N_o),\pi_\phi\}=0$. By using the Dirac bracket, we can impose the reduction before or after calculating the brackets [@HT]. The Dirac bracket is defined as: \[equ:Dirac\_closed\] {, }\_={,}- { ,\_}\^[-1]{}{ t\_S-t\_S(N\_o)g, }-{ ,t\_S-t\_S(N\_o)g}\^[-1]{}{\_, } where $\Delta= \{\pi_\phi, t_{\hat\phi}S-t_{\hat\phi}S(N_o)\sqrt g \}= \{\pi_\phi, t_{\hat\phi}S \}$. Thus \[equ:eom\_closed\] {g\_[ab]{}, t\_S(N) }\_={g\_[ab]{}, t\_S(N) }-{g\_[ab]{}, (t\_S-t\_S(N\_o)g)(N) } Upon reduction we obtain $\{g_{ab}, t_{\hat\phi}S(N) \}_{\mbox{\tiny{DB}}}=\{g_{ab}, t_{\hat\phi_o}S(N_o) \}$ since the second term in the rhs vanishes identically under reduction. Thus we can calculate $\{g_{ab}, t_{\hat\phi}S(N) \}$ and then, after the calculations are performed, input the substitution $\phi\mapsto \phi_o$ and $N\mapsto N_o$ arising from reduction.
For the open manifold case, we want $\{g_{ab}, t_{\phi_o}B(N_o) \}$, and the argument relies on a slightly different property. Namely, that the bracket $\Delta=\{t_\phi(S(N)+B(N)),\pi_\phi\}$ possesses an inverse only for functions with compact support. Thus $\Delta(x)\Delta^{-1}(y)=\delta(x,y)$ only for $x,y\notin \partial\Sigma$. Hence \[equ:eom\_open\] {g\_[ab]{}, t\_(S(N)+B(N)) }\_={g\_[ab]{}, t\_(S(N)+B(N)) }-{g\_[ab]{}, t\_S(N) }\_[|-]{} Again, since the second term on the rhs vanishes upon reduction, we can calculate the bracket $\{g_{ab}, t_\phi(S(N)+B(N)) \}$ and then reduce $\phi\mapsto \phi_o$ and $N\mapsto N_o$.
### The equations of motion for maximal slicing
Let us then write out the equations of motion of the Linking Theory for the open manifold case, and also the lapse fixing equation for the required slicing. For the open case, where we institute maximal slicing as opposed to constant mean curvature slicing (CMC), the canonical transformation of the metric variables are given by $(g_{ab},\pi^{ab})\mapsto (e^{4\phi}g_{ab},e^{-4\phi}\pi^{ab})$. What makes the equations of motion so tractable is that the conformal factor $\phi$ does not depend on the metric, as it does in the CMC case, where it is required to be total volume preserving.
Using the canonical property of the transformation fairly simplifies the calculation of the equations of motion: $$\dot\pi^{ab}=\{\pi^{ab}, t_\phi\mathcal{H}(N, \xi^i)\}= e^{4\phi}\{t_\phi\pi^{ab}, t_\phi\mathcal{H}(N, \xi^i)\}=e^{4
\phi}t_\phi \{\pi^{ab}, \mathcal{H}(N, \xi^i)\}$$ which gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:eom_g}\dot g_{ab}&=&4\rho g_{ab}+2e^{-6\phi}\frac{N}{\sqrt g}(\pi_{ab}-\frac{1}{2}\pi g_{ab})+\mathcal{L}_{\xi}g_{ab}\\
\dot\pi^{ab}&=& Ne^{2\phi}\sqrt{g}\left(R^{ab}-2\phi^{;ab}+4\phi^{,a}\phi^{,b}-\frac{1}{2}R g^{ab}+2 \nabla^2\phi g^{ab}\right)\nonumber\\
&~&-\frac{N}{\sqrt g}e^{-6\phi}\left(2(\pi^{ac}\pi^b_c-\pi\pi^{ab})-\frac{1}{2}(\pi^{cd}\pi_{cd}-\frac{1}{2}\pi^2)g^{ab}\right)\nonumber\\
&~&-e^{2\phi}\sqrt {g}\left(N^{;ab}-4\phi^{(,a}N^{,b)}-\nabla^2N g^{ab}\right)+\mathcal{L}_{\xi}\pi^{ab}-4\rho\pi^{ab}\label{equ:eom_pi}\end{aligned}$$ For the metric variables, upon reduction the Dirac bracket reproduces the Poisson bracket,[^7] and thus we get the possible equations of motion for Shape Dynamics simply by setting weakly $\pi\simeq 0$ and strongly $\phi=\phi_o$, $N=N_o$.
The lapse fixing equation in the Linking Theory for open manifolds, which plays an important role in the reduction process, is given by the propagation condition on the lapse: \[equ:tphi\_LFE\_MS\]{t\_S(N),\_}=e\^[-4]{}(\^2 N+2g\^[ab]{}\_[,a]{}N\_[,b]{}) -Ne\^[-12]{} =0 where $t_\phi S(x)$ is given in .
There are many differences between the equations of Shape Dynamics, and its “sister case", the conformal decompositions of ADM in CMC slicings, which can be found for example in [@3+1; @book], in chapter 7. A first is that there the equations must include a reference metric, and the result is a preferred physical scale for each metric, unlike our own Weyl invariance [^8]. A second is that there is no dilatation transformation elements, of the form $\rho\pi^{ab}$ and $\rho g_{ab}$.
The remaining equations of motion for Shape Dynamics for maximal slicing, besides and with $\phi_o$ and $N_o$ solutions substituted in, are just $\pi^{ab}_{;a}=0$ and $\pi=0$. We also pause to mention that equations of motion for Shape Dynamics in the CMC case are considerably more complicated, by the fact that the conformal factor $\hat\phi$ depends on $g$, and thus enters the variations. We will refrain from writing them down in the present paper, since we are not here concerned with the CMC case, but it is worth mentioning that the equations of motion for Shape Dynamics in CMC differ vastly from the equations of motion for conformal ADM in CMC, much more visibly so than when the two theories are in maximal slicing.
Restrictions on the Weyl invariance of Shape Dynamics {#sec:conformal_excision}
-----------------------------------------------------
We now must pause for an intermezzo, in order to determine, in the case of manifolds with boundary, exactly which Weyl transformations are still in the gauge group of Shape Dynamics. This will become important in obtaining the asymptotic charges.
For a closed spatial manifold $\Sigma$, using the gauge-fixing of maximal slicing, one has full dilatational (Weyl) symmetry at one’s disposal (for phase space initial data with non-vanishing momenta). In many circumstances, however, we need to restrict the conformal factors we use to match the subset explored in gauge-fixing the constraints. This intermezzo is aimed to show that there are subtleties in ascertaining which Weyl transformations are actually left over in Shape Dynamics. These subtleties can occur when one is dealing with the open manifold case and its boundary conditions, the closed manifolds case with degenerate initial data in which the momenta vanish, or either of these when we want to leave some of the scalar constraints unfixed.
As we saw, for CMC slicing the restriction that the leftover Weyl gauge transformations should preserve the total volume arises as a consequence of leaving one of the scalar constraints unfixed. This restriction manifests itself also as a restriction on the Lagrange multipliers of the generator of Weyl transformations left over in Shape Dynamics for CMC, and can alternatively be obtained immediately from the co-kernel of the lapse fixing equation. The restriction in that case is what we call an “inhomogeneity restriction" - the Lagrange multipliers suffer a projection $\rho\mapsto \rho-{\ensuremath{\lf\langle \rho \rt\rangle }}$, such that any constant $\rho$ does not translate into a Weyl transformation.
Just as the kernel indicates the left over Hamiltonian generator, the cokernel indicates a “non-traded" conformal factor, which is thus *not* a symmetry present in the final theory.[^9] Any restriction on the space of conformal fields $\phi$ implies a restriction in the symmetry trading mechanism, and thus on the invariance leftover in Shape Dynamics.
To be clear, the gauge-fixing $\pi_\phi=0$ does *not* gauge-fix the Lagrange multiplier $\rho$, which is the multiplier of the Linking Theory constraint $t_\phi\pi_\phi\simeq 0$, and is what determines the range of the Weyl gauge transformations left in Shape Dynamics. The restriction on the range of $\rho$ sneaks in through the canonical transformation $t\phi$ performed in extended phase space, and this is connected to any restriction on the space of fields $\phi$.
Let us discuss this in slightly more detail. We demand that the solution to the constraint we are gauge fixing, let’s say $t_\phi S(x)=0$, be unique in the field space of $\phi$ we are exploring, $C[\phi]$. Demanding uniqueness might implement some restriction on $C[\phi]$. From there, such a restriction in $\phi$ will migrate to the canonical transformation generator . This can be explained as follows. Our construction of the Linking theory requires us first to trivially embed the original system into an *unconstrained* (i.e. without any fall off conditions on the extra variables $\phi, \pi_\phi$) extended phase space. This does not alter the ADM constraints, but requires the additional constraint $\pi_\phi=0$. The $t_\phi$ that actually comes into the transformation of constraints is a canonical transformation in extended phase space, and it is this canonical transformation that must therefore be restricted. In the CMC case, this is manifest in the usage of $\hat\phi$, which is a projection of $\phi$ onto volume-preserving functions. The restriction on the canonical transformation is then transmitted to a restriction in $\rho$, because the form of the extra constraint $t_\phi\pi_\phi =0$ obtained in the Linking theory is itself altered to $\pi_\phi-4(\pi-{\ensuremath{\lf\langle \pi \rt\rangle }}\sqrt g)$. That is (see details of this calculation on [@SD1]), \[equ:rho\_restriction\] t\_\_(x)=[$\frac{\delta F[g,\hat\phi]}{\delta \phi(x)}$]{}=d\^3 x’ 4(x’)[$\frac{\delta \hat\phi(x')}{\delta \phi(x)}$]{} and so a restriction $\hat\phi$ - the hat now denoting a general restriction on the conformal factor - usually will appear as a different form of the constraint $t_\phi\pi_\phi=0$.
For fixed boundary conditions on the canonical transformations, no symmetry trading occurs on the boundary, and the Lagrange multiplier $\rho$ has to be set to zero there. If we fix $\phi$ on the boundary, we have $\delta\hat\phi(x)=0$, for $x\in \partial M$. Thus we have the expected $t_{\hat\phi}\pi_\phi(x)=\pi_\phi(x)-4\pi(x)$ for $x$ in the interior of the manifold.
More generally, a restriction of ${\hat\phi}$ to decay as ${r^n}$ or faster implies that $\rho$ has to decay by the same order. This can be seen by writing $\hat\phi$ and $\phi$ in a power series in $r$. While $\hat\phi$ will have zero coefficients for the terms of order higher than those stipulated, $\phi$ will be unrestricted. Let us sketch a proof for analytic $\hat\phi$. Suppose (for $r>1$) $$\hat\phi= \sum_{-\infty}^{n}a_i r^i$$ thus $${\ensuremath{\frac{\delta \hat\phi}{\delta \phi}}}= {\delta_{a^i}^{b^i}}_{|\{i\leq n\}}$$ Of course a similar expansion of the Lagrange multiplier $\rho=\sum_{-\infty}^{\infty}\rho_i r^i$ yields upon contraction with the generator ${\ensuremath{\frac{\delta \hat\phi}{\delta \phi}}}$, the projection $\rho\mapsto\sum_{-\infty}^{n}\rho_i r^i$. Thus only the terms of $\rho$ that decay faster than $\delta\ln {\Omega}=\delta\phi$ produce non-trivial Weyl transformations.
Boundary terms in Shape Dynamics for asymptotically flat boundary conditions {#sec:Boundaries}
============================================================================
Finally, we will calculate the asymptotic charges for Shape Dynamics for the asymptotically flat boundary conditions.
But first, we will motivate the study of this section by some considerations on the possibility of new symmetries over Minkowski initial data when Shape Dynamics is involved. Since the determination of the symmetries depends on solutions to differential equations (equations and ) on an open manifold, one cannot analyze these symmetries independently of the consideration of boundary conditions. Furthermore, as established in section \[sec:conformal\_excision\], fall-off conditions for the solution of imply restrictions on the leftover symmetries in Shape Dynamics. There is thus a delicate interplay between all of these questions, which we attempt to illustrate now.
Symmetries of the solution
--------------------------
Let us consider the curve of degenerate phase space data $(g_{ab}(t), \pi^{ab}(t))=(\delta_{ab}, 0)$, which is already in maximal slicing. We call it degenerate because its momenta is identically zero, spoiling many of the uniqueness properties of the usual Shape Dynamics construction.
Over the set of data $(g_{ab},\pi^{ab})=(\delta_{ab},0)$, equation gives: \[equ:LFE\_Mink\]e\^[-4]{}(\^2 N+2\_[ab]{}\_[,a]{}N\_[,b]{}) =0 and the Lichnerowicz-York equation, given by , is \[equ:LY\_Mink\] -8\^2=0 In rectilinear coordinates $\{x^a\}$, the solutions to for boundary conditions $\Omega\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r)}}$ are generated by the linearly independent basis: $\Omega_o\in \mbox{span}[\{1,x^a\}]$, i.e. $\Omega_o(t)=c(t)+b_a(t)x^a$, where we denote solutions by the subscript $o$.[^10]
The general solutions to equation for $\Omega_o=c+\alpha_ax^a$ are of a complicated (yet closed) form. Nonetheless, we will investigate here only two specific choices: $\Omega=c$ and $\Omega=bx^a$. When $\Omega=c$, if the boundary conditions for the lapse are also of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r)}}$, the solutions are given by $N_o^{(i)}=\{1, x^a\}$. When the conformal factor is given by $\Omega=bx^a$, the solutions is given by the linear span of $\{1,x^{b\neq a}, 1/x^a\}$.[^11]
Upon reduction the equations and give: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot g_{ab}&=&4\rho \delta_{ab}+2\xi_{(a,b)}\nonumber\\
\dot\pi^{ab}&=& -N_{(i)}e^{2\phi^{(j)}}\sqrt{g}\left(-2\phi^{(j)}_{,ab}-4\phi^{(j)}_{,a}\phi^{(j)}_{,b}+2 \partial^2\phi^{(j)} \delta_{ab}\right)\nonumber\\
&~&-e^{2\phi^{(j)}}\sqrt {g}\left(N^{(i)}_{,ab}-2\phi^{(j)}_{(,a}N^{(i)}_{,b)}-\partial^2N _{(i)}\delta_{ab}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Now, since we have chosen static phase space data as our ansatz, we must have $\dot g_{ab}=\dot\pi^{ab}=0$ for this to be a solution to Shape Dynamics. A more interesting solution, which could possess conformal symmetry, might be to look at the solutions over the phase space curve $(\rho(t)\delta_{ab},0)$, but we will leave this for further work.
For $\Omega=1$ and any $N_o^{(i)}={1, x^a}$ we automatically get that the momenta are preserved. It turns out that this is also true if we take $\Omega=x^a$, and the following smearings generate symmetries of the data (i.e $\dot g_{ab}=\dot \pi^{ab}=0$): $$\begin{aligned}
P_{(c)}=(\rho, \xi^a_{(c)})=(0,\delta^a_{(c)}) ~&,& ~R_{(bc)}=(\rho, \xi^a_{(bc)})=(0,2 x_{[(b)}\delta^a_{(c)]})\nonumber \\
D=(\rho, \xi^a)=(c,-cx^a)~&,& ~K_{(c)}=(\rho, \xi^a_{(c)})=(2x_c,x^dx_ d\delta_{(c)a}-2x_{(c)}x_a)\label{equ:conf_sym}\end{aligned}$$ where the index $(c)$ parametrizes the generators (for example, for each coordinate $x^a$), and should not be summed over (it is a fixed index). This is a 10 dimensional group.
By using the Shape Dynamics algebra , we can identify that this is indeed the 3-dimensional conformal group. Dilatations are given by $(\rho, \xi^a)=(c,-cx^a)$, special conformal transformations by $(\rho, \xi^a_{(c)})=(2x_c,x^dx_ d\delta_{(c)a}-2x_{(c)}x_a)$, translations along the $c$ coordinate by $\xi^a=\delta^a_{(c)}$ and rotations around the $c$ axis by $ \xi_{(c)}^a=\epsilon_{ad(c)}x^d$, which is equal to rotation along the $bc$ plane with generator $ x_{[(b)}{\delta^a}_{(c)]}$. The non-zero part of the algebra is $$\begin{aligned}
[D, K_{(a)}]=-K_{(a)}~&,& ~[D,P_{(a)}]=P_{(a)}\\
~[K_{(a)}, P_{(b)}]=2\delta_{(bc)}D-2R_{(bc)}~&,&~[K_{(a)}, R_{(bc)}]=\delta_{(ab)}K_{(c)}-\delta_{(ac)}K_{(b)}\\
~[P_{(a)}, R_{(bc)}]=\delta_{(ab)}P_{(c)}-\delta_{(ac)}P_{(b)}~&,&~[R_{(ab)}, R_{(cd)}]=\delta_{(bc)}R_{(ad)}+\delta_{(ad)}R_{(cb)}-\delta_{(ac)}R_{(bd)}-\delta_{(dc)}R_{(ab)}\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, it can also be checked that the algebra (for the smearings with $\rho=0$), we reproduce exactly the Poincaré algebra with boosts being given by $N^{(i)}=B_{(a)}=x^a$ and time translations by $N^{(i)}=T=1$ (the translations and rotations are left unchanged). In fact, there is a deeper story here, which we haven’t touched upon yet. This is the occurrence of the central terms. In appendix \[appendix:central\] we define these terms and show that they don’t contribute.
### Inconsistent symmetries
The previous analysis would naively allow us to conclude that Shape Dynamics possesses an extended group of symmetries, composed of both 3-dimensional conformal symmetries and boosts and time translations. But upon calculating the algebra using , we see that it does not close. More specifically, the brackets between the boosts and the special conformal transformations $[(x^a,0,0),(0,2x_c,x^dx_ d\delta_{(c)a}-2x_{(c)}x_a)]$ (where the order is given by $(N,\rho, \xi^a)$ ) fail to close, and do not constitute a symmetry of the system.
There are three different obstacles one needs to overcome in order for these two sets of symmetries to be compatible, and they all arise because we have to be more careful with the boundary conditions we choose for $\Omega$. According to section \[sec:conformal\_excision\], to allow transformations of the form $\rho=x^a$, the phase space of $\Omega$ must be unrestricted to the order ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(e^r)}}$. Furthermore it must have boundary conditions that grow even faster and yet determine the solution for $\partial^2\Omega=0$ uniquely. If this can be done, the unique solution to the Lichnerowicz-York equation with these asymptotics must still allow a solution to the lapse fixing equation $N_o=x^a$, with boundary conditions of the order ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r)}}$. The second issue is that the boundary conditions on the metric variables have to be invariant under whichever group of asymptotic symmetries we want to impose. However, asymptotic Minkowski boundary conditions are clearly not invariant under conformal symmetries. The third and most important obstacle is that if $\Omega$ is allowed to grow faster than $e^r$ it will be impossible to have finite counterterms that make the action differentiable, as we discuss in the next section. The conclusion is that to obtain true asymptotic conformal symmetry generators for Shape Dynamics we must consider a different set altogether of boundary conditions. We tackle this problem in an future publication.
Asymptotically flat boundary conditions
---------------------------------------
As we have mentioned more than once, the Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian is a non-local implicit function. But Shape Dynamics is obtained from a Linking theory, where all quantities are local. Thus the simplest way to formulate Shape Dynamics boundary charges, counter-terms and fall-off conditions is to consider these in the larger setting of the Linking theory, and then use phase space reduction. The addition of extra variables is interesting in that it allows us to have more freedom in how we choose the boundary conditions. As this is but the first incursion in this rich landscape, we will confine ourselves to one consistent choice of boundary conditions.
The total boundary variation can be calculated straightforwardly from the Linking theory: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equ:boundary_variations}\delta t_\phi B(N,\rho,\xi)=2\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\Big( \xi^ar^b\left(\pi^{cd}\left((5g_{ac}g_{bd}-g_{ab}g_{cd})\delta\phi+(g_{bd}\delta g_{ca}-\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}\delta g_{cd})\right)+g_{ac}g_{bd}\delta\pi^{cd}\right)\\
+\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}\Big(8\left( N\delta\phi^{,a}-N^{,a}\delta\phi\right)r_ a+ \left( N\delta g_{ab;d}+(6\phi_{,d} N-N^{,d})\delta g_{ab}\right)(g^{de}g^{ab}-g^{da}g^{be}) r_e \Big) \end{gathered}$$ Given fall-off conditions for all of our variables, some of the terms in might vanish. The purpose of adding boundary terms is that their variation must cancel the remaining terms of . The subtlety involved in the process is that the boundary terms themselves must be finite. It is this finiteness that forbids us to have both 3-dimensional conformal symmetry and Poincaré symmetry simultaneously.
It is already possible to see that there will be some sort of mutual exclusion for the fall-off conditions on the lapse $N$ and $\phi$ that allow both conformal and Poincaré symmetry. Notice the term $$\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}\Big(8\left( N\delta\phi_{,a}-N_{,a}\delta\phi\right)\Big)r^a$$ As we know from section , a fall-off rate for $\phi$ implies the same fall-off rate for the allowable Weyl gauge transformations under which Shape Dynamics is invariant. Thus, to have spatial conformal symmetry, as in , we would need to allow $\phi\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r)}}'$, or $\phi \rightarrow \alpha_ a x^a+ a+ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-k})}}$, and thus $e^\phi\sim e^{r}$! Furthermore for the boosts we need a lapse to fall-off as $N\rightarrow \beta_a x^a +b+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-k})}}$. But a counterterm of the form: \_ d\^2 yh e\^[2]{}(8( N\_[,a]{}-N\_[,a]{}))r\^a imposes severe restrictions on the relative fall-off rate of $N$ and $\phi$. Even if we forget about the $e^{2\phi}$ term, and demand that the boundary conditions be such that $e^{4\phi}g_{ab}\rightarrow \delta_{ab}+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}'$ - which might be a natural boundary condition defining waveless approximations - finiteness still demands that the integrand $(N\phi_{,a}-N_{,a}\phi)\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}$ to maintain finiteness, and this cannot be obtained if we allow both boosts and special conformal transformations.
### Fall-off in extended phase space {#fall-off-in-extended-phase-space .unnumbered}
The usual boundary conditions taken for asymptotically flat ADM are [@RT; @BO]: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{ab}\rightarrow \delta_{ab}+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}''~~&,& ~~\pi^{ab}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}'\label{equ:fall-off}\\
N\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(1)}}'~~&,& ~~\xi^a\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(1)}}'\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we designate ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{n})}}'', {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{n})}}'$ as functions which fall off freely as $r^{n-1}$, but have possibly a contribution falling of as an even (odd) -parity function in $r^n$. We say a function has odd parity if upon inversion $\mathbf{x}\rightarrow -\mathbf{x}$ it changes sign, and even parity if it doesn’t. For example if $f\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{n})}}'$ then $$f=h\left(\frac{\mathbf{x}}{r}\right)\frac{1}{r^n}+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{n-1})}}$$ such that $h\left(\frac{-\mathbf{x}}{r^n}\right)=-h\left(\frac{\mathbf{x}}{r^n}\right) $, and analogously for even parity.Any derivative will reverse parity and increase the fall-off rate by one power in $r$, thus $\partial {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-k})}}'= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-k-1})}}''$ and so on.
The conditions on the lapse and shift above are called “pure gauge", since for the appropriate counterterms the charges still vanish. We will skip the derivation of the appropriate counterterms for the pure gauge conditions, and proceed directly to computation of the less restrictive boundary conditions which allow the Poincaré symmetries to emerge.
For that we must loosen the fall-off conditions for the lapse and shift: \[equ:Lagrange\_asympt\] N\_[(a)]{}x\^[(a)]{}+ c+ [$\mathcal{O}(1)$]{}’ , \^a\^[(c)]{}\^a\_[(c)]{}+\_[(b)(c)]{}x\^[\[(b)]{}\^[(c)\]a]{}+ [$\mathcal{O}(1)$]{}’ where again we have used indices under individual parentheses to denote fixed indices. For Shape Dynamics, as we have seen, the lapse must asymptotically allow for the solutions of the lapse-fixing equation . Interestingly, the solutions above are exactly those that fall-off to the orders $1$ and $r$. It could have occurred that Shape Dynamics disallowed the occurrence of charges for the boosts, but as with Minkowski, this is not what we happens.
The fall-off condition for all the Lagrange multipliers, which are the smearings that define the foliation and conformal frame in the linking theory, must be such that the asymptotic conditions for the variables, , are preserved through the evolution equations and . For the preservation of the asymptotic form of $g_{ab}$, this entails that $\rho\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}''$, which also suggests the same fall-off for $\phi$, and thus a fall-off $\Omega\rightarrow 1+ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}''$. [^12]
That the conditions preserve for the terms in and that don’t depend in $\phi$ is clear from the usual computations [@RT; @BO]. Of these, the only non-trivial check is for the leading terms in $\mathcal{L}_\xi g_{ab}$, which is just $\xi_{(a,b)}$ and thus vanishes for the leading terms in , and thus falls off as ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}$. For the terms that *do* depend on $\phi$, the terms $N\phi^{;ab}, ~\phi^{;a}N^{;b}$ and $ N^{;ab}$ all fall off as ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}$ and the remaining terms are easily seen to fall-off appropriately as well. Having verified that our boundary conditions are preserved by the equations of motion, we must now proceed to calculating the necessary boundary counterterms.
Boundary Charges
----------------
Now we are in a position to consider the fall-off rate of the different terms in . Note that the normal $r^a$ has odd parity, as have the coordinate functions $x^a$. For the reader’s convenience, since we will be analyzing the different terms in , we reproduce that equation here: $$\begin{gathered}
\delta t_\phi B(N,\rho,\xi)=2\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\Big( \xi^ar^b\left(\pi^{cd}\left((5g_{ac}g_{bd}-g_{ab}g_{cd})\delta\phi+(g_{bd}\delta g_{ca}-\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}\delta g_{cd})\right)+g_{ac}g_{bd}\delta\pi^{cd}\right)\\
+\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}\Big(8\left( N\delta\phi^{,a}-N^{,a}\delta\phi\right)r_ a+ \left( N\delta g_{ab;d}+(6\phi_{,d} N-N^{,d})\delta g_{ab}\right)(g^{de}g^{ab}-g^{da}g^{be}) r_e \Big) \end{gathered}$$
Let us consider first the terms that depend explicitly on $\phi$. Since $e^{2\phi}$ to first order is just unity, we can check that these are the usual boundary terms that one gets from the ADM boundary terms. Since the counter-terms for these are well-known, we simply refer to the literature [@RT; @BO]. Here we will analyze the terms: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equ:phi_cterms} B(\delta\phi):=
2\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\Big( \xi^ar^b(\pi^{cd}((5g_{ac}g_{bd}-g_{ab}g_{cd})\delta\phi)\\
+\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}r_e\Big(8( N\delta\phi^{,e}-N^{,e}\delta\phi)+ (6\phi_{,d} N\delta g_{ab})(g^{de}g^{ab}-g^{da}g^{be}) \Big)\end{gathered}$$
- For the first term: $$2\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\xi^ar^b(\pi^{cd}((5g_{ac}g_{bd}-g_{ab}g_{cd})\delta\phi)$$ involves only the integral of $r^c\pi^{ab}\delta\phi\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-3})}}''$, multiplied by $\xi^a$, which thus vanishes asymptotically for $\xi^a=\delta_{(c)}^a$. For $x^{[(b)}\delta^{(c)]a}$ the integrand is of order ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}'$, and thus, being odd, vanishes when integrated over. Thus no counter-term is necessary to regularize this term.
- The second term $$8\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}r_e N\delta\phi^{,e}$$ involves the integral of $r_e\delta\phi^{,e}\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}''$ (since $\delta\phi_{,e}\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}'$), which thus has odd parity for $N\sim x^a$ and vanishes. For $N\sim c$, a term of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}''$ appears and thus requires a counter-term. There are a variety of counter-terms that would produce the same asymptotic charge, as for example \[equ:B\_1\] B\_1:= 8\_ d\^2 yh r\_e N\^[,e]{} Note that this vanishes for $N\sim x^a$, since it is still of odd parity, and only produces a non-zero charge for $N=c$, a constant. One could instead replace $\phi$ by $\Omega$ in , since $\Omega=e^\phi\sim 1+\phi$. Thus we could have \[equ:B\] B:= 8\_ d\^2 yh r\_e N\^[,e]{}
Another form of the asymptotic charge is given by reinstating the $e^{2\phi}$ term completely: \[equ:B\_2\] B\_2:= 8\_ d\^2 yh r\_e N \^[,e]{} Here note that the leading contribution for $N r^e\delta\Omega \Omega_{,e}\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})}}'$ for $N\sim x^a$ and thus vanishes by parity. We will take the boundary charge then to be of the form given in noting that the asymptotic numerical value of , and are the same for fields obeying our boundary conditions.
- For the third term $$-8\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}r_eN^{,e}\delta\phi$$ we have an integrand of $r_e\delta\phi\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}'$ multiplied by $N^{,e}$, which has even parity for $N\sim x^a$, and thus the whole integral has odd parity and vanishes. For $N\sim c$, we have $N^{,e}\sim{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}''$ which is still of even parity and thus the integral again vanishes. No counter-terms are needed for this.
- For the fourth and last term $$\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}6\phi_{,d} N \delta g_{ab}(g^{de}g^{ab}-g^{da}g^{be}) r_e$$ we have an integrand of $r_e\phi_{,c}\delta g_{ab}\sim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-3})}}''$, which when multiplied by $N\sim x^a$ vanishes from parity, and for $N=c$ vanishes because it falls off as $r^{-3}$. Thus it requires no counter-term.
We that indeed we acquire a new asymptotic boundary term, , which makes the variation well-defined and with finite charges. Note that Shape Dynamics does not interfere in the present case with the definition of either angular momenta or linear momenta; only the energy is affected.
If we assume $N=c$ is a constant, we can write as a volume term, which upon phase space reduction turns into \[equ:B\_vol\] [B]{}\_[|N=c]{}= 8c\_ d\^3 xg\^2\_o= c\_ d\^3 xg\_o((R+\_o\^4))
The total boundary is then given by the usual ADM boundary terms and our own : \[equ:SD\_charges\] M(N)+J()=\_r\_e( 8N \^[,e]{}+2\_ b\^[eb]{}+h ( N g\_[ab,d]{}-N\^[,d]{} g\_[ab]{})(g\^[de]{}g\^[ab]{}-g\^[da]{}g\^[be]{})) From , and the fact that the propagating lapses are given exactly by $N_o=\{1, x^a\}$, from we precisely recover the Poincaré algebra. In fact, the story is slightly more complicated than this, as we might have obtained so called “central terms" in the algebra. That this does not occur for our boundary conditions is shown in the appendix \[appendix:central\].
### Shape Dynamics Energy
Although we have stipulated restrictive boundary conditions on the conformal factor and on the metric, we will now see that the notion of energy that arises from Shape Dynamics still possesses Weyl invariance. This invariance is not present in the ADM energy.
For this proof, let us take the usual ADM mass term and our term $B_1$ given in as the only terms contributing to the energy. We note that for the ADM mass, the only relevant term for the boundary charges is \[equ:boundary\_ADM\]-2\_d\^2 y (k-k\_o)=\_d\^2 y (g\_[ab,d]{}(g\^[de]{}g\^[ab]{}-g\^[da]{}g\^[be]{}))r\_e where $k=h^{ab}r_{a;b}$ is the trace of the mean extrinsic curvature with respect to $g_{ab}$ of the boundary $\partial\Sigma$ and $k_o$ is not dynamical. Thus the equation for the energy for an asymptotically flat solution of Shape Dynamics is given by: \[equ:SD\_energy\] E\_\[g,\]=-\_d\^2y(2 (k-k\_o)+8r\_e \^[,e]{})
Let us calculate $t_\phi k$. The transformation of the Christoffel symbols is given by: \[equ:christ\_conf\] t\_\^e\_[ab]{}=\^e\_[ab]{}+2(\^e\_ b\_[,a]{}+\^e\_a\_[,b]{}-g\_[ab]{}g\^[ec]{}\_[,c]{}) If we consider the transformation of the normal to be given by $r^c\rightarrow e^{-2\psi}r^c$, \[equ:t\_phi\_k\]2t\_k=2e\^[-2]{}(k+4(g\^[ab]{}-h\^[ab]{})r\_a\_[,b]{}-2h\^[ab]{}r\_a\_[,b]{})=e\^[-2]{}(2k+8r\^b\_[,b]{})
Furthermore, we know that the $\phi_o$ solution to equation has the property that $\phi_o[e^{4\psi} g,e^{-4\phi}\pi]=\phi_o[g,\pi]-\psi$, since equation is itself obtained by a Weyl transformation of the scalar constraint. Thus, if $\psi$ is a general conformal factor that obeys the boundary conditions imposed on $\phi$,[^13] we have that E\_\[e\^[4]{}g,e\^[-4]{}\]=-\_d\^2y(2 (k-k\_o)+8r\_e (\^[,e]{}+(\^[,e]{}-\^[,e]{}))=E\_\[g,\] which shows that *the Shape Dynamics energy is fully Weyl invariant*.
Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian in the asymptotically flat case
-----------------------------------------------------------
As we mentioned in section \[sec:ps\_red\], the evolution Hamiltonian for Shape Dynamics in maximal slicing is defined *only* as a boundary contribution. Unlike what happens in ADM, the “non-gauge", or evolution Hamiltonian is defined on the boundary for the entire phase space. On-shell, the Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian defines the energy of particular solutions, which is how we could have read . But this equation is valid generally without the need of gauge fixation, so we define the Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian for maximal slicing in the asymptotically flat case as \[equ:SD\_H\] H\_\[g,\]=-\_d\^2y h(2 (k-k\_o)+8r\_e \_o\^[,e]{}) even when we are not on-shell. [^14]
For different boundary condition on phase space we will then possibly have different Shape Dynamics’ Hamiltonians. This begs the question related to the one that got us started into defining boundary terms in the first place: can the Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian be holographic, differentiable, and define non-trivial equations of motion? We cannot at this point prove a general assertion irrespective of the boundary conditions, but for the boundary conditions studied in this paper, we will now show that the emerging evolution Hamiltonian, namely is differentiable *and* provides non-trivial equations of motion on the bulk. The technical reasons for this is that we can use the Gauss law for the extra boundary term , and the LY equation to equate the Laplacian of $\Omega_o$ to a non-trivial volume term.
For this,we re-write the extra term as a volume integral. We could then perform a linearization of the solution $\Omega_o$ (or of $\phi_o$) of , and reinsert it into . Although this is possible, it is laborious, and there is an easier way, that allows us to see straightforwardly differentiability around a flat solution. Since this case already presents the only terms that could cause obstructions to differentiablity, we will refrain from the full argument of the general case (if one calculates the full linearization and inputs the boundary conditions, these are anyhow the only terms that survive).
We first take the variation of around any solution of the ADM constraints, for which $\Omega_o=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
t_\phi S(x) &=&{\ensuremath{\frac{\delta t_\phi S(x)}{\delta {g_{ab}(y)}}}}\cdot\delta g_{ab}(y)+
{\ensuremath{\frac{\delta t_\phi S(x)}{\delta {\phi(y)}}}}\cdot\delta \phi(y)\\
&=&\sqrt g\left(\nabla^2(g^{ab}\delta g_{ab})-\delta g_{ab}^{;ab}+(R^{ab}-\frac{1}{2}Rg^{ab})\delta g_{ab}\right)+\frac{2}{\sqrt g}(\pi^{ac}\pi^b_c-\frac{1}{4}\pi^{cd}\pi_{cd}g^{ab})\delta g_{ab}\\
&-&(6\frac{\pi^{cd}\pi_{cd}}{\sqrt g}+2R)\delta\Omega+8\nabla^2\delta\Omega=0\end{aligned}$$ where here $\delta\phi={\ensuremath{\frac{\delta \phi_o}{\delta g_{ab}}}}$. Taking the variation to be around a flat, static background $(g_{ab},\pi^{ab})=(\delta_{ab}, 0)$ the surviving terms are only: t\_S\_[|(\_[ab]{},0)]{}=g(\^2(g\^[ab]{}g\_[ab]{})-g\_[ab]{}\^[;ab]{}+8\^2)=0 Thus replacing in : B= 8\_ d\^3 xg\^2\_o= \_ d\^3 xg(\^2(g\^[ab]{}g\_[ab]{})-g\_[ab]{}\^[;ab]{}) But the boundary term for this volume integral is exactly the opposite of the variation of , which thus cancels with the variation of the first term in . That we take the variation around flat initial data is enough for these purposes, since our boundary conditions are taken around flat initial data.
A simple ansatz for a solution of Shape Dynamics
------------------------------------------------
As a slightly non-trivial application of the formalism, we briefly check that indeed, we recover the Schwarzschild mass from a very simple ansatz. First, using the equations of motion of Shape Dynamics we must construct an appropriate solution. Let us assume that the curve in phase space data is still $(\delta_{ab},0)$, but that now we have a mass contribution at the center of our Universe. This is taken as a “mass defect" at $r=0$. As in [@SD:Causal; @SD:Causal2], for the correct coupling we assume that only the metric and the momenta scale with the conformal factor.
As shown below, we will recover a Schwarzschild black hole in isotropic coordinates. This should come as no surprise, because in the present case of conformally flat metrics one can use the flat metric $\delta_{ab}$ as a fixed section in the conformal bundle (which means that the section won’t enter the equations of motion). Furthermore, it turns out that reducing the equations of motion of ADM to the subspace of conformally flat metrics coincides with calculating the equations of motion directly from a theory which only has the conformally flat metrics in its phase space. This latter theory is known as IWM (Isenberg-Wilson- Mathews) [@Isenberg], and is known to reproduce ADM for spherically symmetric spacetimes [@3+1; @book]. Nonetheless, it is instructive to pursue the solution straight from the Shape Dynamics ansatz.
In radial coordinates the LY equation with the defect becomes \[equ:Omega\] \^2= 2m(r) where the $2\pi$ factor is exactly what appears from the scalar constraint ($2\pi$ comes from $16\pi/8$, where the $8$ is the factor for $\nabla^2\Omega$ in ). The solution for equation with our boundary conditions is given by: =1+
Of course now we must still verify that the curve $(g_{ab}(t),\pi^{ab}(t))=(\delta_{ab}, 0)$ is a solution to Shape Dynamics, i.e. we must check that $N_o, \rho, \xi$ exist that satisfy and $\dot g_{ab}=\dot\pi^{ab}=0$, according to and . This is no easy task, and the solution, if it exists, doesn’t necessarily coincide with Schwarzcshild.[^15] The general solution to with our boundary conditions is $N=1-\frac{2b}{m+2r}$, where $b$ is an integration constant. The issue is that using the equations of motion and we don’t necessarily get $\dot g_{ab}=\dot\pi^{ab}=0$ for any choice of $b$ in the lapse, and thus the curve $(g_{ab}(t),\pi^{ab}(t))=(\delta_{ab}, 0)$ might not be a solution for Shape Dynamics. Equation is automatically satisfied if $\rho=0, \xi^a=0$. If we input the lapse $N=1-\frac{2b}{m+2r}$ and $\phi=\ln{(1+\frac{m}{2r})}$ into we obtain \^[ab]{}=(1+)\^2 (
[ccc]{} & 0 & 0\
0 & - & 0\
0 & 0 & -\
) Thus, the *only* solution is obtained by taking $b=1$. To rewrite this solution as an ADM solution (and thus as a space-time), we must set the gauge such that $\Omega[\tilde{g},\tilde{\pi}]=1$.
With this gauge-fixing in place, rewriting $1-\frac{2m}{m+2r}=\frac{1-\frac{m}{2r}}{1+\frac{m}{2r}}$, the reconstructed space-time from this is: \[equ:SD\_new\] ds\^2= -()\^2dt\^2+ (1+)\^4(dr\^2+r\^2(d\^2+\^2()d\^2)) which is exactly Schwarzschild in isotropic coordinates. Note that the lapse is uniquely fixed to be that given by $1-\frac{2m}{m+2r}$, but the spatial metric still would have the full Weyl ambiguity. To reconstruct the space-time metric, we have to go to the conformal gauge for which $\Omega=1$, which means choosing the conformal representative $\tilde g_{ab}=(1+\frac{m}{2r})^4\delta_{ab}$. Thus we have shown that from a very simple ansatz, namely, flat space with a point-like mass source, Shape Dynamics reproduces the Schwarzschild solution in the “preferred" isotropic coordinates.
For General Relativity, this solution in isotropic coordinated breaks down at the horizon (in these coordinates the horizon is located at $r=m/2$), since the 4-metric becomes degenerate there. The difference from GR is that for Shape Dynamics the solution is valid beyond the horizon, all the way to the singularity itself. That is because the lapse is not identically zero, so geometrodynamical time itself carries on. Since the change of coordinates from isotropic to Schwarzschild breaks down at the horizon, the two spacetimes are identical outside the horizon, but are nonetheless physically different, i.e. not globally isometric.
### Recovering the Schwarzschild mass as a Shape Dynamics charge
Trivially, one obtains $\partial_r\phi\rightarrow-\frac{m}{2r^2}$, and asymptotically $k\rightarrow \partial_j g_{ij}-\partial_i(\delta^{kl}g_{kl})$ which is equal to zero since $g_{ij}=\delta_{ij}$.[^16] Thus, for we are left with (after restoration of the $\frac{1}{16\pi}$ factor): E\_=-\_d\^2y\_r(r\^2()dd)=m and using our modified energy charge we nonetheless obtain the correct Schwarzschild mass from a very simple ansatz.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We list below the main results of this paper. The results can be naturally organized into two broader areas of investigation:
### Formulation of Shape Dynamics for manifolds with boundary {#formulation-of-shape-dynamics-for-manifolds-with-boundary .unnumbered}
Unlike General Relativity, the definition of Shape Dynamics requires phase space reduction, which can produce a non-trivial Hamiltonian that exists solely at the boundary, and is in that sense holographic. In General Relativity, the Hamiltonian exists in the bulk, and on-shell we are left with a boundary term representing the energy of the space-time. In Shape Dynamics, the entire evolution Hamiltonian is defined at the boundary, even off-shell. The energy is still just the value of the Hamiltonian over a particular solution.
In the general case, irrespective of the boundary conditions, we can only obtain a non-trivial Hamiltonian if the boundary conditions on the lapse allow for a non-zero lapse propagating the maximal slicing at the boundary. Luckily, the usual asymptotic conditions on the lapse that allow the definition of asymptotic boosts and energy are precisely those that propagate maximal slicing. This is the technical reason we are able to reproduce the Poincaré algebra for the charges (see last item).
- In general, boundary conditions on the unphysical conformal factor $\Omega$ that solves the LY equation implies that symmetry trading will be limited. That is we do not obtain the full set of Weyl invariance in Shape Dynamics. We derived an explicit relation between boundary conditions on the conformal factor $\Omega$ of the LY equation and restrictions on the Lagrange multiplier $\rho$. The condition is that the left over Weyl transformations under which the theory is invariant are constrained to fall-off of as $\ln{\delta\Omega}$. With this restriction, phase space reduction still proceeds as normal, but this is one of the reasons we do not obtain charges for the Weyl transformations at infinity.
- For asymptotically flat conditions, we calculated the boundary terms emerging from the requirement of differentiablity and finiteness of the charges in Shape Dynamics. By a careful study of the boundary charges, we have derived an extra term for the boundary Shape Dynamics Hamiltonian (as compared to the ADM energy of an asymptotically flat space-time). This implies an extra term for the definition of the Shape Dynamics energy charge, but we find no extra contribution for the angular momenta or linear momenta.
- This extra term ensures that the evolution Hamiltonian (and thus also the energy) for Shape Dynamics is Weyl invariant.
- The algebra of the constraints emerging for these boundary conditions are calculated and shown not to produce central terms. We have found that for the boundary conditions studied here, the boundary charges still obey the Poincaré algebra.
- For different boundary conditions on phase space we can obtain different Shape Dynamics’ Hamiltonians. But can the (Shape Dynamics) Hamiltonian be differentiable, “holographic", and provide non-trivial equations of motion? We cannot at this point prove a general assertion irrespective of the boundary conditions, but for the boundary conditions studied in this paper, by using a linearization of the LY conformal factor and the Gauss law we have shown that the emerging evolution Hamiltonian, namely satisfies all these requirements.
### Equations of motion {#equations-of-motion .unnumbered}
As mentioned, upon the occurrence of boundaries, phase space reduction allows for a remaining Hamiltonian evolution generator at the boundary. The leftover Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ that is left at the boundary is a functional of the implicit function $\phi_o[g,\pi]$. This makes the equations of motion derived from ${\ensuremath{\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta g_{ab}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \pi^{ab}}}}$ impossible to carry out explicitly. This is where we can use phase space reduction to our advantage: we can obtain the equations of motion individually over each solution of $\phi_o$, and do not need to perform functional differentiation of an implicit function.
- We presented the equations of motion for Shape Dynamics in the open, maximal slicing case. They differ in some respect from its closest cousin, conformal ADM in maximal slicing.[^17] One of the main differences is that one does not in any way couple the diffeomorphism constraint to the conformal factor. This is related to the fact that Shape Dynamics does not need either an auxiliary background metric or the use of odd density weight in its formulation, because the conformal factor is not part of the metric, but an auxiliary field (see also [@SD:FAQ]). This opens a new possibility in numerical relativity.
- The equations of motion are used to show that over Minkowski initial data, Shape Dynamics might be naively taken to have both 3-dimensional conformal symmetry and Poincaré symmetry. This misconception is due to the fact that the propagating lapses for Shape Dynamics allow for exactly the right lapses to produce boosts and time translations. However, when we properly consider the preservation of the boundary conditions from the equations of motion and the finiteness of the boundary terms, we find these two distinct sets of symmetries mutually exclusive.
- We formulated a very simple ansatz for Shape Dynamics, consisting of flat, static space with a point-like mass at the center of the Universe. We then used the equations of motion of Shape Dynamics to find a solution to this ansatz. The solution cannot be inferred merely from finding the unique solution to the Lichnerowicz-York conformal factor and one must use the full power of the equations of motion. For our solution to this ansatz, the correction term to the energy provides the full mass, since the metric contribution is zero. A simple reconstruction of space-time from our solution finds exactly Schwarzschild in isotropic coordinates. Using the Shape Dynamics definition of energy we still obtain the Schwarzschild mass.
Although we have obtained a Weyl invariant mass charge, we have not been able to obtain here a phase space that allows asymptotic conformal symmetry generators (or charges), although they would seem to naively be also present in the Shape Dynamics solution over Minkowski initial data in phase space. We attribute this to three interconnected facts (which we explain in the main text) all arising from the same root: the definition of the asymptotic boundary values for the metric variables is poorly adapted to Shape Dynamics. Two further investigations are thus called for: i) the loosening of the boundary conditions to something akin to the IWM waveless approximation [@Isenberg], and ii) the study of asymptotically AdS boundary conditions.
As a last remark, and a matter of curiosity, there is a sense in which spatial special conformal transformations are dual to boosts, and dilatations to time translations. The technical reason for this is that Poincaré symmetry is related to the kernel of the phase space reduction matrix (Dirac matrix), whereas 3-dimensional conformal symmetry is generated by elements coinciding with the co-kernel. This means roughly that you can only get one at the expense of the other. At least for vacuum Shape Dynamics on closed spatial manifolds, this fact would make these two sets of symmetries existing in the flat torus case formally mutually exclusive: Poincaré invariance prohibits spatial conformal invariance, and vice-versa. That is, for odd-dimensional compact manifolds, the Atiyah-Singer index theorem [@Atiyah-Singer] demands that any differential operator, for instance $\{\pi_\phi(x),t_\phi S(y)\}$, have zero index, which means that the dimension of the kernel always equals the dimension of the co-kernel. Thus if one has a certain number of lapses propagating the CMC condition this entails that we must have the same number of Weyl transformations disallowed from the remaining Shape Dynamics invariance group. This motivates us to conjecture that the two sets of symmetries, Poincaré and 3-dimensional conformal (i.e. dilatations and special conformal transformations), are *always* mutually exclusive.
The difference between the open and closed case in the treatment of the cokernel of the Lapse fixing equation {#appendix:LFE_CMC}
=============================================================================================================
Now we expand on a different point of view on the construction of Shape Dynamics: the infinitesimal one.
The infinitesimal criteria for gauge fixing is transversality. I.e. to have one phase space function $\Phi$ gauge-fix another, $\Psi$, the Poisson bracket between them should be weakly invertible (non-vanishing Fadeev-Popov determinant). In the case at hand, we can easily verify that for the gauge-fixing function $\pi_\phi=0$ and first class constraints of the Linking theory, the only weakly non-vanishing Poisson-bracket is \[equ:Pb\_pi\_phi,pi\]{t\_S(N),\_(x)}=4 t\_{S(N),(x)-[$\lf\langle \pi \rt\rangle $]{}g(x)}This means that, if there are $N$ such that \[LFE\]{S(N),(x)-[$\lf\langle \pi \rt\rangle $]{}g(x)}=0 the Poisson bracket is not invertible. In other words, the Fadeev-Popov determinant related to the gauge-fixing vanishes. Equation will be henceforth called the Lapse Fixing Equation (LFE). If there is generically a unique solution to one can show by going to the “solution section" of the conformal factor that the kernel of $\{t_\phi S(N),\pi_\phi(x)\}$ is completely captured by the kernel of the LFE.
It turns out that we can rewrite as \[equ:Delta\_constr\]{S(N),(x)-[$\lf\langle \pi \rt\rangle $]{}g(x)}=[$\frac{\delta t_\phi S}{\delta \phi}$]{}\_[|=0]{}(N)= N-[$\lf\langle \Delta N \rt\rangle $]{}=0 where $\Delta$ is a differential operator functionally dependent on $(g,\pi)$, which is furthermore invertible when $\pi^{ab}\neq 0$. Thus there is such a non-trivial solution $N_o[g,\pi]$. This means that out of an infinite set of scalar constraints (one for each point), we are left with one that remains first class wrt our gauge-fixing. With the lapse smearing $N=N_o$ “excised" from the space of smearings, the Poisson bracket of the gauge-fixing with the remaining scalar constraints form an operator that is now invertible (non-vanishing Fadeev-Popov determinant) and thus is a true gauge fixing of the remaining generators.
So far, there is nothing really new in this analysis, but a few comments are in order. Before reduction, there is an equivalence: $$\left(\pi_\phi-4(\pi-\langle\pi\rangle\sqrt g)\right)(\rho)= (\pi_\phi-4\pi)(\rho-{\ensuremath{\lf\langle \rho \rt\rangle }})$$ So the only effectively non-trivial smearings we can choose, i.e. those that will have a non-trivial action on the canonical variables, are those that are not constant. This restriction corresponds to the fact that we are limiting ourselves, in the closed case, to Weyl transformations that keep the total volume fixed. Non-constant smearings here are the infinitesimal version of volume-preserving Weyl transformations.
Suppose however that we did not know beforehand which conformal factors were being excluded, but only had access to the bracket: \[equ:Delta\_cokernel\]{S(N),((x)-[$\lf\langle \pi \rt\rangle $]{}g)()}= [$\lf\langle \rho\Delta N \rt\rangle $]{}-[$\lf\langle \rho \rt\rangle $]{}[$\lf\langle \Delta N \rt\rangle $]{} Using integration by parts, one can check that the co-kernel is given simply by $\rho={\ensuremath{\lf\langle \rho \rt\rangle }}$, which is consistent with our previous comments.[^18]
The gauge-fixing $\pi_\phi=0$ clearly *does not* gauge fix the constraint $\left(\pi_\phi-4(\pi-\langle\pi\rangle\sqrt g)\right)(x)$, since their Poisson Bracket vanishes. Hence the Lagrange multiplier $\rho$ is left arbitrary after reduction. However, since we were forced to consider volume preserving conformal transformations to get uniqueness of $\phi$ from the non-homogeneous version of the LY equation , the smearing always appears as $\rho-{\ensuremath{\lf\langle \rho \rt\rangle }}$.
This is the situation for the construction over closed spaces: to “shave off” redundancy in the solutions of equation we change the range of conformal factors we allow (e.g. to be volume preserving), ultimately changing the form of the constraint itself (i.e. $4\pi\rightarrow 4(\pi-{\ensuremath{\lf\langle \pi \rt\rangle }})$. *Limiting the space of conformal factors to lie in the (integral manifold of the) complement of the cokernel of is what allows us to obtain a unique solution to* .
However, in the open case we can obtain a unique solution to the full LY equation *and* retain a global Hamiltonian merely by choosing boundary conditions on our conformal factors, and thus do not need to change the form of the constraints. This fact is what will allow us to retain the full range of Weyl transformations even in the face of non-trivial co-kernels of the lapse fixing operator.
To summarize, in the usual construction of Shape Dynamics for closed manifolds, one chooses CMC as opposed to maximal slicing, which is meant to allow for non-trivial time evolution, i.e. it allows *one* lapse to remain unfixed. In that case, it turns out that this is achieved by excluding one possible conformal transformation, the homogeneous one. In fact the CMC condition translates into the gauge symmetry only allowing non-homogeneous conformal factors, i.e. conformal factors of the form $\rho-{\ensuremath{\lf\langle \rho \rt\rangle }}$. On the other hand, still in the closed manifold case, one could also choose maximal slicing, and thus remove the former restriction on the conformal factor. This is in fact similar to what York et al do. By removing the restriction on the conformal factor, the one unfixed lapse generating time evolution is set to zero, and we are left only with an initial value formulation. In other words, by leaving $N_o$ unfixed (since it is in the kernel of the lapse fixing operator), we must not include the conformal transformations that are in the co-kernel of the lapse fixing operator.
Over a “Minkowski curve" something very similar occurs. Again, naively the best-matching gauge-fixing $\pi_\phi=0$ might turn out to have a kernel $N_o^{(i)}$ and co-kernel $\rho_o^{(i)}$, where $i$ runs over a finite set. In the Minkowski case, the operator turns out to be self-adjoint, and thus we can identify $N_o^{(i)}$ with $\rho_o^{(i)}$. But as we have explained there is a fundamental asymmetry in the phase space reduction process: the kernel of the operator signals which of the lapses *remain* as generators of dynamics, whereas the cokernel signals which conformal smearings are *disallowed* by the symmetry trading[^19]
Hence, upon allowing $N_o^{(i)}$ to remain as the generators of dynamics, one must excise $\rho_o^{(i)}$. Accidentally, these are *exactly* the conformal factors that were needed to forge our 3-dimensional conformal symmetry! The conformal factor $\rho=c$ was necessary for dilatations and $\rho=x^a$ for special conformal transformations. Thus if we follow what occurs in the closed topology case, this would mean that for this particular solution we would have to excise exactly the conformal factors that we wanted. But it also suggests that we could augment our system so that we are left only with a trivial kernel of the gauge-fixing matrix, in which case, if the equations of motion were left unchanged, it would allow us to recover the 3-dimensional conformal symmetry in detriment of boosts and time translations.
Auxiliary calculation of the boundary terms {#app:Boundaries}
===========================================
We start with writing out the respective scalar constraint in the Linking theory: \[equ:LT\_scalar\] t\_S(N)=d\^3 x N( e\^[-6]{}-e\^[2]{}g(x)(R(x)-8(\^[,a]{}\_[,a]{}+\^2))) Clearly for the $\delta_gt_\phi S$ boundary terms we will get all of the ones from the usual $R$ variation, but here substituting $N\rightarrow Ne^{2\phi}$: $$\int_{\partial\Sigma}d^2 y \sqrt h \left(e^{2\phi}Nh^{ab}\left(\delta g_{ab;c}-\delta g_{ac;b}\right)-(e^{2\phi}N)_{;c} h^{ab}\delta g_{ab} +(e^{2\phi}N)^{;b} \delta g_{bc} \right) r^c$$ We also have the extra first derivatives of the metric arising from the Christoffel symbols in $\nabla^2\phi$, namely $ -8e^{2\phi}N\phi_{,c}\Gamma^c_{ab}g^{ab}$. The boundary term arising from this is going to be given by $$\begin{gathered}
-\int d^3 x \sqrt g 8e^{2\phi}N\phi^{,c}g^{ab}\left(\delta g_{bc;a}-\frac{1}{2}\delta g_{ab;c}\right) =
-\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y \sqrt h 8e^{2\phi}N\phi^{,c}\left(\delta g_{bc}r^b-\frac{1}{2}h^{ab}\delta g_{ab}r_c\right)-\{\mbox{vol. term}\}\end{gathered}$$ The total boundary term for the metric variation is then: \[equ:LT\_scalar\_boundary\_g\] \_g t\_B(N)=\_d\^2 y h e\^[2|]{} (|Ng\_[ab;d]{}+(6\_[,d]{}|N-N\^[,d]{})g\_[ab]{})(g\^[de]{}g\^[ab]{}-g\^[da]{}g\^[be]{}) r\_e where we have denoted with an over bar the choice of boundary functions for $\phi$ and $N$, and by $h_{ab}$ the boundary value of the metric, as usual.
Now for the $\phi$ variation, we have the boundary terms coming from: $$\begin{gathered}
8\int d^3 x \sqrt g Ne^{2\phi}\left(2\phi^{,a}\delta\phi_{,a}+\nabla^2\delta\phi\right)=\\
-8\int d^3 x\sqrt g e^{2\phi}\left(2(N\nabla^2\phi+\phi_{,c}N^{,c}+2N\phi_{,c}\phi^{c})\delta\phi+(N^{,c}+2N\phi^{,c})\delta\phi_{,c} \right)
+8\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h Ne^{2\phi}\left(2\phi^{,a}\delta\phi+\delta\phi^{,a}\right)r_ a\\
=8\int_{\partial\Sigma} d^2 y\sqrt h e^{2\phi}\left(N\delta\phi^{,a}-N^{,a}\delta\phi\right)r_ a+\{\mbox{volume terms}\}\end{gathered}$$ So the total boundary term for the conformal variation of the scalar constraint is then: \[equ:LT\_scalar\_boundary\_phi\]\_t\_B(N)=8\_ d\^2 yh e\^[2|]{}(|N\^[,a]{}-N\^[,a]{})r\_ a where, to emphasize, $r^c$ is not the normal to the boundary according to $t_\phi g_{ab}$ but according to $g_{ab}$.
For the momentum constraint we have: \[LT\_momentum\] t\_H\_a(\^a)=d\^3 x([\_a\^b]{}\_[;b]{}+10\_a\^b\_[,b]{}-2\_[a]{})\^a The total boundary term for the momentum constraint is then: \[equ:LT\_momentum\_bdary\] t\_B\_a(\^a)=2\_ d\^2 y \^ar\^b(\^[cd]{}((5g\_[ac]{}g\_[bd]{}-g\_[ab]{}g\_[cd]{})+(g\_[bd]{}g\_[ca]{}-g\_[ab]{}g\_[cd]{}))+g\_[ac]{}g\_[bd]{}\^[cd]{})
Central terms in the algebra {#appendix:central}
============================
Since integration by parts is used to obtain the form of the brackets given in , we get extra boundary terms that do not arise from variation of the fields on the boundary. Namely {|H\^(\_),|H\^(\_)}={H\^(\_),H\^(\_)}+{B\^(\_),B\^(\_)} Although the variations are taken without boundary, we will still have a difference \[equ:Q\] Q(\^, \^):={H\^(\_),H\^(\_)}-H(\[, \]\_) due to integration by parts.
In [@Carlip], it is shown that it is these terms that are relevant for the computation of the central term of the computation of the central term in a Virasoro algebra on the boundary. By lack of a better name, we will call these terms, $Q(\eta^\nu, \xi^\mu)$, *the boundary terms of the deformation algebra*. The computation of $Q$ does not involve a specific form of the boundary terms, since we will be throughout assuming that there always exists a given extra boundary term can be added to cancel the boundary variations of the fields, whichever boundary conditions we choose.
Let us briefly calculate the boundary deformation algebra for the usual ADM constraints. In the following section we show that indeed, by the canonical properties of our transformation in the Linking theory, the boundary deformation algebra for the Linking theory is just given by a conformal transformation of the boundary deformation algebra for the ADM system. This allows us to see straightforwardly that the relevant terms that might interfere with the algebra of vanish for our asymptotic boundary conditions.
$\{S,S\}$ term
--------------
The only non-trivial Poisson bracket for ADM, since as we saw the momentum constraint generate only 3-diffeomorphisms, is $\{S(x),S(y)\}$. For the smeared version, all the terms that are both linear in the smearings will cancel out upon anti-symmetrization, so in the end we only have to calculate: d\^3x N\_2(2g\_[ec]{}g\_[fd]{}\^[cd]{}-g\_[ef]{})(-g\^[ef]{}\^2N\_1+ N\_1\^[;ef]{} )=2d\^3x N\_2\^[cd]{}[N\_1]{}\_[;cd]{} And thus $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equ:SS_algebra}\{S(N_1),S(N_2)\}= \int d^3 x\pi^{cd}\left(N_1N_{2;cd}-N_2N_{1;cd}\right)\\=H^a(N_1\nabla_a N_2-N_2\nabla_a N_1)+\int_{\partial\Sigma}d^2y (\pi^{cd}(N_1N_{2,c}-N_2N_{1,c})r_d)\end{gathered}$$ where the anti-symmetrization cancelled the mixed derivatives, and $r_a$ is the normal to $\partial\Sigma$.
The term we will use in the main text is the boundary of the Poisson bracket: \[equ:SS\_bdary\] Q(N\_1,N\_2):= \_d\^2 y\^[cd]{}(N\_1N\_[2,c]{}-N\_2N\_[1,c]{}) This term is already contained in the boundary charges.
$\{H^a,H^a\}$ term
------------------
Now that we have all the intermediary calculations out of the way, this bracket will be more straightforward. Before variations we are allowed to do integration by parts in whichever way we want, since we assume that there exist boundary terms whose variation will cancel the variations on the boundary. Thus we can write \[equ:HH\] {H\_a(\_1\^a),H\_b(\_2\^b)}={d\^3x( \^[ab]{}\_[\_1]{} g\_[ab]{}),d\^3x’( \^[ab]{}\_[\_2]{} g\_[ab]{})}=\_(\_[\_1]{} g\_[ab]{}\_[\_2]{}\^[ab]{}- 12)d\^3x upon integration by parts we obtain: \[equ:HH\_algebra\]\_\^[ab]{}(\_[\_1]{}\_[\_2]{}-\_[\_2]{}\_[\_1]{})g\_[ab]{})+\_(\_[\_1]{}g\_[ab]{}\^c\_2 \^[ab]{}r\_c- 12) Since $[\mathcal{L}_{\vec\xi_1},\mathcal{L}_{\vec\xi_2}]=\mathcal{L}_{[\vec\xi_ 1,\vec\xi_2]}$ we get the respective part of the boundary deformation algebra: \[equ:HH\_bdary\]Q(\_1, \_2)=\_d\^2 y(\_[\_1]{}(g\_[ab]{})\^c\_2 \^[ab]{}-\_[\_2]{}(g\_[ab]{})\^c\_1 \^[ab]{}+ \[\_ 1, \_ 2\]\_a\^[ac]{})r\_c) This term is also already contained in the boundary charges.
$\{H^a, S\}$ term
-----------------
As in the main section the gauge fixing will impose $\frac{\pi}{\sqrt g}=0$, and $\pi$ comes in squared in the scalar constraint, we can set it to zero even before variation, which is what we do here. No complications would arise had we left it in, and we do it to be more compact. $$\begin{gathered}
\{H_a(\xi^a),S(N)\}=\\
\int d^3x\left(2\frac{\pi_{ab}}{\sqrt g}\mathcal{L}_{\vec\xi}\pi^{ab}N+\mathcal{L}_{\vec\xi}g_{ab}(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi^{cd}\pi_{cd}N}{\sqrt g}g^{ab}+2\frac{\pi^{ca}\pi_{c}^bN}{\sqrt g}+\sqrt g(-\frac{1}{2} RN g^{ab}+R^{ab}N+g^{ab}\nabla^2N-N^{;ab}))\right)\end{gathered}$$ The first three terms, involving the momenta, sum to $\mathcal{L}_{\vec\xi}(\frac{\pi^{cd}g_{ce}g_{df}\pi^{ef}}{\sqrt g})N
$. After writing $\mathcal{L}_{\vec\xi}g_{ab}=2\xi_{(a;b)}$, doing integration by parts, and using the Bianchi identity: $R^{ab}_{;a}=\frac{1}{2}R^{,b} $, we get for the term $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\Sigma} d^3 x\sqrt g 2\xi_{(a;b)}(-\frac{1}{2} RN g^{ab}+R^{ab}N+g^{ab}\nabla^2N-N^{;ab})=\\
\int_{\Sigma} d^3 x\sqrt gR\xi^cN_{,c}+\int_{\partial\Sigma}d^2 y\sqrt h(-\frac{1}{2}RN\xi^a+\xi^cR_c^{\phantom{c}a}N+\xi^c_{\phantom{a};c} N^{;a}-\xi^a_{\phantom{a};c}N^{;c})\end{gathered}$$thus \[equ:HS\_algebra\] {H\_a(\^a),S(N)}=S(\_N)+Q(\^a, N) where \[equ:HS\_bdary\] Q(\^a, N)=\_d\^2 yh(-SN\^a+\^cR\_c\^[a]{}N+\^c\_[;c]{} N\^[;a]{}-\^a\_[;c]{}N\^[;c]{}) is the respective part of the boundary deformation algebra.
The only terms that do not obviously vanish in our asymptotic conditions, once we perform the canonical transformation, are $t_\phi (\xi^c_{\phantom{a};c} N^{;a}-\xi^a_{\phantom{a};c}N^{;c})$ . But $t_\phi(\xi^a_{\phantom{a};c})\sim\xi^a_{\phantom{a},c}+\xi^a\partial\phi$ and this vanishes as $\delta^a_c + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}''$. In the same way $N_{,c}$ vanishes as $\delta^a_b+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})}}''$. Thus when multiplied by $r_e$, which is odd, the total integrand is always odd for the relevant powers of $r$ and thus vanishes.
Boundary deformation algebra for the Linking theory
---------------------------------------------------
It is easy to check that our canonical transformation is indeed still canonical even in the presence of boundary terms. This means that in calculating the boundary terms, we can use the identity: \[equ:canonical\_PB’s\] {t\_f\_1(g,), t\_f\_2(g,)}=t\_{f\_1(g,), f\_2(g,)} and in particular we get for the boundary of the deformation algebra: $t_\phi Q(\xi_1^\mu, \xi_1^\mu)$. We explicitly check these identities for a few cases for illustration in the appendix.
The extra constraint obtained in the Linking Theory through the Stuckelberg mechanism becomes $C(x)=\pi_\phi-4\pi\approx 0$. Since neither $\pi_\phi$ nor $\pi$ possess any spatial derivatives, regardless of the presence of boundaries a short computation shows that the following identity still holds:
$$\begin{aligned}
\{\pi_\phi, t_\phi g_{ab}\}&=& t_\phi\{4\pi, g_{ab}\}\\
\{\pi_\phi, t_\phi \pi^{ab}\}&=& t_\phi\{4\pi, \pi^{ab}\}\end{aligned}$$
and thus by the chain rule, for a general $f(g,\pi)$, if the boundary variation has been canceled by suitable boundary terms: \[equ:conf\_relation\] {\_, t\_f(g,)}=t\_{4, f(g,)}
Canonical transformations and boundary terms
--------------------------------------------
We will here present some examples of calculating the Poisson brackets in both sides of the identity {t\_f\_1(g,), t\_f\_2(g,)}=t\_{f\_1(g,), f\_2(g,)} It turns out that in some cases it is easier to perform the calculation in the lhs and in others in the rhs.
$\{t_\phi S, t_\phi S\}$ term.
-------------------------------
Let us start with t\_{ S(N\_1), S(N\_2)}= t\_d\^3 x\^[cd]{}(N\_1N\_[2;cd]{}-N\_2N\_[1;cd]{})= d\^3 x e\^[-4]{}\^[cd]{}where we have already set $\pi=0$ at the end result. Using integration by parts in the terms with two derivatives, we get a derivative of $\phi $ term $e^{-4\phi}\pi^{cd}(4N_{1,c}\phi_{,d})-1\leftrightarrow2)$, which exactly cancels with the $\phi$-derivative terms above. Thus we obtain in the end \[equ:tSS\_algebra\] t\_{ S(N\_1), S(N\_2)}= d\^3 x e\^[-4]{}\^[cd]{}(N\_1N\_[2;cd]{}-N\_2N\_[1;cd]{})+\_ d\^2 y e\^[-4]{}\^[cd]{}(N\_1N\_[2,c]{}-N\_2N\_[1,c]{}) and indeed we have checked that \[equ:tSS\_bdary\] t\_Q(N\_1,N\_2):= \_d\^2 y r\_d e\^[-4]{}\^[cd]{}(N\_1N\_[2,c]{}-N\_2N\_[1,c]{}) One can also explicitly check that indeed $\{t_\phi S, t_\phi S\}=t_\phi \{S, S\}$, although the lhs requires more algebra.
$\{t_\phi H_ a, t_\phi H_ a\}$ term.
-------------------------------------
For this bracket, it is easier to first notice that \[equ:LT\_H\] t\_H\_a(\^a)=d\^3 x (\^[ab]{}\_g\_[ab]{}+4\_) But from equation , for a bracket of the form $\{t_\phi H_ a, t_\phi f\}$, we can replace $4\pi\rightarrow\pi_\phi$. This simplifies the bracket and we trivially get: \_(\_[\_1]{} g\_[ab]{}\_[\_2]{}\^[ab]{}+\_[\_1]{} \_[\_2]{}\_- 12)d\^3xwhich gives us an extra boundary term to before: \[equ:tHH\_bdary\] t\_Q(\_1,\_2)=Q(\_1,\_2)+\_\_(\^a\_2\_[\_1]{}-12)r\_ad\^2y but upon reduction $\pi_\phi=0$, this term vanishes. Again, it is possible, and even elucidating, to show this equality without using either the substitution $\pi_\phi=4\pi$ or the canonical transformation identity.
Boundary deformation algebra for Shape Dynamics
-----------------------------------------------
From the constraint system $t_\phi S, t_\phi H_a, \pi_\phi-4\pi$ of the Linking theory, we will do a phase space reduction $t_{\phi_o} S=0=\pi_\phi$, and $t_\phi H_a\rightarrow H_a$. The leftover constraint $4\pi$ forms an abelian algebra with itself and thus poses no extra boundary terms.
To see that indeed upon reduction the diffeomorphism constraint on extended phase space goes back to the diffeomorphism constraint in original phase space, see equation . Furthermore, from equation we know that the extra terms of the boundary deformation algebra also vanish on-shell (when $\pi=0$). Thus we get on-shell exactly the same term as the usual , and off shell we get a modification: Q(\_ 1,\_2)=\_4(\^a\_2\_[\_1]{}\_o-12)r\_ad\^2y0where $\phi_o$ is the solution to the Lichnerowiz equation with a given boundary condition for $\phi$.
The only potentially different leftover term that we might have gotten to the boundary deformation algebra would come from the mixed term $\{\pi, H_a\}$. A straightforward calculation yields {(), H\_a(\^a)}=\_d\^3 x \^c \_[,c]{} +\_\^cr\_c d\^2 y which also vanishes on-shell.
So gathering these terms, we have for the total boundary deformation algebra: Q\[(\_1, \_1), (\_2, \_ 2)\]= \_ d\^2 y (\_[\_1]{}(g\_[ab]{})\^c\_2 \^[ab]{}-\_[\_2]{}(g\_[ab]{})\^c\_1 \^[ab]{}+ \[\_ 1, \_ 2\]\_a\^[ac]{}+(\_1\_2\^c-\_2\_1\^c))r\_c
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Tim Koslowski for discussions and Steve Carlip for discussions and a careful reading of the draft. HG was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91ER40674.
[xxx]{}
H. Gomes and T. Koslowski, “Frequently asked questions about Shape Dynamics" \[arXiv:1211.5878 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. W. York, Jr., “Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravitation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**28**]{} (1972) 1082.
H. Gomes, S. Gryb and T. Koslowski, “Einstein gravity as a 3D conformally invariant theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{} (2011) 045005 \[arXiv:1010.2481 \[gr-qc\]\].
H. Gomes and T. Koslowski, “The Link between General Relativity and Shape Dynamics,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{} (2012) 075009 \[arXiv:1101.5974 \[gr-qc\]\].
H. Gomes, T. Koslowski, F. Mercati and S. Gryb, “The gravity/CFT correspondence" \[arXiv:1209.4858 \[gr-qc\]\].
H. Gomes and T. Koslowski, “Symmetry Doubling in General relativity" \[arXiv:1206.4823 \[gr-qc\]\].
F. Mercati and S. Gryb, “2+1 gravity on the conformal sphere" \[arXiv:1209.4858 \[gr-qc\]\].
T. Regge and C. Teitelboim “Role of Surface Integrals in the Hamiltonian Formulation of General relativity" Ann. of Phys. [**88**]{} (1974)
S. Carlip “Effective Conformal Descriptions of Black Hole Entropy" \[arXiv:1107.2678 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. J. Hanson, T. Regge, and C. Teitelboim, “Constrained Hamiltonian Systems". Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 1976
R. Beig and N. Ó Murchadha “The Poincaré Group as the Symmetry Group of Canonical General Relativity" Ann. of Phys. [**174**]{} (1987)
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “Quantization of gauge systems" Princeton University Press, 1992
E. Gourgoulhon “3+1 Formalism for general relativity" Lecture Notes in Physics 846, Springer
H. Gomes, T. Koslowski “Coupling Shape Dynamics to Matter Gives Spacetime" arXiv:1110.3837 \[gr-qc\].
H. Gomes, “The Coupling of Shape Dynamics to Matter,” arXiv:1112.0374 \[gr-qc\].
J. Isenberg, “The waveless approximation to theories of gravity" \[arXiv:0702113 \[gr-qc\]\].
M. Atiyah, I. Singer “The Index of Elliptic Operators: V" Annals of Math. Vol 93, No 1
[^1]: <[email protected]>
[^2]: A note on nomenclature: we will distinguish “invariance", as in diffeomorphism invariance, from “symmetry", as in Poincaré symmetry. The first is a covariance condition, under which the action is invariant. This should be a property holding throughout phase space. The second is a transformation which leaves a given point (or a curve) in phase space fixed.
[^3]: This formalism is not complete for the consideration of the “cosmological” setting, as, alongside [@RT; @Hanson; @BO] it takes the Hamiltonian ADM setting as a starting point and thus does not require the inclusion of boundaries in time.
[^4]: In the closed case, if one uses the non-restricted conformal transformation (the unhatted $\phi$) - which is related to maximal slicing - one obtains a trivial Hamiltonian. This is the reason in that case one uses the volume-preserving condition.
[^5]: In the generic case where $\pi^{ab}\neq 0$, otherwise we have more degeneracy.
[^6]: There is a slightly more complicated story here than we show. Phase space reduction would apparently produce the constraint $\pi(\rho+\mathcal{L}_\xi\phi_o)$. However, this can be checked not to alter the first class properties of the constraints and thus can be absorbed in $\rho$, the Lagrange multiplier of $\pi$. The same occurs when using volume-preserving Weyl transformations.
[^7]: Note that this is not true for the variables that are being eliminated, namely $\phi$ and $\pi_\phi$.
[^8]: Furthermore, in Shape Dynamics the constraints decouple the conformal factor from the diffeomorphism constraint [@SD:FAQ]. This occurs because the diffeomorphism generator decouples into one part that is the original diffeomorphism generator and another that gets absorbed by the conformal constraint upon reduction: $$\int d^3 x \pi^{ab}e^{-4\phi}\mathcal{L}_\xi (e^4\phi)g_{ab}=\int d^3 x \left(\pi^{ab}\mathcal{L}_\xi g_{ab}+4\pi\mathcal{L}_\xi \phi \right)
.$$
[^9]: One can indeed straightforwardly calculate the co-kernel of the lapse fixing equation $\{\pi_\phi(\rho), N(x)\}$ to be given by homogeneous $\rho$. The fact that the homogeneous cokernel differs from the $N_o$ kernel arises because for CMC foliation, the lapse fixing equation is not self-adjoint.
[^10]: Note that whenever we include an index between parentheses it should be taken not as tensorial index, but merely an index parametrizing a given finite set.
[^11]: We are here assuming that the solutions are captured by the method of separation of variables.
[^12]: This brings us to the problem we have mentioned earlier: the boundary conditions for the metric variables are tailored so that they still allow a Schwarzschild solution in phase space without allowing asymptotic wave propagation. These physical conditions should be translated into Shape Dynamics, where the conformal mode of the metric and momenta is pure gauge. It seems that the right asymptotics for the metric would thus be that it approximates a conformally flat spacetime with traceless momenta. These spacetimes have been studied dynamically, and are also called Isenberg-Wilson-Mathews waveless approximation [@Isenberg]. We will study these conditions in future work. For now, since our main aim is to study the asymptotic Poincaré charges emerging in Shape Dynamics, we stick with the usual asymptotic flatness conditions on the metric variables .
[^13]: In fact, for the form of boundary charge , we get Weyl invariance even if we don’t assume anything about $\psi$.
[^14]: We should note that the ADM Hamiltonian can also be defined on the boundary, given a phase space reduction induced by a gauge-fixing. The difference, which is a general difference between the maximal slicing gauge-fixing version of ADM and Shape Dynamics, is that the variables used for Shape Dynamics are still the full geometric variables $g_{ab}, \pi_{ab}$, whereas for the gauge-fixed version they are not.
[^15]: Furhtermore, the reconstruction of the metric is not necessary from the point of view of Shape Dynamics. More formally, it should emerge from equations of motion for test fields, and not merely by multiplying the spatial metric by the solution of the LY equation.
[^16]: Note that for the Shape Dynamics solution we must not impose the gauge such that $\Omega=1$.
[^17]: The equations of motion for the CMC case are vastly different than the ones for conformal ADM in CMC slicing, but since they are also much more laborious and we are not using them in this paper, we have refrained from writing them down here.
[^18]: In this case the bracket is not a self adjoint operator between the domain of $\rho$ and $N$, which allows the kernel and co-kernel to be distinct, albeit with the same dimensionality.
[^19]: We should mention here that the conformal factors that are leftover are also going to be responsible for true dynamics of the Universe, as in the formulation of the global Hamiltonian by a volume constraint [@SD:FAQ].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Resource tradeoffs can often be established by solving an appropriate robust optimization problem for a variety of scenarios involving constraints on optimization variables and uncertainties. Using an approach based on sequential convex programming, we demonstrate that quantum gate transformations can be made substantially robust against uncertainties while simultaneously using limited resources of control amplitude and bandwidth. Achieving such a high degree of robustness requires a quantitative model that specifies the range and character of the uncertainties. Using a model of a controlled one-qubit system for illustrative simulations, we identify robust control fields for a universal gate set and explore the tradeoff between the worst-case gate fidelity and the field fluence. Our results demonstrate that, even for this simple model, there exist a rich variety of control design possibilities. In addition, we study the effect of noise represented by a stochastic uncertainty model.'
author:
- 'Robert L. Kosut'
- 'Matthew D. Grace'
- Constantin Brif
bibliography:
- 'scp.bib'
title: Robust control of quantum gates via sequential convex programming
---
Introduction
============
Robust control and robust optimization of uncertain systems are essential in many areas of science and engineering [@Weinmann.book.1991; @Zhou.Doyle.1998; @Dullerud.Paganini.book.2000; @Lin.book.2007; @Belmiloudi.book.2008; @Taguchi.book.2004; @Ben-Tal.book.2009; @BoydV:04]. Recently, there has been much interest in achieving robust control of quantum information systems in the presence of uncertainty [@Fortunato.JCP.116.7599.2002; @Pravia.JCP.119.9993.2003; @Boulant.JCP.121.2955.2004; @Henry.QIP.6.431.2007; @Borneman.JMR.207.220.2010; @Wesenberg.PRA.68.012320.2003; @Wesenberg.PRA.69.042323.2004; @Roos.PRA.69.022321.2004; @Skinner.JMR.163.8.2003; @Kobzar.JMR.170.236.2004; @Kobzar.JMR.173.229.2005; @Luy.JMR.176.179.2005; @Khaneja.JMR.172.296.2005; @Skinner.JMR.179.241.2006; @Timoney.PRA.77.052334.2008; @Khaneja.JCP.124.114503.2006; @Pryor.Khaneja.JCP.125.194111.2006; @Li.Khaneja.PRA.73.030302.2006; @Owrutsky.Khaneja.PRA.86.022315.2012; @Ruths.Li.JCP.134.044128.2011; @Ruths.Li.arXiv.1102.3713.2011; @Steffen.Koch.PRA.75.062326.2007; @Testolin.PRA.76.012302.2007; @Mischuck.PRA.81.023403.2010; @Mischuck.PRA.85.022302.2012; @Khani.PRA.85.022306.2012; @Grace.PRA.85.052313.2012; @Wang.NatCommun.3.997.2012; @Stihl.arXiv.1210.4311.2012; @Green.NJP.15.095004.2013; @QuirozLidar.PRA.88.052306.2013; @Brif:QEC11]. An important property of quantum information processing that distinguishes it from most other applications is the requirement of an unprecedented degree of precision in controlling the system dynamics. Also, due to the very fast time-scale of physical processes in the quantum realm, implementing closed-loop feedback control is extremely difficult and thus open-loop control arises as the most feasible option in most circumstances.
For quantum information systems, a robust optimization problem can be formulated as a search for *design variables* $\theta \in \Theta$ (where $\Theta$ is the *design set*) that maximize a measure of *quantum gate fidelity* $\mathcal{F}$ over a range of *uncertain parameters* $\delta \in \Delta$ (where $\Delta$ is the *uncertainty set*). Fidelity compares a target unitary transformation with the actual quantum channel which depends on both $\theta$ and $\delta$. Fidelity is typically normalized: $\mathcal{F}
\in [0,1]$, and the maximum value $\mathcal{F} = 1$ corresponds to a perfect generation of the target transformation. The design variables $\theta$ can include time-dependent control fields (for both open-loop and closed-loop control), measurement configurations (for closed-loop feedback control), constants associated with physical implementation, the circuit lay-out, and so on. The uncertainties $\delta$ can affect any element of the system Hamiltonian (including the design variables), with specific manifestations and ranges depending on details of the physical implementation and external hardware. For example, uncertainties can represent dispersion and/or slow time variation of parameters such as coupling strengths, exchange interactions, and applied electromagnetic fields, as well as additive and/or multiplicative noise in control fields. The uncertainty set $\Delta$ can thus, in general, contain deterministic and random variables. Whatever the case, we assume that $\theta$ and $\delta$ are constrained to known sets $\Theta$ and $\Delta$, respectively.
One common approach to robust control of quantum gates (e.g., see Refs. [@Khaneja.JMR.172.296.2005; @Brif:QEC11]) is based on maximizing the *average fidelity* given by $$\label{eq:favg}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) =
\mathbb{E}_{\delta\in\Delta}\{ \mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta) \},$$ where $\mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta)$ denotes the fidelity as a function of design and uncertain variables, and $\mathbb{E}_{\delta\in\Delta}\{\cdot\}$ is expectation with respect to the underlying distribution in $\Delta$. Often the average fidelity is well approximated as the sum over a discrete sample with associated probabilities $\{\delta_i \in \Delta, p_i \in [0,1]$}, i.e., $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) = \sum_i p_i
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta_i)$. While the use of the average fidelity is applicable in some cases (e.g., when the uncertainty represents weak random noise), the stringent performance requirements of quantum information processing make it more appropriate, in general, to estimate gate errors by using the *worst-case fidelity* with respect to all uncertainties $\delta \in \Delta$: $$\label{eq:fwc}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta)
= \min_{\delta\in\Delta}\mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta).$$ Also, *worst-case robust optimization* (or *minimax optimization*) is a well known approach employed in many classical problems [@Ben-Tal.book.2009; @Ben-Tal:1998; @Ben-Tal:2002; @ElGhaoui:1998; @Bertsimas:2006; @Calafiore:2006; @Vorobyov:2003; @Lorenz:2005; @Rustem.Howe.book.2002; @ElGhaoui:2003; @Lanckriet:2003; @Zhang:2007; @MutapcicB:2009; @BertsimasNT:2010a; @BertsimasNT:2010b; @MutapcicBFJA:2009; @OskooiMNJBJ:2012; @ZhangKosut:2013], and some of the methods developed for these applications can be adapted for robust control of quantum gates. The worst-case robust optimization problem for quantum gate fidelity is formulated as: $$\label{eq:opt}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize}
& \displaystyle \min_{\delta} \mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta)
\\
\text{subject to}
& \theta\in\Theta,\
\delta\in\Delta .
\end{array}$$ The goal reflected in the problem is to find the design variables $\theta \in \Theta$ that maximize the worst-case fidelity of Eq. .
In control applications, the design set $\Theta$ represents the set of control constraints, and is most often convex or sufficiently well approximated by a convex set. In some cases so is the uncertainty set $\Delta$, although this is not necessary for solving . What makes the problem difficult is that the fidelity is not a convex function of $\theta$ for any sample $\delta \in \Delta$. Non-convex optimization problems are common in all of science and engineering and have engendered numerous numerical approaches to finding local optimal solutions. In particular, effective methods have been developed in recent years for worst-case robust optimization with non-convex cost functions [@Zhang:2007; @MutapcicB:2009; @BertsimasNT:2010a; @BertsimasNT:2010b; @MutapcicBFJA:2009; @OskooiMNJBJ:2012; @ZhangKosut:2013].
In optimal control applications, the functional dependence of the objective (e.g., fidelity) on the control variables is referred to as the *optimal control landscape* [@Rabitz.Science.303.1998.2004; @Chakrabarti.Rabitz.IRPC.26.671.2007; @Brif.NJP.12.075008.2010; @Brif.ACP.148.1.2012]. For an ideal model of a closed quantum system with no uncertainties, the optimal control landscape for the generation of unitary transformations has a very favorable topology [@Rabitz.PRA.72.052337.2005; @Hsieh.Rabitz.PRA.77.042306.2008; @Ho.PRA.79.013422.2009]. Specifically, provided a number of physically reasonable conditions are satisfied [@Pechen.Tannor.PRL.106.120402.2011; @*Rabitz.PRL.108.198901.2012; @*Pechen.Tannor.PRL.108.198902.2012; @*Pechen.PRA.86.052117.2012; @*Fouquieres.Schirmer.arXiv.1004.3492.2010; @*Pechen.PRA.86.052117.2012], the landscape is free of local optima, i.e., there exist one manifold of global minimum solutions (resulting in $\mathcal{F} = 0$) and one manifold of global maximum solutions (resulting in $\mathcal{F} = 1$), while all other critical points reside on saddle-point manifolds [@Rabitz.PRA.72.052337.2005; @Hsieh.Rabitz.PRA.77.042306.2008; @Ho.PRA.79.013422.2009]. Such a favorable landscape topology facilitates easy optimization, as any gradient-based search (various types of which are popular in quantum optimal control [@Khaneja.JMR.172.296.2005; @Krotov.1996.book; @*Tannor.Kazakov.Orlov.1992.chapter; @*Schirmer.Fouquieres.NJP.13.073029.2011; @*Reich.Ndong.Koch.JCP.136.104103.2012; @*Eitan.PRA.83.053426.2011; @Zhu.Rabitz.JCP.109.385.1998; @*Maday.Turinici.JCP.118.8191.2003; @*Ohtsuki.JCP.120.5509.2004; @Ndong.PRA.87.043416.2013; @Hohenester.PRB.74.161307.2006; @*Grace.JPB.40.S103.2007; @*Grace.JMO.54.2339.2007; @*Montangero.PRL.99.170501.2007; @*Wenin.Potz.PRA.78.012358.2008; @*Wenin.Potz.PRB.78.165118.2008; @*Roloff.JCTN.6.1837.2009; @*Schirmer.PRA.80.030301.2009; @*Rebentrost.PRL.102.090401.2009; @*Schulte.JPB.44.154013.2011; @*Floether.NJP.14.073023.2012; @Rothman.JCP.123.134104.2005; @*Rothman.PRA.73.053401.2006; @*Dominy.Rabitz.JPA.41.205305.2008; @*Moore.Rabitz.PRA.84.012109.2011; @Caneva.PRA.84.022326.2011; @Fouquieres.JMR.212.412.2011; @*Machnes.PRA.84.022305.2011; @vonWinckel.Borzi.CPC.181.2158.2010; @*vonWinckel.SIAM-JSC.31.4176.2010; @Fouquieres.PRL.108.110504.2012; @Degani.Zanna.SIAM-JSC.34.A1488.2012]) is guaranteed to reach the global maximum [@Moore.Chakrabarti.PRA.83.012326.2011]. Unfortunately, when uncertainties are present, this landscape topology is not preserved. Typically, uncertainties cause a decrease and fragmentation of the global maximum manifold, resulting in the emergence of multiple local maxima [@Brif:QEC11] (the landscape also undergoes a similar transformation when control fields are severely constrained [@Moore.Rabitz.JCP.137.134113.2012]). Provided that the range of uncertainty is not too large, many of these local optimal solutions will have fidelities close to one.
For quantum information systems, there is considerable on-going effort to develop efficient methods for obtaining a good solution to the problem of robust control, for either average or worst-case fidelity. The majority of existing approaches rely on a numerical optimization procedure, mostly involving a gradient-based search for maximizing the average fidelity of Eq. . In some cases, a randomized search such as a genetic algorithm is employed [@Brif:QEC11]. The results demonstrate the existence of many solutions with high fidelities, consistent with the control landscape picture discussed above. Additionally, the optimal controls are often similar to the corresponding initial controls, provided the latter are reasonably good. This phenomenon, also observed in many engineering and design applications employing local search algorithms, supports the need for developing tools to efficiently calculate a good initial control. In particular, empirical evidence and simulations suggest that robust controls for an uncertain quantum system can be found by searches that start from solutions generated by applying *optimal control theory* or *dynamical decoupling* to the ideal (zero-uncertainty) counterpart system (see, e.g., [@Brif.ACP.148.1.2012; @QuirozLidar.PRA.88.052306.2013] and references therein).
In this paper, we propose the use of *sequential convex programming* (SCP) which is one of several methods available for numerically solving optimization problems like . (See [@SCP.1995] for a collection of earlier SCP varieties and uses and [@ee364b] for a recent informative overview.) SCP provides a general framework for finding local optimal solutions to the worst-case robust optimization problem . The specific SCP algorithm used here, delineated in Algorithm \[alg:scp\] below, follows directly from [@MutapcicB:2009; @MutapcicBFJA:2009]. It was used previously for robust design of slow-light tapers in photonic-crystal waveguides [@MutapcicBFJA:2009; @OskooiMNJBJ:2012] and quantum potential profiles for electron transmission in semiconductor nanodevices [@ZhangKosut:2013]. In this paper, we apply this SCP algorithm to identify robust control fields for the generation of quantum gates in an uncertain one-qubit system.
Sequential Convex Programming
=============================
The SCP algorithm used here is shown in abstract form in Algorithm \[alg:scp\]. The algorithm is initialized with (i) a control in the feasible set $\Theta$, which is assumed to be convex, (ii) samples $\delta_i,\ i=1,\ldots,L$ taken from the uncertainty set $\Delta$, which need not be convex, and (iii) a convex trust region $\tilde{\Theta}_{\mathrm{trust}}$. The trust region is selected so that the linearized fidelity $\mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta_i) +
\tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}} \nabla_{\theta}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta_i)$, where $\tilde{\theta} \in
\tilde{\Theta}_{\mathrm{trust}}$, used in the optimization step retains sufficient accuracy. In each iteration the SCP algorithm returns the optimal increment $\tilde{\theta}$ and the associated worst-case linearized fidelity. To compute the actual worst-case fidelity requires simulating the system’s evolution with the control variables $\theta+\tilde{\theta}$ as indicated in Step 3 of Algorithm \[alg:scp\]. The centerpiece is the optimization step which, in the version shown in Algorithm \[alg:scp\], is gradient based, thereby resulting in $L$ affine constraints in $\tilde{\theta}$, and hence is a convex optimization. The Hessian, perhaps not so easily computed, can be easily incorporated as shown in Appendix \[sec:scpcode\]. In some cases the number of samples, $L$, can be very large. Fortunately, however, computational complexity grows gracefully with the number of constraints and thus does not grossly affect the convex optimization efficiency [@BoydV:04].
In Appendix \[sec:scpcode\] we show how the gradient and Hessian can be cast in standard forms compatible with freely available software specifically designed to solve such convex optimization problems. In general, solving the convex optimization is not the most time consuming step in the SCP algorithm. The time-burden in each iteration falls more often on simulations required to compute the fidelities and gradients (and the Hessian if used) at each uncertainty sample. Of course, as is the case with numerical simulations of any quantum information system, there always lurks the exponential scaling with the number of qubits.
Despite many advantages, SCP is a local optimization method. As such, there is no way to verify that a globally optimal solution has been found. Since the fidelity by construction cannot exceed one, it would seem that at least the maximum is known, so if $\mathcal{F} = 1$ is achieved, it is an optimal solution. However, even as we often obtain fidelities that are extremely close to one, for example, $\log_{10}(1-\mathcal{F}) \in [-6,-4]$, this does not guarantee that the algorithm did not miss a better solution. Although a fidelity value with 4 to 6 nines following the decimal point is effectively one for most engineering problems, for quantum computing every additional improvement in fidelity is important, since it can greatly decrease the physical resources required for fault-tolerant operation.
Sequential Convex Programming for an uncertain qubit
====================================================
In this section, we show how to use SCP for robust control of quantum gates in the presence of common types of uncertainties and constraints. We consider a one-qubit system modeled by the time-dependent Hamiltonian ($\hbar = 1$): $$\label{eq:ham1q}
H(t) = c(t) \omega_x X + \omega_z Z,$$ where $c(t)$ is the external control field (a real-valued function of time defined on the interval $[0, T]$), and $X$ and $Z$ are the respective Pauli matrices. The real parameters $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$ are constant but uncertain over the time interval $[0,T]$. Correspondingly, the uncertain parameters $\delta$ in are specified by the parameter vector $\omega =
[\omega_x, \omega_z]^{\mathsf{T}}$.
Control generation and constraints
----------------------------------
The control field $c(t)$ is typically the output of a signal generation device whose dynamics impose constraints on magnitudes, bandwidth, and so on. To illustrate the use of SCP we make the simplifying assumption that the control is piecewise-constant over $N$ uniform time intervals of width $h = T/N$: $$\label{eq:cpwc}
c(t,\theta) = \theta_{k}\ \ \text{for}\ \ t \in (t_{k-1}, t_k ],\ \
k = 1, \ldots, N,$$ where $t_k = k h$. Correspondingly, the design variables $\theta$ in the optimization problem are specified by the vector of field values $\theta = [\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_N]^{\mathsf{T}}$. The set $\Theta$ reflects control constraints, typical examples of which are shown in Table \[tab:thfeas\]. The appearance of control constraints due to signal generation dynamics is discussed in Appendix \[sec:signal\].
A couple of important characteristics of the control field, used in Table \[tab:thfeas\], are the fluence (a measure of the field energy): $$\label{eq:fluence}
\Phi(\theta) = \int_0^T c^2(t,\theta) d t = \| \theta \|_2^2 h$$ and the area (a measure of the field strength): $$\label{eq:area}
A(\theta) = \int_0^T |c(t,\theta)| d t = \| \theta \|_1 h ,$$ where $\| \theta \|_p = \big( \sum_{k=1}^N |\theta_k|^p \big)^{1/p}$ is the vector $L^p$-norm.
Constraint Set $\Theta$
------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
none $\mathbb{R}^N$
fluence $\Phi(\theta) \leq \gamma$
magnitude $c^{\min} \leq c(t,\theta) \leq c^{\max}, \ t \in [0,T]$
slew rate $|\dot{c}(t,\theta)| \leq \beta, \ t \in [0,T]$
area $A(\theta) \leq \alpha$
linear $a \theta = b$
: \[tab:thfeas\]Typical control constraints. The bounding parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ are positive constants and $c^{\min}$, $c^{\max}$ are real constants. Also, $a$ is a real $N
\times N$ matrix and $b$ is a real vector of length $N$.
The list of control constraints in Table \[tab:thfeas\] is certainly not exhaustive. However, since $c(t,\theta)$ is a linear function of $\theta$, each of these constraints or any combination thereof forms a convex set in $\mathbb{R}^N$. The bounding parameters in Table \[tab:thfeas\] can also be used as design variables to establish control resource tradeoffs via SCP. In particular, the tradeoff between the gate fidelity and the field fluence is explored in Sec \[sec:tradeoff\].
Evolution operator and fidelity
-------------------------------
For a given realization of the Hamiltonian (i.e., for given values of $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$), the system undergoes a unitary evolution, governed by the Schrödinger equation: $$\label{eq:schro}
i \frac{d}{dt} U(t) = H(t) U(t) , \ \ \ U(0) = I ,$$ where $U(t) \equiv U(t,0)$ is the time-evolution operator (propagator) from time $t = 0$ to $t$, and $I$ is the identity operator. For the piecewise-constant control , the evolution operator $U(t_k)$ is given by a product of incremental propagators: $$\begin{aligned}
& U(t_k) = U(t_k,t_{k-1}) \cdots U(t_2,t_1) U(t_1,t_0) ,
\label{eq:evol-oper} \\
& U(t_k,t_{k-1}) = \exp \left[ -i h (\theta_{k} \omega_x X
+ \omega_z Z) \right].
\label{eq:evol-prop-one-step}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the evolution operator attained at the final time $T$ is $U_T \equiv U(T) = U(t_N)$. This evolution operator is a function of $\theta$ and $\omega$.
The fidelity of a quantum gate is a measure of alignment between the target unitary transformation $W$ and the actual final-time evolution operator $U_T$. Specifically, for the one-qubit system, we use the fidelity defined as $$\label{eq:fid}
\mathcal{F}(\theta, \omega)
= \frac{1}{4} \left| \mathrm{Tr} \left( W^{\dag} U_T
\right) \right|^2 .$$ This fidelity, normalized to $[0,1]$, is independent of the phase of either $W$ or $U_T$. Along with fidelity, we will also use the normalized distance between $W$ and $U_T$, which is defined as $$\label{eq:dist}
\mathcal{D}(\theta, \omega) = 1 - \mathcal{F}(\theta, \omega) .$$ In accordance with Eq. , $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) = 1 -
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta) = 1 -
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta)$.
Uncertainty modeling
--------------------
One general approach to modeling the uncertainty in the Hamiltonian parameters $\omega$ is via a *deterministic* (or set-membership) model: $$\label{eq:deldet}
\Delta = \left\{ \| \Omega^{-1}(\omega - \bar{\omega}) \|_p
\leq 1 \right\} ,$$ where $\bar{\omega} = [\bar{\omega}_x, \bar{\omega}_z]^{\mathsf{T}}$ is the vector of nominal values, $\Omega$ is a positive-definite weighting matrix (here $2 \times 2$), and $p$ is typically $2$ or $\infty$. If $p = \infty$ and $\Omega$ is diagonal, then $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$ are not correlated, in which case Eq. reduces to $$\label{eq:deldet1}
\Delta = \left\{
|\omega_x-\bar{\omega}_x|\leq\tilde{\omega}_x,\
|\omega_z-\bar{\omega}_z|\leq\tilde{\omega}_z
\right\} ,$$ where $\Omega = \mathrm{diag}(\tilde{\omega}_x,\tilde{\omega}_z)$. If $\Omega$ is not diagonal, then $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$ are correlated, possibly arising, respectively, from an approximation of a joint Gaussian or uniform distribution, with $\Omega$, typically, being the covariance matrix associated with a specified confidence region for the parameters.
The uncertainty in the parameters can often be best described via a *probabilistic* model, for example, $$\label{eq:delprob}
\Delta = \left\{\mathbb{E}\{\omega\} = \bar{\omega},\
\mathbb{E}\{(\omega-\bar{\omega})(\omega-\bar{\omega})^{\mathsf{T}}\}
= C \right\},$$ where $\mathbb{E}\{\cdot\}$ is expectation with respect to the underlying probability distribution of $\omega$. If this distribution is Gaussian, then $\Delta = \{\omega \in
\mathcal{N}(\bar{\omega},C)\}$.
Random uncertainty also arises from noise in the control field and/or environment, best represented by a *stochastic* model. In this case, the uncertainty set $\Delta$ can have the same form as in Eq. , but here the elements of $\omega(t) =
[\omega_x(t),\omega_z(t)]^{\mathsf{T}}$ are stochastic variables with the moments $\mathbb{E}\{\omega(t)\} = \bar{\omega}$ and $\mathbb{E}\{[\omega(t)-\bar{\omega}]
[\omega(t')-\bar{\omega}]^{\mathsf{T}}\} = C(t,t')$.
As mentioned above, the uncertainty set $\Delta$ for SCP need not be convex; for example, the set of Eq. is convex, but that of Eq. is not. Step 2 in Algorithm \[alg:scp\] only requires that the uncertain parameters be *sampled* from the set $\Delta$. In a numerical example studied below, we use a simple uniform sampling from an uncertainty set of the form . More sophisticated methods cycle through a sampling in the optimization step followed by validation on a different sampled set; bad parameters revealed in the validation step can be used in a new sampling for a repeat of the optimization step (e.g., see Ref. [@MutapcicB:2009]).
Robust optimization
-------------------
Now we can formulate a specific instance of the optimization problem , corresponding to finding a robust control field for generating a target quantum gate in an uncertain one-qubit system. Specifically, the goal is to solve for the field values $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^N$ from the optimization problem: $$\label{eq:optxz}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize}
&
\displaystyle \min_{\omega \in \Delta} \mathcal{F}(\theta, \omega)
\\
\text{subject to}
&
U_T\ \text{obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:evol-oper}},
\\
&
\theta \in \Theta\ \text{from a combination of sets in
Table~\ref{tab:thfeas}},
\\
&
\omega \in \Delta\ \text{from Eq.~\eqref{eq:deldet} or
Eq.~\eqref{eq:delprob}.}
\end{array}$$ Since $\Theta$ is a convex set and samples are taken from $\Delta$ to compute gradients of $\mathcal{F}$ with respect to $\theta$, then Step 2 of Algorithm \[alg:scp\] will be a convex optimization.
Robust one-qubit gates
======================
We use the SCP routine to find robust control fields corresponding to the following target unitary transformations: $$\label{eq:1qu gates}
W_{\mathrm{I}} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}, \
W_{\mathrm{H}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
1 & -1
\end{bmatrix}, \
W_{\mathrm{P}} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & e^{i \pi/4}
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Here, $W_{\mathrm{I}}$, $W_{\mathrm{H}}$, and $W_{\mathrm{P}}$ represent the identity, Hadamard, and phase ($\pi/8$) gates, respectively. Note that $W_{\mathrm{H}}$ and $W_{\mathrm{P}}$ comprise a universal gate set for one-qubit operations.
The uncertainty set used for all optimizations presented in this section is $$\label{eq:delxz}
\Delta = \left\{
|\omega_x-1|\leq 0.01,\
|\omega_z-2|\leq 0.20
\right\},$$ corresponding to a deterministic model with 1% control amplitude uncertainty and 10% drift magnitude uncertainty. For each target gate, SCP is used to solve for $\theta\in\mathbb{R}^N$ from: $$\label{eq:ex optxz}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize}
&
\displaystyle
\min_{\omega \in \Delta} \left\{ \mathcal{F}(\theta, \omega)
= {\textstyle \frac{1}{4}} \left|
\mathrm{Tr} \left( W^{\dag} U_{T} \right) \right|^{2} \right\}
\\
\text{subject to}
&
U_{T}\ \text{obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:evol-oper}},
\\
&
\theta \in \mathbb{R}^N\ \text{(unconstrained)},
\\
&
\omega\in\Delta\ \text{from Eq.~\eqref{eq:delxz}}.
\end{array}$$ We obtain solutions of for all combinations of $W
\in \{W_{\mathrm{I}},W_{\mathrm{H}},W_{\mathrm{P}}\}$ and $T \in \{ 1,
2, 4 \}$, along with selected values of $N \in \{ 5, 10, 20, 80
\}$. For each SCP optimization presented in this section, we first used a gradient-based search [@Moore.Chakrabarti.PRA.83.012326.2011; @Moore.PRA.86.062309.2012] to find a control field vector $\theta^{(0)}$ that achieves $\mathcal{F} \left( \theta^{(0)}, \bar{\omega} \right) \simeq 0.999$ for the nominal parameter values $\bar{\omega}_{x} = 1$ and $\bar{\omega}_{z} = 2$. For a fixed $\omega$ (i.e., in the absence of uncertainty), it is easy to achieve unit fidelity to a desired numerical accuracy, so $\theta^{(0)}$ is a solution which is close to the top of the landscape, but not fully optimal. Then, $\theta^{(0)}$ was used as the initial field to start the SCP search for the uncertain system.
[l]{}**(a)**\
------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
{width="83mm"} {width="86.2mm"}
------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
\
**(b)**\
------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
{width="83mm"} {width="86.2mm"}
------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
\
**(c)**\
---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
{width="83mm"} {width="86.2mm"}
---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:ff\] shows control fields that are solutions of the worst-case robust optimization problem for various choices of $W$, $T$, and $N$, along with corresponding distances $\mathcal{D}(\theta, \omega)$ that are plotted on a logarithmic scale as functions of the parameters $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$. Properties of these robust controls, including logarithms of the corresponding worst-case and average distances, the field fluence, and the maximum field value, are listed in Table \[tab:control\]. For each target gate, we present results for eight different combinations of $N$ and $T$. With the one-qubit system of Eq. and the uncertainty set $\Delta$ of Eq. , controls with worst-case fidelities $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta) \geq 0.9999$ are obtained for $N \geq 10$ and $T \geq 2$ for all three target gates. These results demonstrate that robust, high-fidelity control is possible with a relatively small number of control variables $N$, provided that the final time $T$ is chosen properly.
Interestingly, the worst-case fidelity $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{wc}}$ can decrease as the number of field values $N$ increases; this behavior is seen in the results of Table \[tab:control\] for the identity gate with $T = 2$ when $N$ increases from $10$ to $20$ and for the Hadamard gate with $T = 1$ when $N$ increases from $5$ to $20$. Since the set of controls with $N_1$ field values is a proper subset of controls with $N_2 > N_1$ field values, these results suggest that the control landscape for the optimization problem possesses local optima that can trap SCP searches. Thus, even more robust solutions are, in principle, achievable by combining SCP with a non-local algorithm capable of exploring multiple optima.
[rrccrr]{}\
$N$ & $T$ & $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta)$ & $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$ & $\Phi(\theta)$ & $\max(\theta)$\
5 & 1 & -3.13 & -3.82 & 103.63 & 16.21\
5 & 2 & -2.35 & -3.16 & 37.24 & 7.25\
10 & 1 & -3.28 & -4.20 & 58.45 & 11.88\
10 & 2 & -5.23 & -5.79 & 51.00 & 6.59\
20 & 1 & -3.31 & -4.24 & 53.66 & 13.47\
20 & 2 & -4.35 & -4.98 & 25.34 & 6.03\
10 & 4 & -4.62 & -5.66 & 28.96 & 4.22\
80 & 4 & -5.08 & -5.60 & 31.74 & 6.00\
\
$N$ & $T$ & $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta)$ & $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$ & $\Phi(\theta)$ & $\max(\theta)$\
5 & 1 & -2.20 & -3.08 & 32.27 & 7.59\
5 & 2 & -3.02 & -3.74 & 16.35 & 3.77\
10 & 1 & -2.17 & -3.05 & 36.93 & 8.02\
10 & 2 & -4.33 & -4.80 & 30.33 & 8.95\
20 & 1 & -2.17 & -3.06 & 34.38 & 8.64\
20 & 2 & -4.34 & -4.86 & 30.07 & 9.17\
10 & 4 & -4.06 & -4.63 & 16.60 & 2.86\
80 & 4 & -4.69 & -5.12 & 25.61 & 5.48\
\
$N$ & $T$ & $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta)$ & $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$ & $\Phi(\theta)$ & $\max(\theta)$\
5 & 1 & -2.77 & -3.51 & 41.98 & 8.39\
5 & 1 & -3.71 & -4.19 & 29.99 & 6.70\
10 & 1 & -2.96 & -3.55 & 116.17 & 28.62\
10 & 2 & -4.34 & -4.88 & 25.40 & 6.80\
20 & 1 & -3.02 & -3.61 & 136.06 & 33.88\
20 & 2 & -4.30 & -4.77 & 23.39 & 7.12\
10 & 4 & -5.57 & -6.02 & 46.82 & 5.87\
80 & 4 & -6.00 & -6.34 & 33.51 & 5.91\
Tradeoff between gate fidelity and control field fluence {#sec:tradeoff}
========================================================
The success of the optimization depends on available control resources, and it is expected that constraints on the control field will, generally, decrease the attainable fidelity [@Moore.Rabitz.JCP.137.134113.2012; @Moore.PRA.86.062309.2012]. As a further illustration of the utility of SCP, we use it to explore the tradeoff between the gate’s worst-case fidelity and the control field’s fluence. Specifically, we consider five uncertainty sets for $\omega$:
\[eq:del0\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \Delta_1 = \{|\omega_x -1|\leq 0.001,\ |\omega_z -2|\leq 0.02 \},
\label{eq:del01} \\
& \Delta_2 = \{|\omega_x -1|\leq 0.010,\ |\omega_z -2|\leq 0.02 \}, \\
& \Delta_3 = \{|\omega_x -1|\leq 0.001,\ |\omega_z -2|\leq 0.10 \}, \\
& \Delta_4 = \{|\omega_x -1|\leq 0.010,\ |\omega_z -2|\leq 0.10 \}, \\
& \Delta_5 = \{|\omega_x -1|\leq 0.010,\ |\omega_z -2|\leq 0.20 \}.\end{aligned}$$
These sets correspond to deterministic models with relative variations ranging from 0.1% to 1% in $\omega_x$ and from 1% to 10% in $\omega_z$. Note that $\Delta_5$ is the uncertainty set in Eq. with relative variations in $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$ at 1% and 10%, respectively. For each of the uncertainty sets in Eqs. , we use SCP to solve for $\theta\in\mathbb{R}^N$ from: $$\label{eq:scp flu}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize}
&
\displaystyle
\min_{\omega \in \Delta} \left\{ \mathcal{F}(\theta, \omega)
= {\textstyle \frac{1}{4}} \left|
\mathrm{Tr}\left( W^{\dag} U_{T} \right) \right|^{2} \right\}
\\
\text{subject to}
&
U_T\ \text{obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:evol-oper}},
\\
&
\Phi(\theta) \leq \gamma,
\\
&
\omega \in \Delta_m\ \text{from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:del0}}.
\end{array}$$ The solutions of are obtained for the target identity gate $W_{\mathrm{I}}$, final time $T = 2$, number of field values $N = 10$, and varying values of the fluence bound $\gamma$. For each uncertainty set $\Delta_m$ ($m = 1,\ldots,5$), we perform a series of SCP searches with decreasing $\gamma$. In the first SCP search in the series, the fluence bound is set to $\gamma=\infty$ (i.e., the fluence is unconstrained) and the solution of the optimization problem with the uncertainty set is used as the initial field. In each subsequent search in the series, $\gamma$ is set to 0.95 of the fluence of the control field found in the previous search, and all values of the initial field are reduced proportionally so as to match the new fluence constraint. This process is repeated until the SCP routine fails to achieve $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{wc}} \geq 0.9$ due to the severity of the fluence constraint.
Figure \[fig:tradeoff\] shows the resulting tradeoffs between the logarithm of the worst-case distance, $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}}$, and the *achieved* field fluence $\Phi(\theta)$, for each of the uncertainty sets $\Delta_m$ in . The rightmost point in each series corresponds to unconstrained fluence ($\gamma=\infty$). The rate of increase in the distance as the fluence bound is decreased is seen to be essentially the same for all sets $\Delta_m$. Additionally, the fluence value where the distance abruptly changes for the worse is also about the same: $\Phi \approx 10$. It is important to note that it is not known if any of the tradeoff curves in Fig. \[fig:tradeoff\] represents a true *Pareto front* for distance versus field fluence.
![(Color online) The logarithm of the worst-case distance, $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}}(\theta)$, versus the fluence $\Phi(\theta)$ for control fields that are solutions of the optimization problem , with $W = W_{\mathrm{I}}$, $T
= 2$, and $N = 10$. Five data series, denoted by shape and color, correspond to five uncertainty sets $\Delta_m$ of Eqs. , as indicated in the legend.[]{data-label="fig:tradeoff"}](tradeoff_3c_I_T2N10_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The tradeoff curves in Fig. \[fig:tradeoff\] show that the gate error, on average, exhibits a similar sensitivity of about one order of magnitude to either 1% variation in $\omega_x$ or 5% variation in $\omega_z$. The greater sensitivity to variations in $\omega_x$ is due in part to the fact that in our model system $\omega_x$ is a direct *uncertain multiplicative gain* on the control signal. In other words, a perturbation $\tilde{\omega}_x$ around $\bar{\omega}_x = 1$ is equivalent to a perturbation $\tilde{\omega}_x \theta$ in the control field. Following the procedure presented in [@Brif:QEC11; @Moore.PRA.86.062309.2012], a Taylor series approximation of the fidelity up to the second order in $\tilde{\omega}_x$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x+\tilde{\omega}_x,\omega_z)
& = \mathcal{F}(\theta+\tilde{\omega}_x\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z)
\nonumber \\
& \approx \mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z)
+ \tilde{\omega}_x\theta^{\mathsf{T}}\nabla_{\theta}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z)
\nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\omega}_x^2 \theta^{\mathsf{T}}
\nabla_{\theta}^2\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z) \theta .
\label{eq:F-expansion}\end{aligned}$$ For any control field that is a solution of the optimization problem or , the Hessian $\nabla_{\theta}^2\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z)$ is negative semi-definite and the Hessian term dominates the gradient term. Assuming $|\tilde{\omega}_x| \leq \epsilon$, we use Eq. to obtain a lower bound on the fidelity: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x+\tilde{\omega}_x,\omega_z) &
\geq \mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z) - \epsilon \left|
\theta^{\mathsf{T}} \nabla_{\theta}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z) \right|
\nonumber \\
& - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^2 \left| \theta^{\mathsf{T}}
\nabla_{\theta}^2 \mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\omega_z)
\theta \right|.
\label{eq:F-bound}\end{aligned}$$ We evaluated the lower bound $\underline{\mathcal{F}}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\epsilon,\omega_z)$, given by the right-hand side of Eq. , for control fields whose worst-case distances are shown in Fig. \[fig:tradeoff\], using $\bar{\omega}_x = 1$, $\epsilon$ values ($\epsilon = 0.001$ and $\epsilon = 0.01$) and $\omega_z$ ranges ($\omega_z \in [1.98,2.02]$, $\omega_z \in [1.9,2.1]$, $\omega_z \in
[1.8,2.2]$) that correspond to the five uncertainty sets $\Delta_m$ of Eqs. . Then, for each field, we minimized $\underline{\mathcal{F}}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\epsilon,\omega_z)$ over the respective $\omega_z$ range and found that the resulting distance values coincide almost exactly with points on the corresponding tradeoff curves in Fig. \[fig:tradeoff\]. This coincidence indicates that the lower bound $\underline{\mathcal{F}}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_x,\epsilon,\omega_z)$ approximates well the minimum of the fidelity $\mathcal{F}(\theta,\omega)$ over the $\omega_x$ variation.
The tradeoff analysis is valuable for understanding the interplay between constraints in control and system designs. In particular, a limitation on the maximum field fluence can reflect not only signal generator constraints, but also system design considerations such as thermal loads on the system. For example, if variations in $\omega_x$ and $\omega_z$ are small, such as in the uncertainty set $\Delta_1$, we observe from the corresponding curve in Fig. \[fig:tradeoff\] that a distance value $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}} \sim 10^{-4}$ is possible with a fairly low fluence ($\Phi \approx 25$), and it can be even as low as $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{wc}} \sim 10^{-8}$ with a higher fluence ($\Phi\approx 50$). Attaining parameter uncertainties on the order of $\Delta_1$ could be accomplished via material/hardware improvements and better manufacturing/testing procedures. Certainly, the possibility of achieving such high fidelities is a motivation to explore these options. Thus, establishing the tradeoff between the gate fidelity and the field fluence provides important information about possibilities for enhancing the robust gate performance.
Effect of noise {#sec:noise}
===============
When uncertainty is due to noise, performing SCP generally requires some form of sampling from the noise distribution. If the noise is sufficiently weak, then, based on ideas from Ref. [@Brif:QEC11], we show in Appendix \[sec:wna\] that an approximation can be utilized which avoids expensive sampling. We will explore this approach in more detail in a future paper. Here, we consider a simplified scenario which captures some of the salient features of robust control in the presence of noise.
Consider the Hamiltonian of Eq. , where the parameter $\omega_x$ in the control term is constant, $\omega_x = 1$, and the parameter $\omega_z$ in the drift term is a noisy time series, i.e., $$\label{eq:omz-noise}
\omega_z(t) = \bar{\omega}_z+\tilde{\omega}_z(t), \ \ t \in [0,T],$$ where $\bar{\omega}_z$ is the average value of $\omega_z(t)$ and $\tilde{\omega}_z(t)$ is a stochastic variable obtained as the output of a linear filter $G$ driven by stationary, Gaussian white noise $u(t)$ with variance $\sigma^2$. Specifically, $u(t)$ satisfies: $$\label{eq:u-noise}
\mathbb{E}\{ u(t) \} = 0,\ \
\mathbb{E}\{ u(t)u(t') \} = \sigma^2 \delta(t-t'), \\$$ the filter action is $$\label{eq:domz}
\tilde{\omega}_z(t)=(G \ast u)(t), \ \ t\in(-\infty,T], \\$$ $G$ is a linear first-order filter with the transfer function: $$\label{eq:filter}
G(s) = 1/(s\tau+1) ,$$ and $\tau$ is the filter time-constant.
The average gate fidelity $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) =
\mathbb{E}\{ \mathcal{F}(\theta,\omega_z) \}$ under a noise process affecting $\omega_z$ can be evaluated using random sampling from the noise distribution: $$\label{eq:Favg-noise-MC}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) \approx
\sum_{l=1}^L \mathcal{F}(\theta,\omega_z^{(l)}) .$$ Here, $\omega_z \in \mathbb{R}^M$ is the vector whose elements represent a piecewise-constant approximation of the time series $\omega_z(t)$ with a uniform time step $\tilde{h} = T/M$, $\omega_z^{(l)} = \bar{\omega}_z + \tilde{\omega}_z^{(l)}$ is the vector corresponding to the $l$th realization of the noise process, and $L$ is the number of noise realizations in the sample. Another method for evaluating $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$ is the weak noise approximation described in Appendix \[sec:wna\]. Specifically, using the Taylor series expansion of the fidelity about $\bar{\omega}_z$ up to the second order in $\tilde{\omega}_z$ and assuming that $\tilde{\omega}_z$ has zero mean and covariance matrix $C = \mathbb{E}\{\tilde{\omega}_z \tilde{\omega}_z^{\mathsf{T}}\}$, we obtain \[cf. Eq. \]: $$\label{eq:Favg-noise-WNA}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) \approx
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_z) -
\frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Tr}(C R_{\omega_z\omega_z}),$$ where $R_{\omega_z \omega_z} = -\nabla_{\omega_z}^2
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_z)$ is the negative Hessian matrix. For the filtered noise process of Eqs. –, elements of the covariance matrix $C$ are given by: $$\label{eq:cov}
C_{m m'} = \tilde{\sigma}^2
\frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha} \alpha^{|m-m'|},\ \
m,m' = 1,\ldots,M,$$ where $\tilde{\sigma}^2 = \sigma^2/\tilde{h}$ and $\alpha =
\exp(-\tilde{h}/\tau)$.
It is interesting to analyze how a control field designed to be robust for a deterministic uncertainty model performs in the presence of noise. For example, consider the control field that is a solution of the optimization problem with $W = W_{\mathrm{I}}$, $T = 2$, $N = 10$, $\Delta_1$ of Eq. , and no fluence constraint ($\gamma=\infty$); this field corresponds to the rightmost point on the bottom curve in Fig. \[fig:tradeoff\]. For this field, we use both the random sampling method of Eq. and weak noise approximation of Eq. to evaluate the average fidelity $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$ under the noise process of Eqs. – with $\bar{\omega}_z = 2$, $\sigma \in \{0.001, 0.02\}$, and various values of $\tau$. Figure \[fig:noise\] shows the corresponding values of $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$, for a range of filter time-constants relative to the control time, $\tau/T \in
[10^{-4},10^{4}]$. We observe an excellent agreement between the weak noise approximation (solid lines) and simulated data from random sampling (circles).
![(Color online) The logarithm of the average distance, $\log_{10}\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$, versus $\tau/T$, where $\tau$ is the noise filter time-constant from Eq. . The control field used here is a solution of the optimization problem with $W = W_{\mathrm{I}}$, $T = 2$, $N = 10$, $\Delta_1$ of Eq. , and no fluence constraint ($\gamma=\infty$). The distance is averaged under the noise process described by Eqs. – with $\bar{\omega}_z = 2$ and two $\sigma$ values: $\sigma = 0.001$ (red line and circles) and $\sigma = 0.02$ (blue line and circles). The weak noise approximation (solid lines) computed using Eqs. and is in a very good agreement with simulated data (circles) obtained using random sampling from the noise distribution according to Eq. .[]{data-label="fig:noise"}](T2N10_flt_noise3b_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Equations and can be further used to investigate the asymptotic behavior in the limits of low-bandwidth and high-bandwidth filter. For $\tau/T \gg 1$, the filter bandwidth is very low, and the noise is effectively blocked. In this limit, all elements of $C$ are approximately zero, and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) \approx
\mathcal{D}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_z) \approx 10^{-8.88}$ is independent of $\sigma$. For $\tau/T \ll 1$, the filter bandwidth is very high, which allows for the white noise to pass through unaltered. In this limit, $C$ is proportional to the identity matrix: $C_{m m'} \approx
\tilde{\sigma}^2 \delta_{m m'}$, and $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) \approx
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_z) - \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\sigma}^2
\mathrm{Tr} (R_{\omega_z\omega_z})$. For a control field $c(t,\theta^{\star})$ which is globally optimal for the objective of maximizing $\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_z)$, each diagonal matrix element of $R_{\omega_z\omega_z}$ equals $2 \tilde{h}^2$, and we obtain a simple analytic result: $$\label{eq:wn-limit}
\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta^{\star}) \approx \sigma^2 T .$$ The field that we use here is not exactly $\theta^{\star}$, but the value $\mathcal{D}(\theta,\bar{\omega}_z) \approx 10^{-8.88}$ is sufficiently close to the optimum for the result of Eq. to be a very good approximation. Then, with $T
= 2$, we obtain $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}} \approx 2 \times 10^{-6}
\approx 10^{-5.70}$ for $\sigma = 0.001$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{avg}} \approx 8 \times 10^{-4} \approx
10^{-3.10}$ for $\sigma = 0.02$. The asymptotic results in both limits are very well confirmed by the data shown in Fig. \[fig:noise\].
The results of Fig. \[fig:noise\] also show that the control field, though not designed for stochastic uncertainty, nonetheless performs admirably. In fact, we used SCP to find control fields that are specifically robust against noise in $\omega_z$, but did not obtain a significant improvement. While in this example a robust control designed for a deterministic uncertainty model also works well against a stationary stochastic process, we do not know whether this behavior holds in general.
Summary
=======
Using SCP we demonstrated that it is possible to generate high-fidelity quantum gates with a substantial robustness against uncertainties, while simultaneously using limited control resources such as field amplitude, bandwidth, and fluence. Designing such robust control fields requires a specific knowledge of the range and character of the uncertainties, a process referred to in the control theory literature as “uncertainty modeling.” Although we focused on a one-qubit system, even this simple example clearly shows the strong effect of control constraints on the attainable degree of robustness. Our analysis of this system also revealed that a control field designed for a deterministic (set-membership) uncertainty model can be quite effective against stochastic uncertainty (noise).
This work shows that SCP is useful for exploring possible improvements in the robust gate performance for different values and ranges available for both control and system designs. Specifically, SCP makes it possible to quantify a variety of tradeoffs between constraints on control and system parameters. For example, one can determine how many control variables are required to achieve a desired worst-case fidelity for a given uncertainty range or, alternatively, how tight should be the uncertainty range for a given limitation on the maximum field fluence. Such tradeoff analysis could reveal a combination of physical design and robust control design resulting in a “sweet spot” amongst the possibilities.
Of course, SCP is not the only approach to finding locally optimal solutions to non-convex problems. An important advantage of SCP is the ease by which various uncertainty models and constraints on design variables can be directly incorporated in the local convex optimization step of the algorithm. It would be desirable to develop a hybrid approach, integrating SCP with a non-local optimization method, in order to make it possible to search among multiple solutions.
The array of results presented here hopefully herald what would be seen in more complex systems, involving multiple qubits, controlled ancillae, coupling to a bath, and so on. In addition, the results also begin to provide an insight into unanticipated control field structures. Many of these potentialities are under consideration at present and will be forthcoming.
We gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Kevin Young (SNL-CA), Kaveh Khodjasteh, and Lorenza Viola (Dartmouth College). This work was supported by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. RLK acknowledges support from the ARO MURI Grant W911NF-11-1-0268 to USC and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior National Business Center contract number D11PC20165. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon. Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of IARPA, DoI/NBC, or the U.S. Government.
Convex optimization {#sec:scpcode}
===================
The convex optimization step in the SCP algorithm can be equivalently expressed as: $$\label{eq:cvx grad}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize}
&
f_0
\\
\text{subject to}
& f_i + \tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}} g_i \geq f_0,
\ \ i=1,\ldots,L,
\\
& \theta + \tilde{\theta}\in\Theta,\
\tilde{\theta} \in \tilde{\Theta}_{\mathrm{trust}} ,
\end{array}$$ where $f_i = \mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta_i)$ and $g_i = \nabla_{\theta}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta_i)$. Both $\tilde{\theta}$ and $f_0$ are now the optimization variables. If both $\Theta$ and $\tilde{\Theta}_{\mathrm{trust}}$ bound their respective elements in a “box” in $\mathbb{R}^N$, then is a *linear program*.
The Hessian can be employed in the optimization step by using its negative definite part, $R_i = -[\nabla^2_{\theta}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\delta_i)]_{-}$ where $[\cdot]_{-}$ retains only the negative eigenvalues of the Hessian, specifically, $R_i =
V_iV_i^{\mathsf{T}}$ with $V_i \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times r}$ where $r$ is the number of strictly negative eigenvalues of the Hessian less than or equal to a chosen threshold. Then the worst-case fidelity constraint can be formulated as: $$\label{eq:hess-constraint}
f_i + \tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}} g_i - {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}
\tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}} V_iV_i^{\mathsf{T}} \tilde{\theta}
\geq f_0,\ \ i=1,\ldots,L.$$ Each of the inequalities in Eq. is equivalent to a linear-matrix-inequality in the variables $\{\tilde{\theta},f_0\}$ [@BoydV:04]: $Q_i(\tilde{\theta},f_0)
\geq 0$, where $$\label{eq:Q-matrix}
Q_i(\tilde{\theta},f_0) =
\begin{bmatrix}
f_i - f_0 - \tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}} g_i &
\tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}}V_i/\sqrt{2}
\\
V_i^{\mathsf{T}}\tilde{\theta}/\sqrt{2} & I_r
\end{bmatrix},$$ and $I_r$ is the $r \times r$ identity matrix. The optimization step in SCP is now given by the *semidefinite program*: $$\label{eq:cvx hess}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize} & f_0
\\
\text{subject to}
&
Q_i(\tilde{\theta},f_0) \geq 0, \ \ i=1,\ldots,L,
\\
&
\theta + \tilde{\theta} \in \Theta,\
\tilde{\theta} \in \tilde{\Theta}_{\mathrm{trust}}.
\end{array}$$ The optimization problems and are now expressed in standard forms suitable for use with existing software specially developed for these classes of convex optimization. In particular, YALMIP [@yalmip:04] and CVX [@CVXurl; @CVXpaper] are convex compilers compatible with MATLAB. Using these software tools makes it very easy to code the convex optimization problems almost exactly as expressed mathematically. These compilers call convex solvers such as SDPT-3 [@SDPT3] and SeDuMi [@SEDUMI] which have been developed and in use for many years, and as a result are generally efficient and reliable. There are limits imposed by both memory and speed for a particular problem instance and computer platform. In these cases it could be necessary to use or develop specialized versions with modifications that take into account the specific underlying structure of the problem.
Signal generation {#sec:signal}
=================
In general, the control field $c(t,\theta)$ is the output of a signal generation device. As an example, consider a field generated by a device with rate $\nu$ and piecewise-constant commands $\theta$:
\[eq:csig\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \dot{c}(t,\theta) = \nu [\bar{c}(t,\theta)-c(t,\theta)], \ \
c(0) = 0 , \\
& \bar{c}(t,\theta) = \theta_{k} \ \ \text{for} \ \
t \in (t_{k-1},t_k] , \ \ k=1,\ldots,N,\end{aligned}$$
where $t_k = k h$ and $h = T/N$. The field in this example can be expressed in a general form: $$\label{eq:clindyn}
c(t,\theta) = \sum_{k=1}^N s_k(t) \theta_k
= s(t)^{\mathsf{T}} \theta,\ \ t \in [0,T] .$$ This expression holds for *any* signal generation well represented by known linear dynamics whose input is a finite sequence of control commands $\{\theta_k\}$ at a uniform sampling rate. The linear dynamics are captured in the shape-function vector $s(t) \in
\mathbb{R}^N$. For example, for the field of Eqs. , the elements of $s(t)$ are given by $$\label{eq:s-csig}
s_k(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
0 \ \ \text{for} \ \ t \leq t_k, \\
1 - e^{-\nu (t-t_{k-1})} \ \ \text{for} \ \ t \in (t_{k-1},t_k], \\
(1-e^{-\nu h})e^{-\nu (t-t_k)} \ \ \text{for} \ \ t > t_k .
\end{array} \right.$$ In the limit of very fast dynamics ($\nu\to\infty$), the element $s_k(t)$ of Eq. becomes the indicator function of the interval $(t_{k-1},t_k]$, and the control field $c(t,\theta)$ is piecewise-constant over $N$ uniform time intervals of width $h$, as given by Eq. .
Generally, when the dynamics of the signal generation device have an appreciable effect on the shapes of $\{ s_k(t) \}$, the numerical integration of the Schrödinger equation would require using a time step over which the field $c(t,\theta)$ does not change much, i.e., finer than the command interval $h$.
Note that for any field of the form , the control constraint sets in Table \[tab:thfeas\] are convex. For example, the constraint on the field fluence can be expressed as $\Phi(\theta) =
\theta^{\mathsf{T}} B \theta\leq\gamma$ with $B = \int_0^T
s(t)s(t)^{\mathsf{T}} d t$.
The field form of Eq. can be further generalized by considering multiple command vectors $\{ \theta_i \}$ and shape-function vectors $\{ s_i(t) \}$, i.e., $$\label{eq:clcd-th}
c(t,\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^K s_i(t)^{\mathsf{T}} \theta_i .$$ For example, laser pulse shaping in a liquid crystal modulator generates a control field of the form: $$\label{eq:clcd}
c(t) = A_0(t) \sum_{i=1}^K a_i \sin(\omega_i t + \phi_i) ,$$ where the envelope function $A_0(t)$ and frequencies $\{\omega_i\}$ are fixed, while amplitudes $\{a_i\}$ and phases $\{\phi_i\}$ are the control variables. The field can be equivalently expressed in the form , where $s_i(t) = A_0(t)
[\sin(\omega_it),\cos(\omega_it)]^{\mathsf{T}}$ and $\theta_i = a_i
[\cos\phi_i,\sin\phi_i]^{\mathsf{T}}$.
For a control field of the form , constraints are typically imposed on the amplitudes $\{a_i\}$ and, since $\|\theta_i\|_2 = a_i$, they can be equivalently expressed as constraints on $\theta$. For example, the magnitude constraint $a_i
\leq a_{\max}$ is equivalent to the convex set $\|\theta_i\|_2 \leq
a_{\max}$. However, the constraint that all the amplitudes are the same, i.e., $a_i = a_0$ is equivalent to the non-convex set $\|\theta_i\|_2 = a_0$. This problem can be circumvented by using the constraint set $\|\theta_i\|_2 \leq a_0$ which is a *convex relaxation* [@BoydV:04] of the actual non-convex one; then SCP will return a local solution to the relaxed problem. Some relaxations can be proven to be optimal, but that is not known here and hence a post-optimization analysis is required.
Weak noise approximation {#sec:wna}
========================
When the noise variance is small, it is possible to avoid the expensive simulation of noise realizations drawn from the underlying distribution. The approach for evaluating the effect of weak noise, the basics of which are presented here, was introduced in Refs. [@Brif:QEC11; @Moore.PRA.86.062309.2012] and will be explored in depth in a subsequent paper.
Consider an $n$-level quantum system with the Hamiltonian: $$\label{eq:hamcw}
H(t) = c(t) H_c + w(t) H_w,$$ where $c(t)$ and $w(t)$ are, respectively, the control field and the noisy field (real-valued functions of time defined on the interval $[0,T]$). We assume that $c(t) = c(t,\theta)$ is a piecewise-constant function of the form . Let the elements $\{ w_m \}$ of the vector $w\in\mathbb{R}^M$ represent a piecewise-constant approximation of $w(t)$, i.e., $$\label{eq:wunc}
w(t) = w_m \ \ \text{for}\ \
t \in (\tilde{t}_{m-1}, \tilde{t}_m] ,\ \
m = 1,\ldots,M,$$ where $\tilde{t}_m = m \tilde{h}$ and $\tilde{h} = T/M$. Assuming that $M \geq N$ and $p = M/N$ is an integer, the control can be represented as: $$\label{eq:c-vec}
c(t) = c_m \ \ \text{for}\ \
t \in (\tilde{t}_{m-1}, \tilde{t}_m] ,\ \
m = 1,\ldots,M,$$ where $\{c_m\}$ are the elements of the vector $c = \theta \otimes e_p
\in \mathbb{R}^M$ and $e_p$ denotes the vector of ones of length $p$. Analogous to Eqs. and , the time-evolution operator is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& U(\tilde{t}_m) = U(\tilde{t}_m,\tilde{t}_{m-1}) \cdots
U(\tilde{t}_2,\tilde{t}_1) U(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{t}_0) ,
\label{eq:evol-oper-2} \\
& U(\tilde{t}_m,\tilde{t}_{m-1}) = \exp \left[
-i \tilde{h} (c_m H_c + w_m H_w) \right],
\label{eq:evol-prop-one-step-2}\end{aligned}$$ and, in particular, $U_T = U(\tilde{t}_M)$. The gate fidelity is $$\label{eq:fid cw}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,w) = \frac{1}{n^2} \left|\mathrm{Tr}\left(
W^{\dag} U_T \right)\right|^2 .$$ Assume that the noisy field has the form $w = \bar{w} + \tilde{w}$, where $\bar{w} \in \mathbb{R}^M$ is a deterministic mean and $\tilde{w} \in \mathbb{R}^M$ is a stochastic variable that represents a stationary noise process. For a specified control $\theta$, the Taylor series expansion of the fidelity about $\bar{w}$ up to the second order in $\tilde{w}$, gives the approximation: $$\label{eq:fdw}
\mathcal{F}(\theta,w) \approx \mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w})
+ \tilde{w}^{\mathsf{T}} g_w
- \frac{1}{2}\tilde{w}^{\mathsf{T}}R_{ww}\tilde{w} ,$$ where $g_w = \nabla_w\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w}) \in \mathbb{R}^M$ is the gradient vector and $R_{ww} =
-\nabla^2_w\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w}) \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times M}$ is the *negative* Hessian matrix. Assume that the stochastic variable $\tilde{w}$ has zero mean and covariance matrix $C \in
\mathbb{R}^{M \times M}$, i.e., $$\label{eq:dw}
\mathbb{E}\{\tilde{w}\} = 0,\ \ \
\mathbb{E}\{\tilde{w} \tilde{w}^{\mathsf{T}}\} = C.$$ The fidelity averaged over all noise realizations is given by the statistical expectation: $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) =
\mathbb{E}\{ \mathcal{F}(\theta,w) \}$. Using Eqs. and , we obtain the weak noise approximation for the average fidelity: $$\label{eq:fav approx}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta) \approx
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w}) - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Tr}(C R_{ww}).$$ Since the dependence on noise in Eq. is only through the covariance matrix, the evaluation of $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}(\theta)$ via this approximation does not require random sampling from the noise distribution, providing a huge advantage in numerical efficiency.
For Gaussian white noise with variance $\sigma^2$, the covariance matrix is given by $C = (\sigma^2/\tilde{h}) I_M$, and Eq. yields: $$\label{eq:fav approx wn}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}^{(\mathrm{wn})}(\theta) \approx
\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w}) -
\frac{\sigma^2}{2 \tilde{h}} \mathrm{Tr}(R_{ww}).$$ For a control $\theta^{\star}$ which is globally optimal for the objective of maximizing $\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w})$, all diagonal matrix element of $R_{ww}$ are equal to each other: $$\label{eq:R-opt}
(R_{ww})_{m m} = \frac{2 \tilde{h}^2}{n} \mathrm{Tr}( H_w^2 )
- \frac{2 \tilde{h}^2}{n^2} [\mathrm{Tr}(H_w )]^2 ,
\ \ \forall m.$$ If the operator $H_w$ is traceless, substituting Eq. into Eq. leads to a simple analytical expression: $$\label{eq:fav approx wn opt}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}^{(\mathrm{wn})}(\theta^{\star}) \approx
1 - \frac{1}{n} \mathrm{Tr}( H_w^2 ) \sigma^2 T .$$ This result shows that robustness against additive white noise can be improved only by reducing the control duration $T$; however, this can be done only as long as $T \geq T^{\ast}$, where $T^{\ast}$ is a critical value below which the nominal objective is not reachable [@Moore.PRA.86.062309.2012]. In a quantum information system, $H_w$ is typically given by a tensor product of Pauli matrices and identity operators for individual qubits. In this case, $H_w^2 = I_n$, and Eq. is further simplified: $$\label{eq:fav approx wn opt 2}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{avg}}^{(\mathrm{wn})}(\theta^{\star}) \approx
1 - \sigma^2 T .$$ The weak noise approximation together with a similar expansion for a small control change (from $\theta$ to $\theta+\tilde{\theta}$) can be used in the optimization step of SCP for designing controls robust to a stochastic uncertainty model. Expanding the fidelity about $\{\theta,\bar{w}\}$ up to the second order in $\{\tilde{\theta},\tilde{w}\}$ gives: $$\mathcal{F}(\theta+\tilde{\theta},w) \approx f
+ \tilde{x}^{\mathsf{T}} g
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{x}^{\mathsf{T}} R \tilde{x} ,
\label{eq:fdthdw}$$ where $$\tilde{x} = \begin{bmatrix}
\tilde{\theta} \\ \tilde{w} \end{bmatrix} , \ \
g = \begin{bmatrix} g_{\theta} \\ g_{w} \end{bmatrix} , \ \
R = \begin{bmatrix} R_{\theta\theta} & R_{\theta w} \\
R_{w \theta} & R_{ww} \end{bmatrix} ,$$ $f = \mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w})$ is the fidelity, $g_a =
\nabla_a\mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w})$ are gradient vectors, and $R_{a
b} = -\nabla_a \nabla_b \mathcal{F}(\theta,\bar{w})$ are negative Hessian matrices ($a,b \in \{\theta,w\}$). Given a model of the noise distribution, we can then pose the robust optimization problem: $$\label{eq:rbst stoch}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize} & \gamma \\
\text{subject to} &
\mathrm{Prob}\{ \mathcal{F}(\theta+\tilde{\theta},w) \geq \gamma \}
\geq \eta,\ \
\tilde{\theta}\in\Theta .
\end{array}$$ Assume further that the stochastic variable $\tilde{w}$ has a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with covariance matrix $C$, i.e., satisfies Eq. , with $\| C \| = O(\sigma^2)$. Following the approach to robust optimization described in [@BoydV:04 Ch.4], the problem is equivalent, up to $O(\sigma^2)$, to the *second order cone program* (SOCP) with optimization variables $\tilde{\theta}$ and $\gamma$: $$\label{eq:socp}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{maximize} & \gamma \\
\text{subject to} &
\bar{\mathcal{F}}(\theta+\tilde{\theta}) \geq \gamma
+ \Phi^{-1}(\eta) V^{1/2},\ \
\tilde{\theta}\in\Theta ,
\end{array}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& \bar{\mathcal{F}}(\theta+\tilde{\theta}) =
f + \tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}} g_{\theta}
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\theta}^{\mathsf{T}}
R_{\theta\theta} \tilde{\theta}
- \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(CR_{ww}), \\
& V = (R_{w\theta}\tilde{\theta} - g_w)^{\mathsf{T}}
C (R_{w\theta}\tilde{\theta} - g_w),\end{aligned}$$ and $\Phi(\eta)$ is the cumulative distribution function for the normal Gaussian density. The SOCP of Eq. can be used in the optimization step in Algorithm \[alg:scp\]. The use of the weak noise approximation makes this approach very numerically efficient. Indeed, calculations at each new control $\theta$ require only the knowledge of the noise covariance matrix, thus eliminating the need for random sampling from the noise distribution. A full exploration of this approach will be forthcoming.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Entanglement-assisted quantum (QUENTA) codes are a subclass of quantum error correcting codes which use entanglement as a resource. These codes can provide error correction capability higher than the codes derived from the traditional stabilizer formalism. In this paper, it is shown a general method to construct QUENTA codes from cyclic codes. Afterwards, the method is applied to Reed-Solomon codes, BCH codes, and general cyclic codes. We use the Euclidean and Hermitian construction of QUENTA codes. Two families of QUENTA codes are maximal distance separable (MDS), and one is almost MDS or almost near MDS. The comparison of the codes in this paper is mostly based on the quantum Singleton bound.
[**MSC:** ]{}81P70, 81P40, 94B15, 94B27.
author:
- 'Francisco Revson F. Pereira'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Entanglement-assisted Quantum Codes from Cyclic Codes'
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Preliminaries {#sec:Preliminaries}
=============
New Entanglement-Assisted Quantum Error Correcting Cyclic Codes {#sec:NewConstructions}
===============================================================
Code Examples {#sec:codComp}
=============
Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
Acknowledgements
================
I am grateful to Ruud Pellikaan for proposing this research problem and for interesting discussions which helped me to clarify some points of view. This work was supported by the *Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico*, grant No. 201223/2018-0.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
ROSAT/HRI observations of the powerful radio-loud galaxy 3C382 reveal extended X-ray emission associated with the source. On the basis of this new spatial component, a previous ROSAT/PSPC spectral analysis of the source is revised. Allowing for the presence of an additional thermal component in the PSPC spectrum, the non-thermal component is found to be compatible with the extrapolation of the well defined 3C 382 —2 - 10 keV— power-law spectrum into the soft X-rays. The thermal –extended– component would then account for the soft excess emission previously reported for this source. The origin of this thermal component is not clear. Its luminosity compares with that of rich Abell clusters; yet, the galaxy environment in 3C382 appears of moderate optical richness. An alternative is that it is due to a massive extended gaseous atmosphere sustained by the deep gravitational potential well of 3C382.\
author:
- 'M. Almudena Prieto[^1]'
title: ' Extended X-ray emission in the radio loud galaxy 3C382'
---
18.0pt
Introduction
============
Soft X-ray excess emission above a simple extrapolation of the hard energy spectrum is found in a considerable number of AGNs, mainly radio-quiet sources (see Mushotzky, Done, & Pounds 1993 and references therein). There is a growing body of evidence for its spectral ubiquity below $\sim$2 keV or so in Seyferts (e.g. Pounds et al. 1994) as in highly luminous quasars (e.g. Saxton et al. 1993). Most previous studies before ROSAT converge toward the idea that the soft excess is a rather common feature among radio-quiet quasars, whereas it is almost absent in their radio-loud counterparts. [*ROSAT*]{}/PSPC data of radio loud sources have shown that a soft excess component is also present in radio loud sources (e.g. Buehler et al. 1995; Prieto 1996; Siebert et al. 1998).
Possible interpretations for the soft X-ray excess in AGNs include thermal emission from the inner regions of an accretion disk, scattering by highly ionized material in its vicinity (Pounds et al. 1986; Ross & Fabian 1993), or thermal emission due to shock-heated gas in the close vicinity of the nucleus (Viegas & Contini 1994). The poor spatial resolution of the [*ROSAT*]{}/PSPC makes difficult the separation between possible components of the observed emission. Indeed, the large PSPC resolution beam, $\sim$ 25 arcsec at 1 keV, makes plausible that an important part of the observed emission to be due to an extended gas component surrounding the AGN. In the particular case of radio-loud galaxies which are characterized by large radio sizes, a hot surrounding medium becomes a necessary component for providing the working surface for the radio emission. In the analysis of the 3CRR sample by Prieto, a first attempt to fit the PSPC spectra of sources with extended emission –mostly in Fanaroff & Riley (1974) type I sources (FRI)– with a single power-law leaded to extreme step spectral index, the reason being due to the dominant contribution of the gaseous medium in which those sources usually reside. In the case of FRII, a single power-law fit provided a fair representation of the PSPC spectrum but with average spectral index about -1.1, and so above the extrapolation of the canonical hard-energy spectrum into the soft X-rays. Clustering of galaxies about FRII sources is less common than in FRI, in particular at low redshift; yet, FRII could contain their own extended gaseous atmosphere which may directly translate into a steepening of the PSPC spectrum. This component however may prove to be elusive with present X-ray instrumentation.
This paper presents deep [*ROSAT*]{}/HRI observations of the powerful X-ray radio-loud source 3C 382. This is one of the few nearby broad-line galaxies ($z= $0.0578) that show extremely bright and broad permitted lines (FWZI$> 25000 km~s{-1}$; Tadhunter, Perez & Fosbury 1986) and a strong continuum, with with a X-ray luminosity in 0.2-2.4 keV band of $L_{\rm x} \sim 7.10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Prieto 1996), and a radio power at 178 MHz of $L_{\rm 178MHz} \sim 3.10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1} Hz^{-1}$ (Laing et al. 1983).
[*EXOSAT*]{} monitoring of the source (1983–1985) tightly constrains the high-energy (above 2 keV) spectral index of 3C382 to $\alpha=-0.7\pm 0.1$ (Ghosh & Soundararajaperumal 1992). This is also confirmed by more recent ASCA data (Wozniak et al. 1998). However, the ROSAT/PSPC spectral analysis of the source shows compatible with a power-law model with spectral index $\alpha= -1.2\pm0.3$, and absorbed by a column density, $N(H)= 0.78\times 10^{21} cm^{-2}$, that is in agreement with the Galactic value. Thus, 3C382 shows a soft excess emission below $\sim$ 2keV (Prieto 1996). Independently, the presence of a soft excess is also inferred from the analysis of the EXOSAT (Ghosh & Soundararajaperumal), ASCA (Wozniak et al.) and Ginga (Kaastra et al 1991) data.
Extended soft X-ray emission associated with this source is detected in the ROSAT/HRI data. On the basis of that new component a re-evaluation of the PSPC spectrum is presented.
Throughout this work $H_{0}$ = 50 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. 1 arcsecond corresponds to $\sim$ 1.7 kpc at the source.
Analysis of HRI data
====================
The HRI observations of 3C 382 were conducted in 1996 October and 1997 April (WG900720H and WG900720H-1 datasets respectively) The corresponding total accepted times were 4514 s and 13310 s, respectively. The counts are integrated from channels 1 to 8 which enclose most of the energy accumulated in the ROSAT band, yielding for both dataset count rates of $\sim$1 cts s$^{-1}$.
The nominal resolution of the [*ROSAT*]{}/HRI is $\sim$ 5–6 arcsec (FWHM). Residual errors in the ROSAT aspect solution are known to give rise to elongated images (David et al. 1996), the shape of the surface brightness profile dramatically departing from the expected point response function (PRF). In the case of very bright sources, improvement of the HRI spatial resolution becomes feasible by using speckle interferometric techniques such as the “shift-and-add” method. If one constructs images over short time intervals, the PRF becomes symmetric and therefore the elongation in the image appears as an apparent residual motion of the X-ray source in the sky. Such residual motion can be corrected for by de-speckling.
3C 382 is particularly suitable for that technique as it shows very bright in the [*ROSAT*]{} band, with $\sim$ 2 cts s$^{-1}$ in the PSPC and $\sim1$ cts s$^{-1}$ in the HRI.
The procedure used follows the same criteria and approach originally presented in Schmitt, Güdel & Predehl (1994). Basically, each event file is divided into time bins of typically 50 s. For each bin, the apparent X-ray position of the source (i.e., RA and $\delta$) is determined as a function of the observing time. A spline function is fitted to these data points, all recorded photons being then corrected with the appropriate time-dependent correction in RA and $\delta$.
To validate the correction, new measurements of the source centroid are repeated on the corrected event file. The correction is considered as satisfactory if the new centroid positions cluster during the time period of the observation about an average constant value. The uncertainty in the final source centroid is about 2.5 arcsec in RA and 1.5 arcsec in $\delta$.
The X-ray spatial analysis was then performed on the corrected HRI event files. Because of the much higher statistic of the April event file, reliable results from the de-speckle procedure are only found from that dataset. Thus, the following analysis focuses only on this dataset.
The extended X-ray component
============================
An X-ray contour image of 3C 382 obtained after the de-speckle procedure is shown in Figure 1a. The image is background-subtracted and smoothed with a Gaussian filter of FWHM $\sim$12 arcsec. The background level is estimated from different regions in the image within the central 5 arcmin. The emission is dominated by a central peak component, and a surrounding halo slightly more asymmetric towards the North-East side. Some of the morphological features are also apparent in the shortest exposed 1996 October event file -not shown. Overall, the X-ray emission extends out to about 100 arcsec from the center, $\sim$170 kpc at the distance of the source. This is about the size of the radio structure at 8.3 GHz (Black et al. 1992). The slight North-East asymmetry in the X-ray image is virtually coinciding with the direction of the radio axis and with that of the faint filamentary regions and bright companion galaxy seen in the HST/WFPC2 image (Fig. 1b).
The corresponding surface-brightness profile is presented in Figures 2. For comparison, the new improved [*ROSAT*]{}/HRI PSF profile by Predhel (1998) —currently upgrade in the EXSAS package— which includes the effect of the ROSAT mirror scattering and has been fit to Capella and Sirius, is shown superimposed. To illustrate the effect of the de-speckle procedure on the data, the surface brightness profile as derived from the original data is shown is Fig 2a, and that after de-speckling in Fig. 2b. The departure from the ROSAT/HRI PRF is clearly evidenced in Fig. 2a, where larger residuals are seen all over the profile. The de-speckle procedure produced a sharper profile which virtually fills the core of the PRF (Fig. 2b). Yet, some systematic residuals still remain at radius beyond $\sim$10–15 arcsec from the center, which we assume to be related to an extended emission component. This component is roughly 10% of the total emission.
In an attempt to get a better characterization of the observed profile, a combination of an unresolved component represented by the HRI/PSF, and an extended component represented by a $\beta$-model are fit to the data. The functional form of the $\beta$-model follows King’s approximation (1972) for gas confined in an isothermal sphere: $S(r)\propto~(1+(r/r_c)^2)^{-3\beta+1/2}$, with S(r) the surface brightness a radius r, $r_c$ the core radius and $\beta$ the slope parameter. Given the uncertainty inherent with this approximation for the extended component, a simple addition of the PSF and the beta model is fit to the data.
Figure 2c shows the resulting fit corresponding to the composite model: PRF plus a $\beta$ model. Fig 2c shows a clear fit improvement to the observed profile as the systematic residual trend seen in Fig 2b is now removed; yet, the composite model still overpredicts the observed emission at radius beyond 10 arcsec. Overall, the $\beta$-model does not provide a statistically acceptable fit with reduced $\chi^2$ exceeding unity. The main reason for that may reside in the validity of the beta-model for the specific case of the extended gas emission in 3C382. Besides, there is the fact that the dominant contribution of the emission is the unresolved component, which makes the modeling of the extended diffuse emission difficult. Also, there is the rather asymmetric morphology of the emission which may clearly depart from the simple model used here.
Nevertheless, the fit results from the composite model leaded to a tight range for both the core radius and the $\beta$ value. The minimum reduced $\chi^2$, $<1.5-2>$, was obtained for a core radius $r_c\sim$ 20-30 arcsec (30 - 50 kpc at the distance of 3C 382) and $\beta\sim 0.7-0.8$. A much simpler composite model represented by the PRF plus a Gaussian model for the extended component, yielded FWHM for the extended component in the 30 - 40 arcsec range.
Re-evaluating the PSPC spectrum
-------------------------------
A single power-law model with spectral index -1.2 provides a fair fit of the PSPC spectrum of 3C382, with the derived N(H) in good agreement with the Galactic value. However, the detection of an extended component in the HRI data along with the reported evidence for soft excess emission in this source from EXOSAT and ASCA data besides PSPC (cf. sect. 1) prompt to a re-evaluation of the PSPC data. Because the extended nature of the new component, its association with thermal emission arises as the most natural explanation.
Due to the short energy range and relatively low spectral resolution of the PSPC, a complex analysis of the PSPC spectrum involving a combination of several models is difficult. However, the evidence for extended emission and the fact that the [*hard X-ray spectral index of this source remains constant about the 0.7 value*]{} are additional inputs that can be used for forcing the PSPC fit with a more complex modeling.
Accordingly, a combination of a power-law, with spectral index fixed at $\alpha$= –0.7, and a thermal model are fitted to the PSPC data. In this composite model, $N$(H) is fixed at the Galactic value following Prieto’s results (1996). Thus, the only parameters that vary freely are the normalizations of the respective thermal and power-law components and the temperature of the thermal component.
The new composite fit (Fig. ) provides a fair representation of the PSPC spectrum, with a reduced $\chi^2\sim$1.2 and constrained values for all the free parameters. A gas temperature of $0.6^{+0.4}_{-0.1}$ keV is derived. Alternative fits, letting free the index of the power-law spectrum or the N(H), lead to larger $\chi^2$ and unconstrained fit parameters. Fitting a single bremsstrahlung model produces also an acceptable fit but the derived N(H) value is found lower than the Galactic value.
The results from the composite model can be compared with those derived from the single power-law model and from the single thermal model in Table 1. Given the PSPC spectral limitations together with the additional complexity of the composite model, the derived fit values may be subjected to larger uncertainties. In this sense, the temperature could be largely affected whereas integrated fluxes are the least dependent on the adopted model. The total flux contribution from the thermal and power-law components in the composite model compares with that derived from the single power-law model. The reduced $\chi^2$ is slighter better in the case of a simple power-law model; but we consider the difference marginal. The lowest reduced $\chi^2$ is obtained with the thermal model; yet the derived N(H) in this case is inferior than the Galactic value.
How do the PSPC fluxes compare with those derived from the HRI data?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluxes estimate from the HRI data for the extended and unresolved component are primarily derived on the basis of HRI spatial analysis (§3). The total number of counts within the unresolved and extended component leads to count rates of $\sim$ 1 cts s$^{-1}$ and about 0.1 cts s$^{-1}$ respectively.
The lack of spectral resolution of the HRI hampers any direct spectral modeling of the X-ray data. Yet, the availability of the PSPC data allows us to use the same model and fit parameters as derived from the PSPC fit (§3.1) to convert the HRI counts to fluxes. These are given in Table 1
The unresolved HRI component, modeled with a power-law index $\alpha$= –0.7, yields a flux about a factor 2 larger than that measured by the PSPC. 3C 382 is known to be a variable source, with reported maximum-to-minimum variations of up to 120% as measured by [*EXOSAT*]{} (Ghosh & Soundararajaperumal 1992). Regarding the [*ROSAT*]{} observations, previous HRI observations of the source in 1992 March revealed a drop in the total number of counts by a factor 1.8 with respect to the values measured in the present observations taken 5 years later. This drop is thus compatible with the still lower flux measured by the PSPC in 1990. Thus, the difference found between the HRI and PSPC fluxes for the unresolved component appears compatible with the observed variability level of the source.
Regarding the extended component, bremsstrahlung models with temperatures within the range 0.6-3 keV lead to corresponding HRI fluxes $ 10 - 6. \times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}~s^{-1}$ respectively, i.e., a factor 2 to 3.5 smaller than that derived from the PSPC for the same component. We note however that as neither the Gaussian approximation nor the $\beta$-model provide a statically acceptable fit to that component, the corresponding number of HRI counts for the extended component was not derived from the model but from the difference between the total integrated number of counts and that integrated within the unresolved component represented by the PRF. Given the simplicity of the method, in particular taking into account that the dominant contribution of the total emission is the unresolved component, the derived PSPC and HRI fluxes can be considered consistent with each other within the order of magnitude. Besides, it is also possible that the emission is more extended than what is detected –at least beyond the radio structure–, but the surface brightness there is too low for being detected with the HRI.
To summarize, the inferred luminosities for the extended and unresolved components estimated from the HRI data appear compatible in order of magnitude with the respective thermal and power-law luminosities derived from PSPC spectrum of the source.
Discussion
==========
Extended X-ray emission associated with the very bright, nearby radio-loud galaxy 3C 382 is detected. The analysis of the ROSAT/HRI data shows that about 10% of the total 0.2 -2.4 keV emission is compatible with the presence of an extended component. Assuming that component to be due to hot gas emitting via bremsstrahlung, and allowing for the contribution of such thermal component into the PSPC spectrum, it is found that the non-thermal component of 3C 382 emission becomes consistent with the extrapolation of the “well established” 3C 382 high-energy power-law spectrum —above 2 keV— into the soft X-ray regime.
The temperature of the gas component as formally derived from the PSPC fit is $0.6^{+0.4}_{-0.1}$ keV. This low temperature contrasts with the high luminosity of the gas component, $\sim3\times 10^{44} erg~sec^{-1}$. Taken together the spectral limitation of the PSPC and the complexity of the model fit, the uncertainty in the temperature could however be larger. There is furthermore the possibility that a temperature gradient dominates the gas emission — a cooling flow process. In this case, the PSPC spectrum may be mostly sampling the central gas region, where the coolest and more dense gas is located. There are however other factors that could also have lead to an overestimation of the gas luminosity. The analysis by Markevitch (1998) on clusters with strong cooling flows indicates moderate temperature increase of up to 20% but luminosity decrease of up to 40% for the cluster gas after excising the cooling flow regions. On the other hand, if cooling by metals is considered – for sake of simplicity, pure bremsstrahlung has been assumed – the luminosity of the gas could decrease by about 40%, assuming a Raymond-Smith model with metal abundance Z=0.35.
Still, the derived thermal luminosity in 3C382 is about two order of magnitude larger than that found in isolated, normal elliptical galaxies (Canizares, Fabbiano & Trincheri 1987), and in low-power radio galaxies (Worral & Birkinshaw, 1994) but it is in the range found in powerful radio sources (Worrall et al. 1994; O’Dea et al. 1996; Hardcastle et al. 1999; Crawford et al. 1999). Also, the estimated core radius for 3C382, $\sim$50 kpc, is within the range found by Crawford et al. and Hardcastle et al. in their respective samples of 3CRR radio-loud sources.
Large X-ray halos are often seen in FRI sources, those being associated with the cluster environment in which they often reside (e.g. M 87, Perseus, 3C465). These halos largely dominate the ROSAT emission from these sources. Besides the outstanding case of Cygnus A, evidence for clustering is less obvious in classical double radio sources, particularly at low redshift (cf. Hill & Lilly 1991; Miller et al. 1999). Unambiguous extended X-ray emission in powerful FRII radio galaxies and quasars has mostly being found in sources with redshift larger than 0.1 (Hardcastle and Worall, 1999; Crawford et al 1999; O’Dea et al. 1996); yet, a few low-redshift FRII are reported to show extended X-ray emission (cf. Hardcastle and Worral). In most of these cases, the large X-ray luminosities are found compatible with thermal emission from a moderately rich cluster environment.
Comparing with Cyg A, the archetypal double radio source at z= 0.0574, 3C382 is also one of the few very bright double sources at low redshift with extended X-ray emission. Contrarily to Cyg A which presents an optical narrow line spectrum, 3C382 presents an extreme, in width and strength, broad permitted line spectrum. If this difference is interpreted as due to obscuration of the AGN region in Cyg A, it may explain why the dominant X-ray feature in Cyg A is emission from a hot diffuse gas –the AGN component is obscured at X-ray waves– whereas in 3C382, the unresolved X-ray nuclear component –presumably associated with the AGN– dominates the total X-ray emission, making more difficult the detection of any extended gas component.
The X-ray luminosity of 3C382, of about $10^{44}erg~s^{-1}$, compares with that of rich Abell clusters (this is also the case of Cyg A; yet Cyg A is at the center of a poor cluster of galaxies). Longair & Seldner (1979) derived however a rather poor environment in the vicinity of 3C 382 on the basis of their cross-correlation analysis between the radio position and galaxy counts. HST/WFPC2 images of 3C382 collected in parallel mode show an elliptical galaxy with a very bright unresolved nucleus and a halo very smooth (Martel et al. 1999). Yet, within the 2.5 arcminutes field of view (Fig 1b), several small galaxies can easily be distinguished in the 300 seconds exposure; the WFPC2 images also show a bright galaxy at 85 arcsec Northeast from 3C382, presenting two at least extended gaseosus tails of material in the direction of 3C382; two additional difuse regions located close to 3C382 and in the direction of the bright galaxy are also apparent. Judging from the HST images, 3C382 may be residing in a relatively poor cluster environment; also, it may be in interaction with that gas-rich galaxy companion. Such interaction could have brought plenty of gas into 3C382.
The luminosity of the halo component in 3C382 would imply a large mass of gas, of about $10^{11}$Mo, assuming it concentrated in a sphere of about 50 kpc –the estimate core radius derived from the HRI spatial analysis– and a temperature in the 0.6 -1 keV range. An alternative to the cluster environment is that 3C382 it may consist of a self-contained gravitational potential deep enough to restrain such large amount of gas. This could also be the case of the radio-louds 3C48 and 3C273, for which extended X-ray emission is found but the evidence for a cluster environment from optical images is minor (Crawford et al. 1999). Evidence for a massive dark halo in 3C382 comes from the velocity measurements on the extended ionized gas surrounding this galaxy. Tadhunter et al. (1986) detected ionized gas up to 25 kpc from the galaxy center. The gas follow a a rotation curve which extend flat up to those distances with velocities of about 400 km/s relative to the systemic velocity. Assuming a spherical potential, the estimated mass within a 25 kpc radius would be $\sim8\times
10^{11}Mo$. This is about the gravitating mass needed to keep the X-ray gas binded to the galaxy. Following Fornan, Jones and Tucker (1985) formalism, the total gravitating mass within a 50 kpc radius is estimated between $8-15 \times10^{11}Mo$ for gas temperatures between 0.6 and 1 keV, which is in the order of magnitude of the mass derived from the ionized gas kinematics.
The results so far derived show compatible with a cooling flow process being dominating the gas emission. If the extended gas emission is modeled as that of a uniform sphere of hot gas emitting via bremsstrahlung, for a maximum radius of about 170 kpc (the size of the radio structure) and a temperature in the 0.6 - 1 keV range, the implied density would be $simeq 6 \times 10^{-3}cm^{-3}$. This yields a cooling time of about $4\times 10^{9} yr$, considerable smaller than the Hubble time. Thus, a cooling flow process could be operating in 3C 382.
A better characterization of the extended X-ray emission in 3C382 would demand much larger spatial resolution but also deeper observations.\
[**Acknowledgments:** ]{}
It is a pleasure to thank Peter Predehl for his support regarding the de-speckling procedure of the HRI data and Günther Hasinger and Paddy Leahy for critical reading of early versions of the manuscript.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
\[B\]lack, A. et al. 1992, MNRAS 256, 186
\[B\]uehler, P., Courvoisier, T., Staubert, R., Brunner, H., & Lamer, G. 1995, A&A, 295, 309
\[D\]avid, L.P. et al. 1998, The ROSAT High Resolution Imager (HRI) Calibration Report: $http://$hea-www.harvard.edu./rosat/rsdc\_www/HRI\_CAL\_REPORT/hri.html
Arnaud, K. A. 1993, ApJ 412, 479
\[C\]anizares, C. R., Fabbiano, G. & Trincheri. G 1987, ApJ 312. 503
\[C\]arrili, C. & Barthel, P. 1996, A&ARv 7,1 \[C\]rawford, C.S. & Fabian, A. 1995, MNRAS 273, 827
\[C\]rawford, C.S., Lehmann, I., Fabian, A., Bremer, M.N. & Hasinger, G. 1999, MNRAS 308, 1159
\[F\]anaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31p
\[G\]hosh, K. K., & Soundararajaperumal, S. 1992, ApJ, 389, 179
\[H\]ardcastle, M. J. & Worral, D. 1999, MNRAS 309, 969
\[H\]ill G. J., & Lilly, S. J. 1991, ApJ, 367, 1 \[K\]aastra J.S, Kunieda & Awaki H. 1991, A&A 242, 27
\[K\]ing, I. 1972, ApJ 174, L123
\[L\]aing, R. A., Riley, J. M., & Longair, M. S. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 151 \[L\]ongair, M.S. & Seldner, M. 1979, MNRAS 189, 433
\[M\]arkewitch, M., 1998, ApJ 504, 27
\[M\]artel et al., 1999, ApJSS 122, 81
\[M\]iller, N.A. et al, 1999, AJ 118, 1988
\[M\]ushotzky, R. F., Done, C., & Pounds, K. A. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 717
\[O\]’Dea, C. P., Worrall, D., Baum, S., & Stanghellini, C. 1996, AJ, 111, 92
\[P\]ounds K.A., Nandra, K., Fink, H., Makino, F. 1994, MNRAS 267, 193
\[P\]ounds, K. A., Turner, T. J., & Warwick, R. S. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 7p
\[P\]redehl, P. 1998, in preparation
\[P\]rieto, M. A. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 421
\[R\]oss, R. R., & Fabian, A. C. 1993, MNRAS, 261, 74
\[S\]axton, R. D., Turner, M. J. L., Williams, O. R., Stewart, G. C., Ohashi, T., & Kii, T. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 63
\[S\]iebert, J. et al. 1998, MNRAS in press
\[S\]chmitt, J.H.M.M., Güdel, M. & Predehl, P. 1994, A&A 287, 843 \[T\]adhunter, C., Perez E. & Fosbury, R. 1986, MNRAS 219,555
\[V\]iegas, S. M., & Contini, M. 1994, ApJ, 428, 113
\[W\]orral, D. & Birkinshaw, M. 1994, ApJ 427, 134
\[W\]orral, D., Lawrence, C. R., Pearson, T., & Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 420, L17
\[W\]ozniak P.R. et al. 1998, MNRAS 299, 449
[**Figure captions**]{}
[**Figure 1a:**]{}\
HRI contour image of 3C 382 extracted from channels 1 to 8. It is background-subtracted and smoothed with a Gaussian filter with a FWHM $\sim$12 arcsec. Contours are $ 10^{-3} cts~s^{-1}
arcmin^{-2}\times$ (2.8, 4.4, 6, 7.6, 9.2, 10, 16, 40,4000); the first contour is about the 2$\sigma$ level measured on the background-subtracted image. 1 sky-pixel is 0.5 arcsec.\
[**Figure 1b:**]{}\
Broad band HST/WFPC2 image of 3C382 (data set u27l6w01-2) at 7200 A an equivalent exposure of 300 seconds. 3C382 is filling the upper left CCD. The bright companion galaxy (upper right CCD) is North-East of 3C382. The image covers 2.5 arcminutes.
[**Figure 2a:**]{}\
HRI surface brightness profile of 3C 382 before de-speckling. Points with error bars (Poissonian noise) are the data. Dashed line is the HRI PRF; the continuum line is the PRF plus background. The background level is measured in an annulus between 3 to 5 arcmin from the center (flat part of the profile). The residuals between the data and the PRF+background are shown below. Note the large departure from a point source profile due to incorrect attitude reconstruction of the ROSAT data (see text).
[**Figure 2b:**]{}\
HRI surface brightness profile of 3C 382 after de-speckling. The interpretation of the figure is as in Fig. 2a.
[**Figure 2c:**]{} The same as in Fig 2b but in this case the continuum line is the model fit to the surface brightness profile using a combination of an unresolved component represented by the HRI PRF (dash) and an extended component represented by a $\beta$ model (dots). The reduced $\chi^2\sim$ of the fit is 1.7-2 over 35 degrees of freedom (d.o.f.).\
[**Figure :**]{}\
Observed and best-model fit to the PSPC spectrum of 3C 382. PSPC data are from Prieto (1996). The dotted line represents the thermal 0.6-keV component; the dashed line, the power-law $\alpha=-0.7$ component. Residuals represent 1-$\sigma$ errors. The first two bins corresponding to energies $\simeq0.1 keV$ are not included in the fit.
0.01cm 0.01cm
------ --------------------- --------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- -------------- ---------------------------------------
Data Model $\alpha$ KT $N$(H) $\chi^2$/ndf Flux
(keV) $10^{21} {\rm cm}^{-2}$ - $ 10^{-11}erg~cm^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
PSPC brems - $1.4\pm0.4$ 0.59$\pm$0.01 1.05/29 $3.7\pm0.5$
PSPC power-law –1.2$\pm$0.26 - 0.79$\pm$ 0.10 1.16/29 $4.5\pm0.2$
PSPC power-law+brems –0.7 $0.65^{+0.4}_{-0.1}$ 0.78 1.23/29 $2.5^{+1.5}_{-0.8} + 2^{+1.8}_{-0.7}$
HRI unresolved+extended –0.7 0.6 0.78 - $5.8\pm0.6 + 1.\pm 0.7$
------ --------------------- --------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- -------------- ---------------------------------------
: ROSAT results for 3C 382
Flux is in the 0.2–2.4 keV range and is absorption corrected. Errors are 1 sigma correlated errors for one interesting parameter. Errors in the HRI fluxes only reflect the uncertainty in the extracted number counts to be about 15% and 50% for the unresolved and extended component respectively. The Galactic column density is 0.78 $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. The PSPC count-rate is $\sim 2~ cts~s^{-1}$ (total PSPC counts= 1743), for the HRI is $\sim 1~cts~s^{-1}$. Single power-law model results are from Prieto (1996).
[^1]: Present address: European Southern Observatory, D-85748 Garching, Germany
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Toufik Mansour
title: ' [continued fractions and generalized patterns]{}'
---
[LABRI, Université Bordeaux I,\
351 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence Cedex\
[[email protected]]{} ]{}
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
In [@BS] Babson and Steingrimsson introduced generalized permutation patterns that allow the requirement that two adjacent letters in a pattern must be adjacent in the permutation.
Let $f_{\tau;r}(n)$ be the number of $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations on $n$ letters that contain exactly $r$ occurrences of $\tau$, where $\tau$ a generalized pattern on $k$ letters. Let $F_{\tau;r}(x)$ and $F_\tau(x,y)$ be the generating functions defined by $F_{\tau;r}(x)=\sum_{n\geq0} f_{\tau;r}(n)x^n$ and $F_\tau(x,y)=\sum_{r\geq0}F_{\tau;r}(x)y^r$. We find an explicit expression for $F_\tau(x,y)$ in the form of a continued fraction for where $\tau$ given as a generalized pattern; $\tau=12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, $\tau=21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, $\tau=123\dots k$, or $\tau=k\dots 321$. In particularly, we find $F_\tau(x,y)$ for any $\tau$ generalized pattern of length $3$. This allows us to express $F_{\tau;r}(x)$ via Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind, and continued fractions.
Introduction
============
Let $[p]=\{1,\dots,p\}$ denote a totally ordered alphabet on $p$ letters, and let $\pi=(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_m)\in [p_1]^m$, $\beta=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_m)\in [p_2]^m$. We say that $\pi$ is [*order-isomorphic*]{} to $\beta$ if for all $1\leq i<j\leq m$ one has $\pi_i<\pi_j$ if and only if $\beta_i<\beta_j$. For two permutations $\pi\in S_n$ and $\tau\in S_k$, an [*occurrence*]{} of $\tau$ in $\pi$ is a subsequence $1\leq i_1<i_2<\dots<i_k\leq n$ such that $(\pi_{i_1},
\dots,\pi_{i_k})$ is order-isomorphic to $\tau$; in such a context $\tau$ is usually called the [*pattern* ]{} (classical pattern). We say that $\pi$ [*avoids*]{} $\tau$, or is $\tau$-[*avoiding*]{}, if there is no occurrence of $\tau$ in $\pi$. More generally, we say $\pi$ [*containing*]{} $\tau$ exactly $r$ times, if there exists $r$ different occurrences of $\tau$ in $\pi$.\
The set of all $\tau$-avoiding permutations of all possible sizes including the empty permutation is denoted $\mathcal{S}(\tau)$. Pattern avoidance proved to be a useful language in a variety of seemingly unrelated problems, from stack sorting [@Kn] to singularities of Schubert varieties [@LS]. A complete study of pattern avoidance for the case $\tau\in S_3$ is carried out in [@SS].\
On the other hand, in [@BS] introduced generalised permutation patterns that allow the requirement that two adjacent letters in a pattern must be adjacent in the permutation. The idea of [@BS] introducing these patterns was study of Mahonian statistics.
We write a classical pattern with dashes between any two adjacent letters of the pattern, say $1324$, as $1\mn3\mn2\mn4$, and if we write, say $24\mn1\mn3$, then we mean that if this pattern occurs in permutation $\pi$, then the letters in the permutation $\pi$ that correspond to $2$ and $4$ are adjacent. For example, the permutation $\pi=35421$ has only two occurrences of the pattern $23\mn1$, namely the subsequnces $352$ and $351$, whereas $\pi$ has four occurrences of the pattern $2\mn3\mn1$, namely the subsequnces $352$, $351$, $342$ and $341$.
In [@C] presented a complete solution for the number of permutations avoiding any pattern of length three with exactly one adjacent pair of letters. In [@CM] presented a complete solution for the number of permutations avoiding any two patterns of length three with exactly one adjacent pair of letters. In [@Ki] presented almost results avoiding two or more $3$-patterns without internal dashes, that is, where the pattern corresponds to a contiguous subword in a permutation. Besides, [@EN] presented the following generating functions regarding the distribution of the number of occurrences of any generalized pattern of length $3$: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\sum\limits_{\pi\in\mathcal{S}} y^{(123)\pi} \frac{x^{|\pi|}} {|\pi|!}&=
\frac{2f(y)e^{\frac{1}{2}(f(y)-y+1)x}} {f(y)+y+1+(f(y)-y-1)e^{f(y)x}},\\
\sum\limits_{\pi\in\mathcal{S}} y^{(213)\pi} \frac{x^{|\pi|}}{|\pi|!}&=
\frac{1}{1-\int\limits_0^x e^{(y-1)t^2/2}dt},
\end{array}$$ where $(\tau)\pi$ is the number of occurrences of $\tau$ in $\pi$, $f(y)=\sqrt{(y-1)(y+3)}$.\
The purpose of this paper is to point out an analog of a theorem [@RWZ], and some interesting consequences of this analog. Generalization of this theorem have already been given in [@Kr; @MV1; @JR]. In the present note we study the generating function for the number $1$-$3$-$2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ that contain a prescribed number of generalised pattern $\tau$. The study of the obtained continued fraction allows us to recover and to present analog of the results of [@CW; @Kr; @MV1; @JR] that relates the number of $1$-$3$-$2$-avoiding permutations that contain no $12$-$3$-$\dots$-$k$ (or $21$-$3$-$\dots$-$k$) patterns to Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind.\
Let $f_{\tau;r}(n)$ stand for the number of $1$-$3$-$2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ that contain exactly $r$ occurrences of $\tau$. We denote by $F_{\tau;r}(x)$ and $F_\tau(x,y)$ the generating function of the sequence $\{f_{\tau;r}(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ and $\{f_{\tau;r}(n)\}_{n,r\geq 0}$ respectively, that is, $$F_{\tau;r}(x)=\sum_{n\geq0} f_{\tau;r}(n)x^n,\quad F_{\tau}(x,y)=\sum_{r\geq 0} F_{\tau;r}(x)y^r.$$
The paper is organized as follows. The cases $\tau=12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, $\tau=21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, $\tau=123\dots k$, and $\tau=k\dots 321$ are treat in [**section 2**]{}. In [**section $3$**]{}, we treat the cases $\tau=123$, $213$, $231$, $312$, and $321$, that is $\tau$ is $3$-letters generalized pattern without dashes. In [**section $4$**]{}, we treat the cases when $\tau$ is $3$-lettesr generalized pattern with one dash. Finally, in [**section $5$**]{}, we treat some of examples of restricted more than one generalized pattern of $3$-letters.
FOUR GENERAL CASES
==================
In this section, we study the following four cases $\tau=12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, $\tau=21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, $\tau=12\dots k$, and $\tau=k\dots 21$, by the following three subsections.
2.1 Pattern $12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$ {#pattern-12mn3mndotsmn-k .unnumbered}
=================================
Our first result is a natural analog of the main theorems of [@RWZ; @MV1; @Kr].
\[th21\] The generating function $F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)$ for $k\geq2$ is given by the continued fraction $$\frac1{1-x+xy^{d_1}-\dfrac{xy^{d_1}}{1-x+xy^{d_2}-\dfrac{xy^{d_2}}
{1-x+xy^{d_3}-\dfrac{xy^{d_3}}{\dots}}}},$$ where $d_i=\binom{i-1}{k-2}$[,]{} and $\binom ab$ is assumed $0$ whenever $a<b$ or $b<0$.
Following [@MV1] we define $\eta_j(\pi)$, $j\geq3$, as the number of occurrences of $12\mn3\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi$. Define $\eta_2(\pi)$ for any $\pi$, as the number of occurrences of $12$ in $\pi$, $\eta_1(\pi)$ as the number letters of $\pi$, and $\eta_0(\pi)=1$ for any $\pi$, which means that the empty pattern occurs exactly once in each permutation. The [*weight*]{} of a permutation $\pi$ is a monomial in $k$ independent variables $q_1,\dots,q_k$ defined by $$w_k(\pi)=\prod_{j=1}^k q_j^{\eta_j(\pi)}.$$ The [*total weight*]{} is a polynomial $$W_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)=\sum_{\pi\in\sss}w_k(\pi).$$ The following proposition is implied immediately by the definitions.
\[pro21\] $F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=W_k(x,1,\dots,1,y)$ for $k\geq2$.
We now find a recurrence relation for the numbers $\eta_j(\pi)$. Let $\pi\in S_n$, so that $\pi=(\pi',n,\pi'')$.
\[pro22\] For any nonempty $\pi\in\sss$ $$\eta_j(\pi)=\eta_j(\pi')+\eta_j(\pi'')+\eta_{j-1}(\pi'),$$ where $j\neq 2$. Besides, if $\pi'$ nonempty then $$\eta_2(\pi)=\eta_2(\pi')+\eta_2(\pi'')+1,$$ otherwise $$\eta_2(\pi)=\eta_2(\pi'').$$
Let $l=\pi^{-1}(n)$. Since $\pi$ avoids $1\mn3\mn2$, each number in $\pi'$ is greater than any of the numbers in $\pi''$. Therefore, $\pi'$ is a $1-3-2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{n-l+1,n-l+2,\dots,n-1\}$, while $\pi''$ is a $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{1,2,\dots,n-l\}$. On the other hand, if $\pi'$ is an arbitrary $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{n-l+1,n-l+2,\dots,n-1\}$ and $\pi''$ is an arbitrary $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{1,2,\dots,n-l\}$, then $\pi=(\pi',n,\pi'')$ is $1-3-2$-avoiding. Finally, if $(i_1,\dots,i_j)$ is an occurrence of $12\mn3\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi$ then either $i_j<l$, and so it is also an occurrence of $12\mn3\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi'$, or $i_1>l$, and so it is also an occurrence of $12\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi''$, or $i_j=l$, and so $(i_1,\dots,i_{j-1})$ is an occurrence of $12\mn3\mn\dots\mn(j-1)$ in $\pi'$, where $j\neq 2$. For $j=2$ the proposition is trivial. The result follows.
Now we are able to find the recurrence relation for the total weight $W$. Indeed, by Proposition \[pro22\], $$\begin{array}{lll}
W_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)&=1+\sum\limits_{\varnothing\ne\pi\in\sss}&\prod\limits_{j=1}^k
q_j^{\eta_j(\pi)}\\
&=1+\sum\limits_{\emptyset\neq\pi'\in\sss} &\sum\limits_{\pi''\in\sss} \prod\limits_{j=1}^k
q_j^{\eta_j(\pi'')}\cdot q_1^{\eta_1(\pi')+1}q_2\cdot\\
& & \prod\limits_{j=2}^{k-1}(q_jq_{j+1})^{\eta_j(\pi')}\cdot q_k^{\eta_k(\pi')} +\sum\limits_{\pi''\in\sss} q_1\prod\limits_{j=1}^k q_j^{\eta_j(\pi'')}.
\end{array}$$ Hence $$\begin{array}{ll}
W_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)&=1+q_1W_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)+\\
&+q_1q_2W_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)(W_k(q_1, q_2q_3,\dots,q_{k-1}q_k,q_k)-1).
\end{array} \eqno(1)$$
Following [@MV1], for any $d\geq0$ and $2\leq m\leq k$ define $$\qq^{d,m}=\prod_{j=2}^k q_j^{{{d}\choose{j-m}}};$$ recall that ${a\choose b}=0$ if $a<b$ or $b<0$. The following proposition is implied immediately by the well-known properties of binomial coefficients.
\[pro23\] For any $d\geq0$ and $2\leq m\leq k$ $$\qq^{d,m}\qq^{d,m+1}=\qq^{d+1,m}.$$
Observe now that $W_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)=W_k(q_1,\qq^{0,2},\dots,\qq^{0,k})$ and that by (1) and Proposition \[pro23\]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
W_k(q_1,\qq^{d,2},\dots,\qq^{d,k})&=1+q_1W_k(q_1,\qq^{d,2},\dots,\qq^{d,k})+\\
&+q_1q^{d,2}W_k(q_1,q^{d,2},\dots,\qq^{d,k})(W_k(q_1,\qq^{d+1,2},\dots,\qq^{d+1,k})-1).
\end{array}$$ therefore $$W_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)=\frac1{1-q_1+q_1\qq^{0,2}-\dfrac{q_1\qq^{0,2}}{1-q_1+q_1\qq^{1,2}-\dfrac{q_1\qq^{1,2}}
{1-q_1+q_1\qq^{2,2}-\dfrac{q_1\qq^{2,2}}{\dots}}}}.$$ To obtain the continued fraction representation for $F(x,y;k)$ it is enough to use Proposition \[pro21\] and to observe that $$q_1\qq^{d,2}\bigg|_{q_1=x,q_2=\dots=q_{k-1}=1,q_k=y}=xy^{\binom{d}{k-2}}.$$
\[c25\] $$F(x,y;2)=\frac{1-x+xy-\sqrt{(1-x)^2-2x(1+x)y+x^2y^2}}{2xy},$$ in other words, for any $r\geq 1$ $$f_{12}(n)=\frac{r+1}{n(n-r)}{{n}\choose{r+1}}^2.$$
For $k=2$, Theorem \[th21\] yields $$F_{12}(x,y)=\frac1{1-x+xy-\dfrac{xy}{1-x+xy-\dfrac{xy}
{1-x+xy-\dfrac{xy}{\dots}}}}.$$ which means that $$F_{12}(x,y)=\frac{1}{1-x+xy-xyF_{12}(x,y)}.$$ So the rest it is easy to see.
Now, we find explicit expressions for $F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)$ in the case $0\leq r\leq k-2$.
Following [@MV1], consider a recurrence relation $$T_j=\frac1{1-xT_{j-1}},\quad j\gs1. \eqno(2)$$ The solution of (2) with the initial condition $T_0=0$ is denoted by $R_j(x)$, and the solution of (2) with the initial condition $$T_0=G_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=\frac 1{1-x+xy^{\binom {k-2}0}-\dfrac{xy^{\binom {k-2}0}}{1-x+xy^{\binom{k-1}1}-\dfrac{xy^{\binom{k-1}1}}
{1-x+xy^{\binom{k}2}-\dfrac{xy^{\binom{k}2}}{\dots}}}}$$ is denoted by $S_j(x,y;k)$, or just $S_j$ when the value of $k$ is clear from the context. Our interest in (2) is stipulated by the following relation, which is an easy consequence of Theorem \[th21\]: $$F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=S_{k-2}(x,y;k). \eqno(3)$$ Following to [@MV1 eq. 4], for all $j\geq 1$ $$R_j(x)=\frac{U_{j-1}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)}
{\sqrt{x}U_{j}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)},
\eqno(4)$$ where $U_j(\cos\theta)=\sin(j+1)\theta/\sin\theta$ be the Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind. Next, we find an explicit expression for $S_j$ in terms of $G$ and $R_j$.
\[lem32\] For any $j\geq 2$ and any $k\geq 2$ $$S_j(x,y;k)=R_j(x)\frac{1-xR_{j-1}(x)G_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)}{1-xR_{j}(x)G_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)}. \eqno(5)$$
Indeed, from (2) and $S_0=G$ we get $S_1=1/(1-xG)$. On the other hand, $R_0=0$, $R_1=1$, so (5) holds for $j=1$. Now let $j>1$, then by induction $$S_j=\frac1{1-xS_{j-1}}=\frac1{1-xR_{j-1}}\cdot
\frac{1-xR_{j-1}G}{1-\dfrac{x(1-xR_{j-2})R_{j-1}G}
{1-xR_{j-1}}}.$$ Relation (2) for $R_j$ and $R_{j-1}$ yields $(1-xR_{j-2})R_{j-1}=(1-xR_{j-1})R_j=1$, which together with the above formula gives (5).
As a corollary from Lemma \[lem32\] and (3) we get the following expression for the generating function $F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)$.
For any $k\geq 3$ $$F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=R_{k}(x)+\big(R_{k-2}(x)-R_{k-3}(x)\big)
\sum_{m\geq 1}\big(xR_{k-2}(x)G_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)\big)^m.$$
Now we are ready to express the generating functions $F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)$, $0\ls r\ls k-2$, via Chebyshev polynomials.
\[th31\] For any $k\geq 3$[,]{} $F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)$ is a rational function given by $$\begin{array}{ll}
F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)&=\frac{x^{r-1}U_{k-2}^{r-1}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)}
{(1-x)^rU_{k}^{r+1}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)},\quad 1\leq r\leq k-2,\\
F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;0}(x)&=\frac{U_{k-1}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)}
{\sqrt{x}U_{k}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)},
\end{array}$$ where $U_j$ is the $j$th Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind.
Observe that $G_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=\frac{1}{1-x}\cdot\frac{1}{1-\frac{x^2}{(1-x)^2}y}+y^{k-1}P(x,y)$, so from Corollary we get $$\begin{array}{ll}
F_{12\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=R_k(x)&+\big(R_{k-2}(x)-R_{k-3}(x)\big)
\sum\limits_{m=1}^k\big(\frac{x}{1-x}R_k(x)\big)^m\sum\limits_{n=1}^{k-2} {\binom {m-1+n}n} \frac{x^{2n}}{(1-x)^{2n}} y^n\\
&+y^{k-1}P'(x,y),
\end{array}$$ where $P(x,y)$ and $P'(x,y)$ are formal power series. To complete the proof, it suffices to use (4) together with the identity $U_{n-1}^2(z)-U_n(z)U_{n-2}(z)=1$, which follows easily from the trigonometric identity $\sin^2n\theta-\sin^2\theta=\sin(n+1)\theta\sin(n-1)\theta$.
2.2 Pattern $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$ {#pattern-21mn3mndotsmn-k .unnumbered}
=================================
Our second result is a natural analog of the main theorems of [@RWZ; @MV1; @Kr].
\[th21b\] For any $k\geq 2$, $$F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=
1-\frac{x}
{xy^{d_1}-\dfrac{1}
{1-\dfrac{x}
{xy^{d_2}-\dfrac{1}
{1-\dfrac{x}
{xy^{d_3}-\dfrac{1}{\ddots}}}}}},$$ where $d_i=\binom{i-1}{k-2}$[,]{} and $\binom ab$ is assumed $0$ whenever $a<b$ or $b<0$.
Following [@MV1] we define $\nu_j(\pi)$, $j\geq3$, as the number of occurrences of $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi$. Define $\nu_2(\pi)$ for any $\pi$, as the number of occurrences of $21$ in $\pi$, $\nu_1(\pi)$ as the number letters of $\nu$, and $\nu_0(\pi)=1$ for any $\pi$, which means that the empty pattern occurs exactly once in each permutation. The [*weight*]{} of a permutation $\pi$ is a monomial in $k$ independent variables $q_1,\dots,q_k$ defined by $$v_k(\pi)=\prod_{j=1}^k q_j^{\nu_j(\pi)}.$$ The [*total weight*]{} is a polynomial $$V_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)=\sum_{\pi\in\sss}v_k(\pi).$$ The following proposition is implied immediately by the definitions.
\[pro21b\] $F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=V_k(x,1,\dots,1,y)$ for $k\geq2$.
We now find a recurrence relation for the numbers $\nu_j(\pi)$. Let $\pi\in S_n$, so that $\pi=(\pi',n,\pi'')$.
\[pro22b\] For any nonempty $\pi\in\sss$ $$\nu_j(\pi)=\nu_j(\pi')+\nu_j(\pi'')+\nu_{j-1}(\pi'),$$ where $j\neq 2$. Besides, if $\pi''$ nonempty then $$\nu_2(\pi)=\nu_2(\pi')+\nu_2(\pi'')+1,$$ otherwise $$\nu_2(\pi)=\nu_2(\pi'').$$
Similarly to Proposition \[pro22\] we get $\pi$ avoids $1\mn3\mn2$ if and only if $\pi'$ is a $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{n-l+1,n-l+2,\dots,n-1\}$, while $\pi''$ is a $1-3-2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{1,2,\dots,n-l\}$. Finally, if $(i_1,\dots,i_j)$ is an occurrence of $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi$ then either $i_j<l$, and so it is also an occurrence of $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi'$, or $i_1>l$, and so it is also an occurrence of $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi''$, or $i_j=l$, and so $(i_1,\dots,i_{j-1})$ is an occurrence of $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn (j-1)$ in $\pi'$, where $j\neq 2$. For $j=2$ the proposition is trivial. The result follows.
Now we are able to find the recurrence relation for the total weight $V$. Indeed, by Proposition \[pro22b\], $$\begin{array}{lll}
V_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)&=1+\sum\limits_{\varnothing\ne\pi\in\sss}&\prod\limits_{j=1}^k
q_j^{\nu_j(\pi)}\\
&=1+\sum\limits_{\emptyset\neq\pi''\in\sss} &\sum\limits_{\pi'\in\sss} \prod\limits_{j=1}^k
q_j^{\nu_j(\pi'')}\cdot q_1^{\nu_1(\pi')+1}q_2\cdot\prod\limits_{j=2}^{k-1}(q_jq_{j+1})^{\nu_j(\pi')}\cdot q_k^{\nu_k(\pi')}+\\
& &+\sum\limits_{\pi'\in\sss} q_1q_1^{\nu(\pi')}q_k^{\nu_k(\pi')}\prod\limits_{j=2}^{k-1} (q_jq_{j+1})^{\nu_j(\pi')}.
\end{array}$$ Hence $$\begin{array}{ll}
V_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)&=1+q_1V_k(q_1,q_2q_3,\dots,q_{k-1}q_k,q_k)+\\
&+q_1q_2V_k(q_1, q_2q_3,\dots,q_{k-1}q_k,q_k)(V_k(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_k)-1).
\end{array}\eqno(6)$$
Observe now that $V_k(q_1,\dots,q_k)=V_k(q_1,\qq^{0,2},\dots,\qq^{0,k})$ and that by (6) and Proposition \[pro23\]
$$\begin{array}{ll}
V_k(q_1,\qq^{d,2},\dots,\qq^{d,k})&=1+q_1V_k(q_1,\qq^{d+1,2},\dots,\qq^{d+1,k})+\\
&+q_1q^{d,2}V_k(q_1,q^{d+1,2},\dots,\qq^{d+1,k})(V_k(q_1,\qq^{d,2},\dots,\qq^{d,k})-1).
\end{array}$$
To obtain the continued fraction representation for $F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)$ it is enough to use Proposition \[pro21b\] and to observe that $$q_1\qq^{d,2}\bigg|_{q_1=x,q_2=\dots=q_{k-1}=1,q_k=y}=xy^{\binom{d}{k-2}}.$$
\[c25b\] $$F_{21}(x,y)=\frac{1-x+xy-\sqrt{(1-x)^2-2x(1+x)y+x^2y^2}}{2xy},$$ in other words, for any $r\geq 1$ $$f_{21;r}(n)=\frac{r+1}{n(n-r)}{{n}\choose{r+1}}^2.$$
For $k=2$, $q_1=x$ and $q_2=y$, Proposition \[pro21b\] and (6) yields $F_{21}(x,y)=1+xF_{21}(x,y)+xyF_{21}(x,y)(F_{21}(x,y)-1)$, which means $F_{21}(x,y)=F_{12}(x,y)$. The rest of the proof obtained by Corollary \[c25\].
Now, we are ready to find an explicit expressions for $F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)$ in the case $0\leq r\leq k-2$.\
Consider a recurrence relation $$T'_j=1-\frac{x}{x-\dfrac{1}{T'_{j-1}(x)}},\quad j\geq1. \eqno(7)$$ The solution of (7) with the initial condition $T'_0=0$ is given by $R_j(x)$ (Lemma \[lem32b\]), and the solution of (7) with the initial condition $$T'_0=G_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=
\frac{1}
{xy^{\binom{k-2}{k-2}}-\dfrac{1}
{1-\dfrac{x}
{xy^{\binom{k-1}{k-2}}-\dfrac{1}
{1-\dfrac{x}
{xy^{\binom{k}{k-2}}-\dfrac{1}{\ddots}}}}}},$$ is denoted by $S'_j(x,y;k)$, or just $S'_j$ when the value of $k$ is clear from the context. Our interest in (7) is stipulated by the following relation, which is an easy consequence of Theorem \[th21b\]: $$F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=S'_k(x,y;k). \eqno(8)$$
First of all, we find an explicit formula for the functions $T'_j(x)$ in (7).
\[lem32b\] For any $j\geq 1$, $$T'_j(x)=R_j(x). \eqno(9)$$
Indeed, it follows immediately from (7) that $T'_0(x)=0$ and $T'_1(x)=1$. Let us induction, we assume $T'_{j-1}(x)=R_{j-1}(x)$, and prove that $T'_j(x)=R_j(x)$. By use (7) $$T'_j(x)=1-\frac{x}{x-\dfrac{1}{R_{j-1}(x)}}.$$ On the other hand, following to [@MV1], $R_j(x)=\frac{1}{1-xR_{j-1}(x)}$ which means that $R_j(x)=1+xR_{j-1}(x)R_j(x)$, hence $T'_j(x)=R_j(x)$.
Next, we find an explicit expression for $S'_j$ in terms of $G$ and $R_j$.
\[lem33b\] For any $j\geq 2$ and any $k\geq 2$ $$S'_j(x,y;k)=R_j(x)\frac{1-xR_{j-1}(x)G_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y;k)}{1-xR_{j}(x)G_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)}. \eqno(10)$$
As a corollary from Lemma \[lem33b\] and (6) we get the following expression for the generating function $F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)$.
For any $k\geq 3$ \[cc1\] $$F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=R_{k}(x)+\big(R_{k-2}(x)-R_{k-3}(x)\big)\sum_{m\geq 1}\big(xR_{k-2}(x)G_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)\big)^m.$$
Now we are ready to express the generating functions $F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)$, $0\ls r\ls k-2$, via Chebyshev polynomials.
\[th31b\] For any $k\geq 3$[,]{} $F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)$ is a rational function given by $$\begin{array}{ll}
F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;r}(x)&=\frac{x^{\frac{r-1}2}U_{k-2}^{r-1}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)}
{U_{k}^{r+1}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)},\quad 1\leq r\leq k-2,\\
F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k;0}(x)&=\frac{U_{k-1}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)}
{\sqrt{x}U_{k}\left(\frac1{2\sqrt{x}}\right)},
\end{array}$$ where $U_j$ is the $j$th Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind.
Observe that $G_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=1+\frac{x}{1-x-xy}+y^{k-1}P(x,y)$, so from Corollary \[cc1\] we get $$F_{21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k}(x,y)=R_k(x)+\big(R_{k-2}(x)-R_{k-3}(x)\big)
\sum\limits_{m=1}^k\big(xR_{k-2}(x)\big( 1+ \frac{x}{1-x-xy} \big) \big)^m+y^{k-1}P'(x,y),$$ where $P(x,y)$ and $P'(x,y)$ are formal power series. To complete the proof, it suffices to use (9) together with the identity $U_{n-1}^2(z)-U_n(z)U_{n-2}(z)=1$.
Theorem \[th31b\] and [@MV1] yields the number of $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ such that containing $r$ times the pattern $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$ is the same number of $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ such that containing $r$ times the pattern $1\mn2\mn3\dots\mn k$, for all $r=0,1,2,\dots,k-2$. However, the question if there exist a natural bijection between the set of $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ such containing $r$ times the generalized pattern $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, and the set of $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ such containing $r$ times the classically pattern $1\mn 2\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$.
2.3 Patterns: $\tau=12\dots k$ and $\tau=k\dots 21$ {#patterns-tau12dots-k-and-taukdots-21 .unnumbered}
===================================================
Let $\pi\in S_n$; we say $\pi$ has [*$d$-increasing canonical decomposition*]{} if $\pi$ has the following form $$\pi=(\pi^1,\pi^2,\dots,\pi^d,a_d,\dots,a_2,a_1,n,\pi^{d+1}),$$ where all the entries of $\pi^i$ are greater than all the entries of $\pi^{i+1}$, and $a_d<a_{d-1}<\dots<a_1<n$. We say $\pi$ has [*$d$-decreasing canonical decomposition*]{} if $\pi$ has the following form $$\pi=(\pi^1,n,a_1,\dots,a_d,\pi^{d+1},\pi^d,\dots,\pi^d),$$ where all the entries of $\pi^i$ are greater than all the entries of $\pi^{i+1}$, and $a_d<a_{d-1}<\dots<a_1<n$. The following proposition it the base of all the other results in this Section.
\[progen\] Let $\pi\in S_n(1\mn3\mn2)$. Then there exists unique $d\geq 0$ and $e\geq 0$ such that $\pi$ has a $d$-increasing canonical decomposition, and has $e$-decreasing canonical decomposition.
Let $\pi\in S_n(1\mn3\mn2)$, and let $a_d,a_{d-1},\dots,a_1,n$ a maximal increasing subsequence of $\pi$ such that $\pi=(\pi',a_d,\dots,a_1,n,\pi'')$. Since $\pi$ avoids $1\mn3\mn2$ there exists $d$ subsequnces $\pi^j$ such that $\pi=(\pi^1,\dots,\pi^d,a_d,\dots,a_1,n,\pi'')$, and all the entries of $\pi^i$ are greater than all the entries of $\pi^{i+1}$, and all the entries of $\pi^d$ greater than all entries of $\pi''$. Hence, $\pi$ has $d$-increasing canonical decomposition. Similarly, there exist $e$ unique such that $\pi$ is $e$-decreasing canonical decomposition.
Let us define $I_\tau(x,y;d)$ (respectively; $J_\tau(x,y;e)$) be the generating function for all $d$-increasing (respectively; $e$-decreasing) canonical decomposition of permutations in $S_n(1\mn3\mn2)$ with exactly $r$ occurrences of $\tau$. The following proposition is implied immediately by the definitions.
\[progen1\] $$F_\tau(x,y)=1+\sum_{d\geq 0} I_\tau(x,y;d)=1+\sum_{e\geq 0} J_\tau(x,y;e).$$
Immetaitley, by definitions of the generating functions and Proposition \[progen\] ($1$ for the empty permutation).
Now, we present an examples for Proposition \[progen\] and Proposition \[progen1\].
### First example: $F_{12\dots k}(x)$ and $F_{k\dots 21}(x)$ {#first-example-f_12dots-kx-and-f_kdots-21x .unnumbered}
\[th21c\] $F_{k\dots 21}(x,y)=F_{12\dots k}(x,y),$ such that $$F_{12\dots k}(x,y)=\sum_{n=0}^{k-2} x^nF^n_{12\dots k}(x,y)+\frac{x^{k-1}F^{k-1}_{12\dots k}(x,y)}{1-xyF_{12\dots k}(x,y)}.$$
By Proposition \[progen\] and definitions it is easy to obtain for all $d\geq 0$ $$I_{12\dots k}(x,y;d)=x^{d+1}y^{s_d}F_{12\dots k}^{d+1}(x,y),$$ where $s_d=d+1-k$ for $d\geq k-1$, and otherwise $s_d=0$. So by Proposition \[progen1\] the theorem holds.
Similarly, we obtain the same result for $F_{k\dots 21}(x,y)$.
As a remark, by the above theorem, it is easy to obtain the same Corollaries \[c25\] and \[c25b\] results.
### Second example {#second-example .unnumbered}
Here we calculate $F_{1\mn2\mn\dots\mn (l-1)\mn l(l+1)\dots k}(x,y)$ where $l\leq k-1$.
\[thgen1\] Let $1\leq l\leq k-1$. Then $F_{1\mn2\mn\dots\mn (l-1)\mn l(l+1)\dots k}(x,y)=U_l(x,1,\dots,1,y)$ where $$U_l(q_1,\dots,q_l)=1+\sum_{d\geq 0} \left( (q_l^{\binom{d+1+l-k}{l}}\prod_{j=1}^{l-1} q_j^{\binom{d+1}{j}} \prod_{j=0}^d U_l(p_{1;j},\dots,p_{l;j}) \right),$$ and for $i=1,2,\dots,l$, $p_{i;j}=\prod_{m=1}^{l-1} q_j^{\binom{j}{m-i}}$, $p_{l,j}=q_l$ for all $0\leq j\leq k-l$, and $p_{i;j}=\prod_{m=1}^l p_{i;k-l}^{\binom{j-k+l}{l-i}}$ for all $j\geq k-l+1$.
Following [@MV1] we define $\gamma_j(\pi)$, $j\leq l-1$, as the number of occurrences of $1\mn2\mn\dots\mn j$ in $\pi$. Define $\gamma_l(\pi)$ for any $\pi$, as the number of occurrences of $1\mn2\mn\dots\mn (l-1)\mn l(l+1)\dots k$ in $\pi$, and $\gamma_0(\pi)=1$ for any $\pi$, which means that the empty pattern occurs exactly once in each permutation. The [*weight*]{} of a permutation $\pi$ is a monomial in $l$ independent variables $q_1,\dots,q_l$ defined by $$u_l(\pi)=\prod_{j=1}^l q_j^{\gamma_j(\pi)}.$$ The [*total weight*]{} is a polynomial $$U_l(q_1,\dots,q_l)=\sum_{\pi\in\sss}u_l(\pi).$$ The following proposition is implied immediately by the definitions, and Proposition \[progen\].
\[pro211\] $F_{1\mn2\mn\dots\mn (l-1)\mn l(l+1)\dots k}(x,y)=U_k(x,1,\dots,1,y)$ for $k>l\geq1$, and $U_l(q_1,\dots,q_l)=1+\sum_{d\geq 0}\sum_{\pi\in A_d} u_l(\pi)$, where $A_d$ is the set of all $d$-increasing canonical decomposition permutations in $\sss$.
Let us denote $U_{l;d}(q_1,\dots,q_l)=\sum_{\pi\in A_d} u_l(\pi)$.
\[pro212\] For any $d\geq 0$, $$U_{l;d}(q_1,\dots q_l)=q_l^{\binom{d+1+l-k}{l}}\prod_{j=1}^{l-1} q_j^{\binom{d+1}{j}} \prod_{j=0}^d U_l(p_{1;j},\dots,p_{l;j}).$$
Let $\pi$ is $d$-increasing canonical decomposition; that is, $$\pi=(\pi^1,\pi^2,\dots,\pi^d,a_d,\dots,a_2,a_1,n,\pi^{d+1}),$$ where the numbers $a_{d}<a_{d-1}<\dots<a_1<n$ are appear as consecutive numbers in $\pi$, the all entries of $\pi^j$ are greater than all the entries of $\pi^{j+1}$, and the all entries of $\pi^d$ greater than $a_d$. So, by calculate $u_l(\pi)$ and sum over all $\pi\in A_d$ we have that $$U_{l;d}(q_1,\dots,q_d)=q_l^{\binom{d+1+l-k}{l}}
\cdot \prod_{j=1}^{l-1} q_j^{\binom{d+1}{j}}
\cdot \prod_{j=0}^d U_l(p_{1;j},\dots,p_{l;j}).$$
Therefore, Theorem \[thgen1\] holds, by use the above results; Proposition \[pro211\] and Proposition \[pro212\].
Now, let $l=k-1$ and by use Theorem \[thgen1\], it is easy to obtain the following.
\[cogen1\] For $k\geq 3$, $$F_{1\mn2\mn\dots\mn (k-2)\mn(k-1)k}(x,y)=\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} (xF_{1\mn2\mn\dots\mn (k-2)\mn (k-1)k}(x,y))^j.$$
Similarly, the argument of $d$-increasing canonical decomposition, or the argumnet $d$-decreasing canonical decomposition yields others formulas, for example, formula for $F_{12\mn3\mn45}(x,y)$.
Three letters pattern without internal dashes
=============================================
In this section, we give a complete answer for $F_\tau(x,y)$ where $\tau$ is a generalized pattern without internal dashes; that is, $\tau$ is $123$, $213$, $231$, $312$, and $321$. This by the following four subsections.
3.1 Patterns $123$ and $321$ {#patterns-123-and-321 .unnumbered}
----------------------------
$$F_{123}(x,y)=F_{321}(x,y)=\frac{1+xy-x+\sqrt{1-2x-3x^2-xy(2-2x-xy)}}{2x(x+y-xy)}.$$
Theorem \[th21c\] yields, $F_{123}(x,y)=F_{321}(x,y)=H$ where $$H=1+xH+\frac{x^2H^2}{1-xyH},$$ and the rest it is easy to see.
3.2 Pattern $231$ {#pattern-231 .unnumbered}
-----------------
$$F_{231}(x,y)=\frac{1-2x+2xy-\sqrt{1-4x+4x^2-4x^2y}}{2xy},$$ that is, for all $r,n\geq 0$ $$F_{231;r}(x)=\frac{1}{r+1}\binom{2r}{r} \frac{x^{2r+1}}{(1-2x)^{2r+1}},\quad
f_{231;r}(n)=\frac{2^{n-2r-1}}{r+1}\binom{n-1}{2r}\binom{2r}{r}.$$
Let $l=\pi^{-1}(n)$. Since $\pi$ avoids $1\mn3\mn2$, each number in $\pi'$ is greater than any of the numbers in $\pi''$. Therefore, $\pi'$ is a $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{n-l+1,n-l+2,\dots,n-1\}$, while $\pi''$ is a $1-3-2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{1,2,\dots,n-l\}$. On the other hand, if $\pi'$ is an arbitrary $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{n-l+1,n-l+2,\dots,n-1\}$ and $\pi''$ is an arbitrary $1-3-2$-avoiding permutation of the numbers $\{1,2,\dots,n-l\}$, then $\pi=(\pi',n,\pi'')$ is $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding.\
Now let us observe all posiiblities of $\pi'$ and $\pi''$ are empty or not. This yields $$F_{231}(x,y)=1+x+2x(F_{231}(x,y)-1)+xy(F_{231}(x,y)-1)^2,$$ hence, the rest it is east to see.
3.3 Pattern $213$ {#pattern-213 .unnumbered}
-----------------
$$F_{213}(x,y)=\frac{1-x^2+x^2y-\sqrt{1+2x^2-2x^2y+x^4-2x^4y+x^4y^2-4x}}{2x(1+xy-x)}.$$
Let $D(x,y)$ be the generating function of all $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations $(\alpha',n)\in S_n$ such that containing $213$ exactly $r$ times. Let $\alpha=(\alpha',n,\alpha'')$; if we consider the two cases $\alpha'$ empty or not we obtain $F_{213}(x,y)=1+D(x,y)F_{213}(x,y)$. Now let $\alpha=(\alpha',n)$; if we observe the two cases $\alpha'$ empty or not, then similarly it is easy to see $$D(x,y)=x+x^2+x^2y(F_{213}(x,y)-1)+x^2(D(x,y)-1)+x^2(D(x,y)-1)(F_{213}(x,y)-1).$$ However, $$F_{213}(x,y)=1+xF_{213}(x,y)\frac{1+x-xy+x(y-1)F_{213}(x,y)}{1-xF_{213}(x,y)},$$ hence, the rest it is easy to see.
3.4 Pattern $312$ {#pattern-312 .unnumbered}
-----------------
$$F_{312}(x,y)=\frac{1-x^2+x^2y-\sqrt{1+2x^2-2x^2y+x^4-2x^4y+x^4y^2-4x}}{2x(1+xy-x)}.$$
Let $\alpha\in\sss$; if $\alpha=\emptyset$, then there one permutation, otherwise by Proposition \[progen\] we can write $\alpha=(\alpha^1,n,a_1,a_2,\dots,a_d,\alpha^{d+1},\alpha^d,\dots,\alpha^2)$ where all the entries of $\alpha^j$ greater than all the entries of $\alpha^{j+1}$, and $n>a_1>a_2>\dots>a_d$. Hence, for any $d=0,1$ the generating function of these permutations in these cases is $x^{d+1}F_{312}(x,y)$. Let $d\geq 2$, If $\alpha^{d+1}=\emptyset$, then the generating function of these permutations in this case is $x^{d+1}F_{312}^d(x,y)$, otherwise the generating function is $x^{d+1}yF_{312}^d(x,y)(F_{312}(x,y)-1)$. Hence $$F_{312}(x,y)=1+(x+x^2)F_{312}(x,y)+\sum_{d\geq2} x^{d+1}F_{312}^d(x,y)+\sum_{d\geq 2} x^{d+1}yF_{312}^d(x,y)(F_{312}(x,y)-1),$$ which means that $$F_{312}(x,y)=1+xF_{312}(x,y)+\frac{x^2F_{312}(x,y)}{1-xF_{312}(x,y)}+\frac{x^2yF_{312}(x,y)(F_{312}(x,y)-1)}{1-xF_{312}(x,y)},$$ so the rest it is easy to see.
Some of $3$-letter patterns with one dash
=========================================
In this section, we present some of examples $F_\tau(x,y)$ where $\tau$ is a generalized pattern with one dash. Theorem \[th21\] yields as follows.
The generating function $F_{12\mn3}(x,y)$ is given by the continued fraction $$\frac1{1-\dfrac{x}{1-x+xy-\dfrac{xy}
{1-x+xy^2-\dfrac{xy^2}{\ddots}}}}.$$
Theorem \[th21b\] yields as follows.
For any $k\geq 2$, $$F_{21\mn3}(x,y)=
1-\frac{x}
{x-\dfrac{1}
{1-\dfrac{x}
{xy-\dfrac{1}
{1-\dfrac{x}
{xy^2-\dfrac{1}{\ddots}}}}}}.$$
For $k=3$ and $l=2$ Theorem \[cogen1\] yields the following.
\[th123\] $$F_{1\mn23}(x,y)=1+xF_{1\mn23}(x,y)+\sum_{d\geq 1} x^{d+1}y^{\binom{d}{2}}F_{1\mn23}(x,y)\prod_{j=0}^{d-1} F_{1\mn23}(xy^j,y).$$
$$\begin{array}{ll}
F_{1\mn23;0}(x)&=\frac{1-x-\sqrt{1-2x-3x^2}}{2x^2};\\
F_{1\mn23;1}(x)&=\frac{x-1}{2x}+\frac{1-2x-x^2}{2x\sqrt{1-2x-3x^2}};\\
F_{1\mn23;2}(x)&=\frac{x^4}{(1-2x-3x^2)^{3/2}};\\
F_{1\mn23;3}(x)&=x^2-1+\frac{11x^7+43x^6+41x^5-7x^4-25x^3+x^2+5x-1}{(1-2x-3x^2)^{5/2}}.
\end{array}$$
By Theorem \[th123\] with use $F_{1-23}(x,0)=F_{1-23;0}(x)$ we get $$F_{1\mn23;0}(x)=1+xF_{1\mn23;0}(x)+x^2F_{1\mn23;0}^2(x),$$ which means the first formula holds.\
By Theorem \[th123\] we get $$\frac{d}{dy} F_{1\mn23}(x,0)=x\frac{d}{dy} F_{1\mn23}(x,0)+2x^2F_{1\mn23}(x,0) \frac{d}{dy} F_{1\mn23}(x,0)+x^3F_{1\mn23}(x,0)^2F_{1\mn23}(0,0),$$ and with use $F_{1\mn23;1}(x)=\frac{d}{dy} F_{1\mn23}(x,y)\big{|}_{y=0}$ and the first formula, the second formula holds.\
Similarly, by Theorem \[th123\] and use $F_{1\mn23;r}(x)=\frac{1}{r!} \frac{d^r}{dy^r} F_{1\mn23}(x,y)\big{|}_{y=0}$ the others formulas holds.
\[th213\] $$F_{2\mn13}(x,y)=\dfrac{1}{1-\dfrac{x}{1-\dfrac{x}{1-\dfrac{xy}{1-\dfrac{xy}{1-\dfrac{xy^2}{1-\dfrac{xy^2}{1-\ddots}}}}}}}.$$
By use Proposition \[progen\] and Proposition \[progen1\], we obtain $$F_{2\mn13}(x,y)=1+xF_{2\mn13}(x,y)\sum_{d\geq 0} x^dF^d_{2\mn13}(xy,y),$$ and the rest is easy to see.
Fruther results
===============
First of all, let us denote by $G_{\tau;\phi}(x,y)$ the generating function for the number of permutations in $S_n(1\mn3\mn2,\tau)$ such containing $\phi$ exactly $r$ times; that is $$G_{\tau;\phi}(x,z)=\sum_{n\geq 0} x^n\sum_{\pi\in S_n(1\mn3\mn2,\tau)} y^{a_\phi(\pi)},$$ where $a_\phi(\pi)$ is the number of occurrences of $\phi$ in $\pi$. In this section, (similarly to above sections) we find $G_{\tau;\phi}(x,y)$ in terms of continued fractions or by explicit formula, for some cases of $\tau$ and $\phi$.
The generating functions $G_{123;213}(x,y)$ and $G_{321;312}(x,y)$ are given by $$\dfrac{1}
{1-x-x^2(1-y)-\dfrac{x^2y}
{1-x-x^2(1-y)-\dfrac{x^2y}
{1-x-x^2(1-y)-\dfrac{x^2y}{\ddots}}}},$$ or, $$\frac{1-x-x^2+x^2y-\sqrt{(1-x-x^2)^2-2yx^2(1+x+x^2)+x^4y^2}}{2x^2y}.$$
$$G_{123;231}(x,y)=H(x,y)+x^2(1-y)H(x,y)^2,$$ where $H(x,y)=\frac{1}{1-x-x^2yH(x,y)}$, which means number of permutations in $S_n(1\mn3\mn2,123)$ such contains $231$ exactly $r\geq 1$ times is given by $$C_r\left(\binom{n}{2r}+\binom{n-1}{2r+1}\right) +C_{r-1}\binom{n-2}{2r-1},$$ where $C_r$ is the $r$th Catalan number, and for $r=0$ is given by $n$.
The generating functions $G_{213;123}(x,y)$ and $G_{312;321}(x,y)$ given by $$\frac{1-x-x^2+xy-\sqrt{(1-x-x^2)^2-2xy(1-x+x^2)+x^2y^2}}{2xy(1-x)}.$$
As a concluding remark we note that are many questions left to answer. If there exist a bijection between, for example, the set of $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ such containing $r$ times the generalized pattern $21\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, and the set of $1\mn3\mn2$-avoiding permutations in $S_n$ such that containing $r$ times the classically pattern $1\mn2\mn3\mn\dots\mn k$, where $r=0,1,\dots,k-2$.
[99]{} , Generalized permutation patterns and a classification of the Mahonian statistics, [*Séminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire*]{}, B44b:18pp, (2000).
, Generalised pattern avoidance, [*European Journal of Combinatorics*]{}, [**22**]{} (2001) 961–973.
, Permutations avoiding a pair of generalized patterns of length three with exactly one dash, preprint CO/0107044.
, Forbidden subsequences and Chebyshev polynomials, [*Discr. Math.*]{}, [**204**]{} (1999) 119–128.
, Enumeration of subwords in permutations. [ *In Formual power series and algebraic combinatorics (Tempe, 2001)*]{}, Arizona State University 2001, 179–189.
, Continued fractions and catalan problems, [*Elect. J. Combin.*]{} [**7**]{} (2000) \#R1.
, Multi-Avoidance of generalised patterns, to appear.
, The Art of Computer Programming, volume 3, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA 1973.
, Permutations with restricted patterns and Dyck paths, (2000), preprint CO/0002200.
, Criterion for smoothness of Schubert varieties in $\operatorname{Sl}(n)/B$, [*Proc. Indian Acad. Sci.*]{} [**100**]{} no. 1 (1990) 45–52.
, Continued fractions with applications, North-Holland 1992.
, Restricted permutations, continued fractions, and Chebyshev polynomials, [*Electron. J. Combin.*]{}, [**7**]{} (2000) \#R17.
, The number of permutations containing exactly one increasing subsequence of length three, [Discr. Math.]{} [**152**]{} (1996) 307–313.
, The enumeration of permutations with a prescribed number of “forbidden” patterns, [*Adv. Appl. Math.*]{} [**17**]{} (1996) 381–407.
, Restricted permutations [*Europ. J. Comb.*]{} [**6**]{} (1985) 383–406.
, Permutation patterns and continuous fractions, [*Elec. J. Comb.*]{} [**6**]{} no. 1 (1999) \#R38.
, Generating trees and the Catalan and Schröder numbers, [*Discr. Math.*]{} [**146**]{} (1995) 247–262.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have investigated the correlation between the microwave loss and patterning method for coplanar waveguide titanium nitride resonators fabricated on Si wafers. Three different methods were investigated: fluorine- and chlorine-based reactive ion etches and an argon-ion mill. At high microwave probe powers the reactive etched resonators showed low internal loss, whereas the ion-milled samples showed dramatically higher loss. At single-photon powers we found that the fluorine-etched resonators exhibited substantially lower loss than the chlorine-etched ones. We interpret the results by use of numerically calculated filling factors and find that the silicon surface exhibits a higher loss when chlorine-etched than when fluorine-etched. We also find from microscopy that re-deposition of silicon onto the photoresist and side walls is the probable cause for the high loss observed for the ion-milled resonators.'
author:
- Martin Sandberg
- 'Michael R. Vissers'
- 'Jeffrey S. Kline'
- Martin Weides
- Jiansong Gao
- 'David S. Wisbey'
- 'David P. Pappas'
title: Etch Induced Microwave Losses in Titanium Nitride Superconducting Resonators
---
Superconducting resonators are essential building blocks of quantum electrical circuits. They are used for dispersive readout and coupling of superconducting quantum bits, quantum information storage and for detector detector applications [@Wallraff2004; @Leek2010; @DiCarlo2010; @Mariantoni2011; @Day2003]. This has lead to extensive efforts to understand and minimizing the loss of these devices[@Barends2010; @Sage2011; @Wang2009; @Khalil2011; @Gao2008a; @Wenner2011]. One very promising material for building low-loss superconducting resonators is titanium nitride (TiN), which has been shown to have very low loss at high as well as at low drive powers[@Leduc2010; @Vissers2010].
Here we present experimental results relating the observed microwave loss in thin-film TiN resonators to the method of etching used for patterning the devices. The resonators used were frequency-multiplexed quarter-wavelength coplanar waveguides (CPW) on a silicon substrate. On each chip, ten resonators with varying coupling strength and resonance frequencies were coupled to a common feedline[@Pappas2011]. The coupling was designed to give an external quality factor ranging from 0.5 million to 5 million, and a resonance frequency between 4 GHz and 7 GHz, depending on kinetic inductance.
In this work, three different etches were investigated: a fluorine (F)-based reactive ion etch (RIE), a chlorine (Cl)-based RIE and an argon ion mill. The etches were chosen due to their wide use and fundamentally different natures. The F etch has a relatively low etch rate of TiN compared to its Si etch rate, the Cl etch has almost identical etch rates for Si and TiN, and the argon-ion mill is a completely physical etch.
All devices were fabricated on highly resistive intrinsic Si(100) 3" wafers. The wafers were exposed to a hydrofluoric (HF) vapor etch to remove the native oxide prior to the film growth. The HF etch also hydrogen-terminates the Si surface, which has been shown to be crucial for achieving low loss in resonators on Si[@Wisbey2010]. Within minutes after the HF etch, the wafers were transferred into a high-vacuum sputtering system. A TiN film (40 nm thick) was deposited by reactive sputtering at 500 $\tccentigrade$, 250 W DC power, 4 mT chamber pressure, 15 sccm argon flow, 10 sccm nitrogen flow, and an RF-induced 100 V substrate DC bias. The TiN films were patterned into CPW resonators by the use of optical lithography and etched by the use of one of the three different methods. Parameters for the etches are summarized in Table \[EtchTab\].
The wafers were diced into chips and wire-bonded into an aluminium sample box equipped with microwave launchers. To reduce the risk of trapping magnetic flux during cool-down, the sample box was placed inside niobium and cryoperm shields. The devices were then cooled to the base temperature of an adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator ($\approx$ 50 mK). The microwave line used to drive the resonators was attenuated by 80 dB and filtered by the use of low-pass filters with a cut-off frequency of 12 GHz. A high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) placed at the 3 K stage was used to amplify the signal from the sample. To reduce thermal radiation from the HEMT, a 3.5 GHz high- and a 12 GHz low-pass filter as well as a two stage isolator with an isolation of $\approx$ 40 dB were placed between the sample and the HEMT. The microwave response of each device was measured through the scattering parameter $S_{21}$ of the feedline by the use of a vector network analyzer. The internal and external quality factors ($Q_{int}$ and $Q_c$ respectively) were extracted through a circular fitting procedure [@Gao2008b] of the real and imaginary parts of the $S_{21}$ response. To maximize the fit accuracy, resonators with similar $Q_{int}$ and $Q_{c}$ were chosen.
Measurements of six resonators, labelled F1, and F2 for the F-etched, Cl1, Cl2, and Cl3 for the Cl-etched, and IM for the ion-milled, respectively, are presented here. The parameters of the resonators are summarized in Table \[ResTab\]. The extracted internal loss ($\tan(\delta_{int})=1/ Q_{int}$) is plotted in Figure \[lossFig\] as a function of the internal resonator voltage. It is clear that the ion-milled resonator, IM, shows substantially higher internal loss compared to the RIE etched resonators. Among the RIE treated resonators it is also clear that F etched resonators have the lowest internal loss.
The power dependence of the internal loss results from two level systems (TLSs). There are three different surfaces where the TLSs are likely to be located [@Gao2008a]: at the substrate-vacuum (S-V) interface in the CPW gap, the conductor-vacuum (C-V) interface, and the conductor-substrate (C-S) interface. The different surfaces are depicted in the inset of Fig. \[lossFig\] (a). The loss contribution $\delta_V$, from a volume $V$ with dielectric constant $\epsilon_V$, is obtained as[@Khalil2011]: $$\label{eqLoss}
\tan(\delta_{V})=
\tanh(\frac{\hbar\omega_r}{2k_BT})\frac{\tan(\delta_{V}^{0})\int_{V}\epsilon_{V} |E(\vec{r})|^2\left(1+\left(\frac{E(\vec{r})}{E_c}\right)^2\right)^{-1/2} \mathrm{d}v}{\int_{V_{tot}}\epsilon(\vec{r})|E(\vec{r})|^2 \mathrm{d}v}$$ where $\vec{r}$ is the position inside the volume under integration and $V_{tot}$ is the total volume. Here $E_c$ is the saturation electrical field of the TLSs and $E(\vec{r})$ is the local electric field strength, $\delta_V^0$ is the loss at small electric field and low temperature, and $\omega_r=2\pi f_r$ is the (angular) resonance frequency. The device temperature $T$ was found to be low enough that thermal excitation of the TLSs was negligible, *i.e., $T<\hbar\omega_r/2k_B$.*
To fit Eqn. \[eqLoss\] to the measured loss, the electric field $E(\vec{r})$ was numerically calculated on a cross-section of the resonators by the use of a finite-element (FEM) solver. The actual CPW profile was obtained through microscopy on neighboring devices cross sections, see Figure \[SEMfig\]. The sinusoidal voltage dependence along the length of the resonator is also considered when fitting Eqn. \[eqLoss\].
In the calculations we used the following assumptions: fist, that the conductor-substrate (C-S) interface consists of a 2 nm thick SiN$_x$ layer (confirmed from pre-sputtering ellipsometer measurements[@Vissers2010]) with a relative dielectric constant $\epsilon_r = $7.6; second, that the substrate-vacuum (S-V) interface is a 3 nm thick layer with $\epsilon_r =$ 3.9 (dielectric constant of SiO$_2$); third, that the conductor-vacuum (C-V) interface has a $\epsilon_r =$ 10 (value of many metal oxides) and that it is 3 nm thick. We do not know the actual dielectric constant of the C-S interface, but as will be shown later, this is not important as long as $\epsilon_r \gg 1$.
We find that Eqn. \[eqLoss\] fits the power dependence of the loss for the F- and Cl-etched resonators if we include a constant loss term in the expression. The origin of this power-independent loss is, as of yet, not determined. One possible reason for the loss could be, despite the double-layer magnetic shielding, trapped magnetic flux in the vicinity of the resonators[@Song2009]. We find that it varies by two orders of magnitude between the resonators (ranging from $4\times 10^{-8}$ for resonator Fl2 to $1.8\times 10^{-6}$ for resonator Cl1). However, since this loss is much less than the TLS loss at low powers for a given resonator it can be extracted as a fitting parameter.
The power dependence of the loss is well fitted by the use of the calculated electric field at both the S-V and the C-S interface by changing the critical electric field. For resonator F1 and F2 we find $E_c$ = 8 to 10 V$\cdot$m$^{-1}$ for the S-V and $E_c = 12$ V$\cdot$m$^{-1}$ for the C-S interface. For resonator Cl1, Cl2 and Cl3 we find $E_c = $25 to 40 V$\cdot$m$^{-1}$ for both interfaces. The fact that the F-etched and Cl-etched resonator loss data do not fit to the same $E_c$ suggests that the loss is dominated by TLSs in different environments.
The much greater loss observed for the ion-milled resonator IM can, most likely, be attributed to the fence-like structure found on the CPW edges. The fences are formed due to re-deposition of Si onto the edges of the photoresist during the ion-mill process. After the photoresist is stripped off, the fences remains on the edges of the CPW and hence causing the higher loss, see in Figure \[SEMfig\] (d).
To analyze the low-power loss, we calculate the filling factors for the S-V, C-V and C-S interfaces. The filling factor, $F_{V}$, of region $V$ is the ratio of the electric energy stored in region $V$ to the total electric energy stored: $$\label{eqFill}
F_V=\frac{\int_{V}\epsilon_V|E(\vec{r})|^2 \mathrm{d}v}{\int_{V_{tot}}\epsilon(\vec{r})|E(\vec{r})|^2\mathrm{d}v}.$$
The filling factors depend on the geometry of the devices. It has previously been shown that the loss is well explained through filling factor arguments as the resonator trench is changed [@Vissers2012]. Assuming that all TLSs are located at the interfaces, the total TLS loss becomes: $$\label{eqLowLoss}
\delta_{TLS}=F_{\mathrm{S\mbox{-}V}}\delta_{\mathrm{S\mbox{-}V}}+F_{\mathrm{C\mbox{-}V}}\delta_{\mathrm{C\mbox{-}V}}+F_{\mathrm{C\mbox{-}S}}\delta_{\mathrm{C\mbox{-}S}}.$$
The filling factors for the different resonators are shown in Figure \[fillfig\]. We find that the filling factor of the C-V interface is about one order of magnitude smaller than that of the S-V and C-S interfaces. This agrees with the result of Wenner *et al. [@Wenner2011], indicating that the loss at the conductor surface would have to be one order of magnitude higher than the loss at the other interfaces in order to dominate. This is interesting, since the electric field in the Si substrate and the vacuum are nominally the same, thus, by looking only at Eqn. \[eqFill\], one can easily be led to be believe the participation ratios of the top and bottom conductor interfaces should also be nominally the same. The much lower filling factor of the top surface comes from the fact that it is the perpendicular displacement field ($D_{\perp}=\epsilon E_{\perp}$), and not the electric field that has to be continuous at the interface. The imposed boundary condition on $D_{\perp}$ causes the electric field to be either enhanced or suppressed when going to a region with higher $\epsilon_r$ or lower $\epsilon_r$, respectively. Therefore, relatively high $\epsilon_r$ of the conductor interfaces compared to the substrate is desirable to reduce the loss.*
In the calculation of the filling factor of the C-V interface, we assumed $\epsilon_{r}$ = 10. If we instead assume that the top surface is TiO$_x$ ($\epsilon_{r} \gtrsim$ 40), the filling factor would be suppressed even further.
To compare the TLS losses of the resonators we first subtract the power-independent background loss. We then compare resonators Cl1 and F1, which are fabricated on the same Si wafer. Using Eqn. \[eqLowLoss\] and assuming that the loss of the C-S interface $\delta_{\mathrm{C\mbox{-}S}}$ is equal for the two resonators, we find that $\delta_{\mathrm{C\mbox{-}S}} \leq 0.4\times 10^{-3}$. The loss of the F-etched trench is $\delta_{\mathrm{S\mbox{-}V}} \leq 0.9\times 10^{-3}$. Finally, upper and lower bounds for the Cl-etched trench, $1.8\times 10^{-3} \leq \delta_{\mathrm{S\mbox{-}V}} \leq 3.16\times 10^{-3}$ are obtained. If we compare resonators F2 and Cl2 that are co-fabricated on a different wafer, we find that $\delta_{\mathrm{S\mbox{-}V}} \leq 1.8\times10^{-3}$, $\delta_{\mathrm{C\mbox{-}S}} \leq 0.7\times10^{-3}$ and $3.45\times 10^{-3} \leq \delta_{\mathrm{S\mbox{-}V}} \leq 5.3\times 10^{-3}$.
In both cases the loss of the F-etched trench is lower by at least a factor of two than the loss of the Cl-etched trench. Why the loss varies so much between wafers is not clear. Possible explanations include that the removal of photoresist was done under different conditions (different removers and temperatures) or that the assumptions made for the calculations of the filling factors are not correct. The loss of resonator Cl3 agrees well with the loss of resonator Cl1, considering the filling factors of the S-V and C-S interfaces; see figure \[fillfig\]. Since the changes in filling factors are almost identical for the two interfaces, we cannot quantify the loss contribution from each region.
The higher loss of the Cl-etched trench is also accompanied by a very high phase noise of the resonator. We found that the phase noise at 1 kHz of the Cl-etched trench is two orders of magnitude higher than what would been found for F-etched niobium resonators of identical geometry.
There are several possible reasons why the Cl-etched surfaces have a higher loss. One is that the surface layer of the F-etched trench could have a lower dielectric constant, due to deposition of fluorocarbon polymers during the etch. This would decrease the filling factor of the S-V region and hence decrease the contribution to the total loss. Another possible reason for the higher loss is radiation damage. We have investigated two methods of decreasing the loss due to the Cl etch. First, we decreased the DC bias during the etch to 0 V to reduce potential ion damage. This did not notability decrease the loss of the resonator. Secondly we performed a short (11 seconds) F etch. This decreased the measured loss of the Cl-etched resonator by more than a factor of two. These results lead us to believe that the higher loss is most likely due to the result of a lower etch rate and potentially also the presence of boron in the etch gas, which could be implanted into the Si substrate and act as a dopant. The higher etch rate of the F-process is also preferred, because any induced defects get removed at a higher rate, leaving fewer defects at the substrate surface[@Fonash1990].
In conclusion, we have investigated how different etch processes affect the loss of TiN CPW resonators on Si substrates. We found the highest loss for resonators patterned by an Ar-ion mill. We attribute the high loss to a fence-like structure found on the edges of the CPW. The fence structures are formed due to re-deposition of Si onto the photoresist during processing.
The lowest loss was observed for a F-based RIE process. From calculated filling factors we conclude that the loss of the F-processed Si surface is lowered by at least a factor of two than that of the Cl-processed surface. We found that it is the loss originating from the CPW trench that dominates for the Cl-etched resonators. The trench loss is related to the etch chemistry and not to the DC bias or the amount of trenching.
These results suggest that even higher quality factors could be achieve by optimizing the etch as well as by post-etch processing of the resonators. However, it is also possible that the remaining loss for the F-etched resonator is dominated by the conductor-substrate interface or even the bulk loss of the substrate. In this case, the loss could be lower by going to larger geometries.
This work was supported by the NIST Quantum Information initiative. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressly or implied, of the U.S. government.
Etch Pressure \[mT\] Gas Flow \[sccm\] Power \[W\] DC bias \[V\] Etch rate \[nm/s\]
------ ----------------- --------- --------------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------------
F 100 SF$_6$ 50 80 -68 TiN/Si: 1/20
Cl 30 Cl 10 200 -200 TiN/Si: 3/3
BCl$_3$ 30
Etch Pressure \[mT\] Gas Flow \[sccm\] Beam current \[mA\] Beam voltage \[V\] Etch rate \[nm/s\]
IM 100 Ar 40 40 300 TiN/Si: 0.033/0.16
----------- ------ -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- -------------- -------------- -------- --------- -------
Resonator Etch Depth Gap Width Undercut C L$_{g}$ L$_k$ $\ell$ f$_r$ Q$_c$
\[nm\] \[$\mu$m\] \[$\mu$m\] \[nm\] \[pF/m\] \[$\mu$H/m\] \[$\mu$H/m\] \[mm\] \[GHz\]
IM Ar 650 2 3 0 - - - - 6.612 168k
Cl1 Cl 270 1.9 3.0 0 176 0.42 0.52 3.318 5.58 140k
Cl2 Cl 200 2 3.0 0 187 0.42 0.42 3.318 6.02 140k
Cl3 Cl 40 2.1 2.7 0 189 0.45 1.02 3.318 4.32 300k
Fl1 F 1200 2.3 2.4 150 124 0.47 0.71 3.114 6.29 1360k
Fl2 F 200 2 3 10 183 0.42 0.44 3.05 6.53 602k
----------- ------ -------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- -------------- -------------- -------- --------- -------
![\[lossFig\] (a) Sketch of a coplanar waveguide structure. Here G denotes the gap between the ground plane and the centerstrip, W the width of the center strip, D the depth of the trench, and T the thickness of the TiN film. The inset shows the top corner of the CPW center strip and illustrates the position of substrate-vacuum (S-V), conductor-vacuum (C-V), and conductor-substrate (C-S) interfaces in the cross-section of the CPW. (b) Extracted internal loss as a function of internal voltage of the resonators described in Table \[ResTab\]. The different markers represent the different resonators: ($\ocircle$) Fl1, ($\Box$) Fl2,($\rhd$) Cl1, ($\triangle$) Cl2, ($\Diamond$) Cl3 and ($\times$) IM. The lines are fits of Eqn.\[eqLoss\] by the use of the calculated electric field in region S-V (solid) and region C-S (dashed).](Figure_1_a_b.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[SEMfig\]SEM images of different etched samples. (a) Trenched F-etch Fl1. (b) Trenched Cl-etch Cl1. (c) Non trenched Cl-etch Cl3. (d) Trenched ion milled IM. From the cross sections it is clear that the F-etched resonator has an undercut profile that is not observed for the Cl-etched resonators. It can also be seen that the ion-milled profile has re-deposited material on the top and sides of the TiN film.](Figure_2_a_b_c_d.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[fillfig\] Calculated filling factors of the substrate-vacuum (S-V), conductor-vacuum (C-V), and conductor-substrate (C-S) interfaces for resonators F1, F2, Cl1, Cl2 and Cl3. Only a minor part of the total electric energy is stored at the interfaces with $\sim$ 90 % of the total electric energy is stored in the bulk of the Si substrate and only $\sim$ 10 % is stored in the vacuum. The difference in measured loss between the two Cl-etched resonator Cl1 and Cl3 is well explained by the difference in filling factors of the S-V and C-S interfaces .](Figure_3.eps){width="8cm"}
[10]{}
Wallraff, A., Schuster, D. I., Blais, A., Frunzio, L., Majer, J., Kumar, S., Girvin, S. M., and Schoelkopf, R. J. (September), 0–5 (2004).
Leek, P. J., Baur, M., Fink, J. M., Bianchetti, R., Steffen, L., Filipp, S., and Wallraff, a. (10), 6–9 March (2010).
DiCarlo, L., Reed, M. D., Sun, L., Johnson, B. R., Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M., Frunzio, L., Girvin, S. M., Devoret, M. H., and Schoelkopf, R. J. (7315), 574–578 September (2010).
Mariantoni, M., Wang, H., Bialczak, R. C., Lenander, M., Lucero, E., Neeley, M., O’Connell, a. D., Sank, D., Weides, M., Wenner, J., Yamamoto, T., Yin, Y., Zhao, J., Martinis, J. M., and Cleland, A. N. (4), 287–293 January (2011).
Day, P. K., Leduc, H. G., Mazin, B. A., Vayonakis, A., and Zmuidzinas, J. (October), 12–14 (2003).
Barends, R., Vercruyssen, N., Endo, A., de Visser, P. J., Zijlstra, T., Klapwijk, T. M., and Baselmans, J. J. a. (3), 033507 (2010).
Sage, J. M., Bolkhovsky, V., Oliver, W. D., Turek, B., and Welander, P. B. (6), 063915 (2011).
Wang, H., Hofheinz, M., Wenner, J., Ansmann, M., Bialczak, R. C., Lenander, M., Lucero, E., Neeley, M., O’Connell, A. D., Sank, D., Weides, M., Cleland, A. N., and Martinis, J. M. (23), 233508 (2009).
Khalil, M. S., Wellstood, F. C., and Osborn, K. D. (3), 879–882 (2011).
Gao, J., Daal, M., Vayonakis, A., Kumar, S., Zmuidzinas, J., Sadoulet, B., Mazin, B. A., Day, P. K., and Leduc, H. G. (15), 152505 (2008).
Wenner, J., Barends, R., Bialczak, R. C., Chen, Y., Kelly, J., Lucero, E., Mariantoni, M., Megrant, a., O’Malley, P. J. J., Sank, D., Vainsencher, A., Wang, H., White, T. C., Yin, Y., Zhao, J., Cleland, A. N., and Martinis, J. M. (11), 113513 (2011).
Leduc, H. G., Bumble, B., Day, P. K., Eom, B. H., Gao, J., Golwala, S., Mazin, B. A., McHugh, S., Merrill, A., Moore, D. C., Noroozian, O., Turner, A. D., and Zmuidzinas, J. (10), 102509 (2010).
Vissers, M. R., Gao, J., Wisbey, D. S., Hite, D. A., Tsuei, C. C., Corcoles, A. D., Steffen, M., and Pappas, D. P. (23), 232509 (2010).
Pappas, D. P., Vissers, M. R., Wisbey, D. S., Kline, J. S., and Gao, J. (3), 871–874 (2011).
Wisbey, D. S., Gao, J., Vissers, M. R., da Silva, F. C. S., Kline, J. S., Vale, L., and Pappas, D. P. (9), 093918 (2010).
Gao, J.
Song, C., Heitmann, T., DeFeo, M., Yu, K., McDermott, R., Neeley, M., Martinis, J., and Plourde, B. (17), 174512 (2009).
Vissers, M. R., Kline, J. S., Gao, J., Wisbey, D. S., and Pappas, D. P. (8), 082602 (2012).
Fonash, S. J. (12), 3885 (1990).
Sheen, D. M., Ali, S. M., Oates, D. E., Withers, R. S., and Kong, J. A. (2), 108–115 (1991).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss model independent methods to measure the $P$-parity of the $\Theta^+$-pentaquark, in the simplest processes of photoproduction, $\gamma+N\to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$, using definite relations between T-even polarization observables, which depend on the $P$-parity of the $\Theta^+$ baryon (with respect to the $NK$ system). One method, which holds for any photon energy and any $K$ meson production angle, is based on the relation between the $\Sigma_B$ asymmetry (induced by a linearly polarized photon beam, with unpolarized target) and the $D_{nn}$ component of the depolarization tensor (for unpolarized photon beam). Another method, which applies in collinear kinematics (or in threshold conditions), is related to the sign of the $D_{nn}$ component, with linearly polarized photon beam.'
author:
- 'Michail P. Rekalo'
- 'Egle Tomasi-Gustafsson'
title: 'Model-independent methods to measure the $P$-parity of the $\Theta^+$-pentaquark in photoproduction experiments'
---
The experimental determination of the $P$-parity of the $\Theta^+$-pentaquark is important for the understanding of the underlying structure of this resonance [@Di97; @Ja03; @St03; @Ho03; @Cs03; @Sa03; @Zh03a; @Bi03], therefore, several suggestions concerning different processes, have been recently proposed in the literature [@Zh03].
The simplest photoproduction reaction of the $\Theta^+$-baryon, $\gamma+N\to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$, is in principle interesting for the determination of the $\Theta^+$ parity: all the observables (the differential cross section and the polarization effects) depend of course on the $P$-parity. However different models give different predictions on the angular and $E_{\gamma}$ behavior of the observables. Presently, the choice of a reliable model for the considered reaction is extremely difficult - due to the absence of the necessary experimental information: too much freedom is left in building a model, from the choice of an adequate approach to the knowledge of necessary coupling constants and phenomenological form factors. In this way, the determination of the P-parity would be ambiguous, because model dependent.
A similar example is given by photo- end electro-production of strange particles, where a wide number of different models give a comparable description of the available data. Different reaction mechanisms with many unknown parameters and constants (to be determined from the data), have been suggested, but their predictive power is quite poor, and any new experimental information require, as a rule, to update the fitting procedure [@Sa03b].
One can note that, in the first studies on photo- end electro-production of strange particles, both possibilities on the K-meson $P$-parity, $P(K)=\pm 1$, were systematically considered in the theoretical analysis [@Fa61]. Later on, many data on $\gamma+N\to K+Y$ and $e^-+N\to e^-+K+Y$, ($Y=\Lambda$ or $\Sigma$ hyperon) were collected. Their phenomenological interpretation relies on the negative $P$-parity of the $K$ meson (or, more exactly, the relative $P$-parity with respect to the $NY$ system). There is a so large arbitrariness in the theoretical approaches, that it is, [*a priori*]{}, commonly assumed, for simplicity, that the $ K$ meson $P$ parity is negative. Following the quark model, the $K$ meson is considered to be a pseudoscalar particle. But, in our opinion, the existing data and models on photo- and electro-production of strange particles can not be considered a proof of the pseudoscalar nature of the $K$-meson. The situation for $\gamma+N\to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$ is, in this respect, even more arbitrary, due to the lack of experimental data.
The same situation exists with charmed particles, mesons and baryons, because the $P$-parity of the lightest state, which is important for the identification of the parity of the excited charmed particles, is experimentally unknown. In the PDG tables [@PDG], one can read: [*“The parity of the lowest $\Lambda_c^+$ is defined to be positive, (as are the parities of the proton, neutron and $\Lambda$)”*]{} - with respect to the $\Lambda_c$-hyperon - or [*“ $I,$ $J,$ $P$ need confirmation”*]{} - concerning the charmed meson.
The problem of the $P$-parity of particles has to be solved independently on any model: parity is a fundamental property of a particle and affects the predictions of the models for particle photoproduction.
The basic question is therefore if it is possible, in general, i.e. in a model independent way, to determine the $P$-parity of the particles produced in the reaction $\gamma+N\to M+B$, where $M$ is a meson with zero spin and $B$ is a baryon with spin 1/2. More exactly, we are considering the following processes: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma +N &\to &\overline{K}+\Theta^+,\nonumber \\
\gamma +N &\to &K+Y,~Y=\Lambda \mbox{~ or~} \Sigma\label{eq:reac}, \\
\gamma +N &\to &\overline{D}+Y_c,~Y_c=\Lambda_c \mbox{~ or~}\Sigma_c.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The purpose of this paper is to give model independent relations between polarization observables for all processes (\[eq:reac\]), which allow, in principle, to determine the quoted P-parities.
The idea to determine the $P$-parity of particles through relations between polarization observables is not new. Many years ago it has been suggested [@Bi58; @Bo59] to compare the analyzing power ${\cal A}$ in the processes: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^-+\vec p &\to &K^0 +\Lambda,\nonumber \\
K^-+\vec p &\to &\pi^0+\Lambda, \label{eq:reac1} \end{aligned}$$ induced by the proton target polarization, with the transversal polarization ${\cal P}$ of the produced $\Lambda$ hyperon (on unpolarized target), because the relation $${\cal P}=-{\cal A} P(N\Lambda K)
\label{eq:mat}$$ holds for any reaction mechanism, where $P(N\Lambda K)$ is the $K$ meson $P$-parity with respect to the $ N\Lambda$ reference frame. Let us recall here that one can not define an ’absolute’ kaon $P$-parity, as in case of neutral particles, $\gamma$, $\pi^0$, $\eta$, $\rho^0$, ..., because the kaon has nonzero hypercharge, and this quantum number conserves in strong and electromagnetic interactions. Such experiment, fundamental and relatively simple, has not yet been realized.
More recently, other possibilities of model independent measurements of the kaon $P$-parity, related to polarization phenomena in the processes $p+p\to K+p+\Lambda(\Sigma)$, in the near threshold region have been suggested [@Pa99].
These methods can also be applied to the determination of the $P$-parity of the $\Theta^+$ hyperon, through the study of polarization phenomena in the corresponding reactions of $\Theta^+$-production in $pp$ collisions: $$\begin{aligned}
p+ p &\to &\pi^+ + \Lambda^0 +\Theta^+,\nonumber \\
p+ p &\to &\overline{K}^0+p + \Theta^+. \label{eq:reac2} \end{aligned}$$ Again, in both reactions (\[eq:reac2\]), we refer to the relative $\Theta^+$ parity, i.e. the $P$-parity of the $\pi\Lambda\theta^+$ or $p\overline{K}^0\Theta^+$ system, due to the conservation of strangeness in the production and the decay of $\Theta^+$.
Similarly, it is possible to determine the $\Theta^+$ $P$-parity in the photoproduction processes $\gamma +N \to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$ without any assumption about the reaction mechanism, in different ways.
Due to the conservation of strangeness in the considered photoproduction process, the notion of absolute $\Theta^+$ $P$-parity has no physical meaning. Instead, one considers the relative parity - with respect to the N$\overline{K}$-system, $\Pi(\Theta)=P(\Theta N\overline{K})$. This definition has also the advantage to be free from any assumption about the $K$-meson parity. Moreover, all the dynamics of the process $\gamma +N \to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$ depends on the $\Theta^+$-parity, only through $\Pi(\Theta)$. Therefore, throughout the paper, the $\Theta^+$ $P$-parity, actually means $\Pi(\Theta)=P(\Theta N\overline{K})$, i.e. the relative parity of $\Theta^+$ with respect to the N$\overline{K}$-system. Such convention is coherent with the fact that $\Theta^+\to N\overline{K}$ is the main decay of the $\Theta^+$-hyperon.
Let us firstly consider the case of collinear kinematics for $\gamma +N \to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$, where helicity conservation results in one spin structure for the matrix element. The expression of the amplitude depends on the discussed $P$-parity [@Re03] and can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{col}^{(\pm)} &= &\chi_2^{\dagger}
{\cal F}_{col}^{(\pm)}\chi_1,\label{eq:eq4}\\
{\cal F}_{col}^{(+)} &= &\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\epsilon\times\hat{\vec k}
f^{(+)}(E_{\gamma}), \mbox{~if~} \Pi(\Theta) =+1,\label{eq:eq5}\\
{\cal F}_{col}^{(-)} &= &\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\epsilon f^{(-)}(E_{\gamma}), \mbox{~if~} \Pi(\Theta) =-1,\label{eq:eq6}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec \epsilon$ is the real photon polarization vector, $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ are the two-component spinors of the initial nucleon and the final baryon, $\hat{\vec k}$ is the unit vector along the three momenta of the photon beam (and of the $K-$meson) in the reaction center of mass system (CMS), $f^{(\pm)}(E_{\gamma})$ are the collinear amplitudes, where the upper indexes correspond to $P(N\Theta D)=\pm 1$, $\vec\epsilon \cdot\hat{\vec k} =0$.
Due to the presence of a single allowed amplitude in Eq. (\[eq:eq4\]), all polarization phenomena have definite numerical values, which are independent on the model chosen for $f^{(\pm)}(E_{\gamma})$. Moreover all nonzero polarization effects take their maximal (absolute) value.
The spin structures Eqs. (\[eq:eq5\]) and (\[eq:eq6\]) are different, but as the single and double spin observables coincide, they can be distinguished only at the level of triple spin polarization correlations. This require the measurement of the dependence of the final baryon polarization on the polarization of the nucleon target, when the photon beam is linearly polarized.
Using Eqs. (\[eq:eq4\]), (\[eq:eq5\]) and (\[eq:eq6\]), one can find: $${\cal P}_{2x}=-\Pi(\Theta){\cal P}_{1x},~{\cal P}_{2y}=-\Pi(\Theta) {\cal P}_{2x},
\label{eq:pxx}$$ taking the $z$-axis along $\hat{\vec k}$ and the $x$-axis along the vector $\vec\epsilon$ of the photon linear polarization, when $\vec{\cal P}_{1,2}$ are the polarization vectors of the nucleon target and the produced $\Theta^+$.
Note that the same spin structure, Eqs. (\[eq:eq5\]) and (\[eq:eq6\]) describes the threshold amplitude, when the final particles are produced in S-state. In this case, the angular distribution of the emitted particles is isotropic in the CMS, and again, only one physical direction is defined.
the second method we are suggesting holds for any kinematical conditions, i.e. for any $E_{\gamma}$ and $\cos\theta$ ($\theta$ is the $\overline{K}$ meson production angle). The following model independent relation holds between polarization observables in any reaction $\gamma+N\to M+B(1/2^{\pm})$ [@ETG03]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_B(E_{\gamma},\cos\theta)&= & -P(BNM) D_{nn}(E_{\gamma},\cos\theta)\noindent\\
\Sigma_B(E_{\gamma},\cos\theta)&= &\displaystyle\frac{
\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma_{\perp}}{d\Omega}-
\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma_{\parallel}}{d\Omega}}
{
\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma_{\perp}}{d\Omega}+
\displaystyle\frac{d\sigma_{\parallel}}{d\Omega}
}
\label{eq:eq8}\end{aligned}$$ where $P(BNM)$ is the relative parity of $B$, with respect to the $NM$-system, $d\sigma_{\perp}/{d\Omega}(d\sigma_{\parallel}/{d\Omega})$ is the differential cross section for $\vec\gamma+N\to M+B$ with a linearly polarized photon beam, when the three vector $\vec\epsilon$ is transversal (parallel) to the reaction plane, and $D_{nn}$ is a specific component of the depolarization tensor, which characterizes the $B$-polarization normal to the reaction plane, in collisions of unpolarized photon beam with a nucleon target polarized normally to the reaction plane.
Note that in collinear kinematics, or at the reaction threshold, the relation (\[eq:eq8\]) is equivalent to the identity $0=0$, because, in such conditions the reaction plane can not be defined, so that both polarization observables, $\Sigma_B$ and $D_{nn}$ are proportional to $\sin^2\theta$ ($\to 0$), independently on the reaction mechanism.
One can see that the model independent methods (which allow to determine the $\Theta^+$ $P$-parity in $\gamma +N \to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$), Eqs. (\[eq:pxx\]) and Eq. (\[eq:eq8\]), require the measurement of the polarization of the produced baryon. In case of associative production of strange ($K+Y$) or charmed ($\overline{D}+\Lambda_c$) particles, such measurements are relatively easy, because the hyperons $Y$ ($\Lambda$ or $\Sigma$) and $\Lambda_c^+$, decaying through weak interaction, are self analyzing particles. Therefore for charm photoproduction such measurements can be done by the running COMPASS experiment [@COMPASS], with a polarized target and a muon beam, which can generate linearly polarized photons.
In case of $ \Theta^+$ photoproduction, the situation is more difficult, because the polarization of the $ \Theta^+$ baryon can be measured only through the measurement of the proton polarization in the decay $\Theta^+\to p+K^0$. Therefore we agree with Ref. [@Thomas]: “[*Even under these ideal conditions, the decay angular distribution of this strongly decaying particle gives information only on the spin and not on the parity, unless the polarization of the final nucleon is measured*]{}”, but, contrary to Ref. [@Thomas], we showed here that the polarization of $ \Theta^+$ in photoproduction reactions, may give access to the $ \Theta^+$ parity, in a model independent way. We suggested above two different methods, one of which requires the measurement of the final nucleon polarization, to determine the $ \Theta^+$ parity in $\gamma +N \to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$. These methods represent the theoretical solution of the problem of the model-independent determination of the $ \Theta^+$ parity. The realization of the suggested experiments may be difficult from the experimental point of view, but in the literature one can find only model-dependent methods, not necessarily more simple.
Let us mention that the model independent methods, based on Eq. \[eq:mat\], can be applied also for the measurement of the $P$-parity of $\Theta^+$ and charm particles, through other binary reactions: $$K+N\to \pi+\Theta^+,~\pi+N\to \overline{K}+\Theta^+,~\pi+N\to\overline{D}+Y_c.
\label{eq:eq9}$$ But, again, it is a difficult problem for the $\Theta^+$ baryon, because its transversal polarization has to be compared with the analyzing power.
For charmed particles, this method can be considered the most simple, as it involves the measurement of single-spin observables only for the determination of two T-odd polarization observables. The two independent amplitudes, which characterize the general spin structure of the matrix elements for each of the processes (\[eq:eq9\]), have to be complex, with nonzero relative phase. Such condition is [*a priori*]{} satisfied for $\Theta^+$ production in $\pi N$ and $KN$-collisions, in the near threshold region, where the S-channel contributions of different $N^*$ or $Y^*$ resonances can generate large T-odd polarization effects. Evidently, for charm particle production, such resonance mechanisms are not working, but the necessary phase could be generated by $D$ and $D^*$ Regge contributions, for example.
In conclusion, the model independent determination of the $\Theta^+$ parity could be realized, in principle, using definite relations between polarization observables, in reactions as $ \gamma+N\to \overline{K}+\Theta^+$, $K+N\to\pi+\Theta^+$, $\pi+N\to\overline{K}+\Theta^+$. These procedures are based on the same physics as the corresponding methods suggested for strange or charm particle production, but in the first case, they involve difficult experiments, which require the measurement of the $\Theta^+$ polarization.
Another suggestion, which allows to avoid this problem, can be done, using again the analogy with strange particle production. The reactions $p+p\to \pi^+ +\Lambda^0+\Theta^+$, $p+p\to \overline{K}^0+p+\Theta^+$, which are similar to $p+p\to K^++\Lambda+p$ [@Pa99], can be used for the determination of the $P$-parity of the $\Theta^+$ baryon. The same polarization phenomena can be considered for the process $p+p\to\Theta^+ +\Sigma^+$, where instead of the $\Theta^+$ polarization, the polarization of the $\Sigma^+$ hyperon (a self analyzing particle) is more experimentally accessible.
These methods are, in general, equivalent, but in case of $pp$-collisions there are different possibilities to avoid the measurement of the $\Theta^+$ polarization, considering the collisions of both polarized protons or the polarization transfer coefficients, from a polarized proton beam (with unpolarized proton target) to the produced $\Lambda$ or $\Sigma$ hyperons. This will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming paper.
We are grateful to A. Gal for interesting remarks on methods to measure the kaon parity, and to K. Kakayama for driving our attention to a precise definition of the parity, for the $\Theta^+$-hyperon.
D. Diakonov, V. Petrov and M. V. Polyakov, Z. Phys. A [**359**]{}, 305 (1997). R. L. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 232003 (2003). F. Stancu and D. O. Riska, Phys. Lett. B [**575**]{}, 242 (2003). A. Hosaka, Phys. Lett. B [**571**]{}, 55 (2003). F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and T. G. Kovacs, JHEP [**0311**]{}, 070 (2003). S. Sasaki, arXiv:hep-lat/0310014. S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 232002 (2003). R. Bijker, M. M. Giannini and E. Santopinto, arXiv:hep-ph/0310281.
Q. Zhao and J. S. Al-Khalili, arXiv:hep-ph/0312348 and refs therein. B. Saghai, arXiv:nucl-th/0310025 and refs therein.
Fayazuddin, Phys. Rev. [**123**]{}, 1882, (1961).
K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D 66**]{}, 010001 (2002).
S. Bilenky, Sov. Phys. JETP [**35**]{}, 827 (1958). A. Bohr, Nucl. Phys. [**10**]{}, 486 (1959). N. K. Pak and M. P. Rekalo, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 077501 (1999). M. P. Rekalo and E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Phys. Rev. C [**67**]{}, 038501 (2003). E. Tomasi-Gustafsson and M. P. Rekalo, arXiv:hep-ph/0310172, to appear in Phys. Rev. D.
G. Baum [*et al.*]{} \[COMPASS Collaboration\], CERN-SPSLC-96-14 A. W. Thomas, K. Hicks and A. Hosaka, arXiv:hep-ph/0312083.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Frank P. Pijpers'
title: Helioseismic determination of the solar gravitational quadrupole moment
---
mn.tex epsf.tex
=1 \#1)[by -\#1 [()]{} by \#1]{} \#1\#2[1[ \#2[(]{}]{}\#1[(]{}]{} =1 \#1[by -\#1 by \#1]{} \#1\#2[1[ \#2]{}\#1]{} \#1\][[**\#1\]**]{}]{} \#1[to 0pt[\#1]{}]{} \#1[[\#1r]{}]{} \#1[[\^2 \#1r\^2]{}]{} \#1[[\#1u]{}]{}
Introduction
============
For observations that are well resolved in space and in time the oscillations of the Sun can be decomposed into its pulsation eigenmodes, which are products of functions of radius and of spherical harmonic functions. Each mode, and therefore each measured oscillation frequency, is uniquely identified by three numbers : the radial order $n$, and the degree $l$ and the azimuthal order $m$ of the spherical harmonic. The solar rotation produces oscillation frequencies that are split into multiplets. The relationship between the mode frequencies and the rotation is : $$2\pi {\nu_{nlm} - \nu_{nl\,-m}\over 2 m}\ =\ \int\limits_0^1
\int\limits_{-1}^1\, {\rm d} x\,
{\rm d}\cos \theta\, K_{nlm}(x,\theta) \Omega(x,\theta)
\eqno\neqn$$ where $x = r/R_\odot$ is the fractional radius, $R_\odot$ is the radius of the Sun, and $\theta$ the colatitude. The $K_{nlm}$ are the mode kernels for rotation. The Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG) produces values for the splittings through their data-reduction pipeline which are then available for inversion of the above integral relation. The Solar Heliospheric Satellite (SoHO) SOI/MDI instrument pipe-line generally produces Ritzwoller-Lavely a-coefficients (Ritzwoller & Lavely, 1991), instead of individual splittings. The relation between these a-coefficients and the rotation rate is a linear integral equation very similar to ) although with different kernels. Explicit expressions for the kernels for both cases can be found in e.g. Pijpers (1997).
Using these data it is possible to determine the internal rotation rate of the Sun using inverse techniques. Results of such inversions can be found in e.g. Thompson (1996) and Schou (1997). Apart from the resolved rotation rate, there are some global properties of the Sun of astrophysical interest, which are related to the internal rotation rate through integral equations. One of these quantities is the total angular momentum $H$ of the Sun which is related to the internal rotation rate through : $$H\equiv\int\limits_{0}^{1} {\rm d}x \int\limits_{-1}^{1} {\rm d}\cos\theta
\ {\cal I} \Omega (x, \theta)
\eqno\neqn$$ with the moment of inertia kernel ${\cal I}$ : $${\cal I} = 2\pi R_\odot^5 \rho x^4 (1 -\cos^2 \theta)
\eqno\neqn$$ where $\rho$ is the density inside the Sun. Another is the total kinetic energy $T$ in rotation which is given by : $$T\equiv\int\limits_{0}^{1} {\rm d}x \int\limits_{-1}^{1} {\rm d}\cos\theta
\ {1\over 2}{\cal I} \Omega^2 (x, \theta)
\eqno\neqn$$ Since the total angular momentum is related linearly to the rotation rate $\Omega$ it is possible to construct the kernel ${\cal I}$ directly from a linear combination of the individual model kernels (or a-coefficient kernels) using for instance the technique of Subtractive Optimally Localized Averages (SOLA) (cf. Pijpers and Thompson, 1992, 1994) as was done using GONG data by Pijpers (1998). This avoids the circuitous route of first determining the resolved rotation rate and then re-integrating. The reasons for doing this are that it can have better properties from the point of view propagation of the measurement errors, as well as avoiding systematic errors introduced at each computational step and it is computationally much less expensive. It is not possible to do the same for the kinetic energy since this is quadratic in the rotation rate. To determine $T$, one has to either follow the route of determining the resolved rotation rate, taking the square and then re-integrating, or one must make use of the second order splittings which are generally much less well-determined and are affected by physical effects other than rotation such as internal magnetic fields (cf. Gough & Thompson, 1990).
Another quantity of particular interest is the gravitational quadrupole moment $J_2$ of the Sun, caused by its flattening due to the rotation. The gravitational quadrupole moment $J_2$ of the Sun is that component of the gravitational field corresponding to the second Legendre polynomial as a function of co-latitude in an expansion of the gravitational field on Legendre polynomials. It is related to the solar oblateness $\Delta_\phi$, the ellipticity of the visible solar disk, as $J_2 = {2\over 3}
\Delta_\phi$. The gravitational quadrupole moment of the Sun modifies the precession of the orbits of the planets. Therefore in using for instance the precession of the orbit of Mercury for testing the prediction from GR it is necessary to know $J_2$. Expressions for the integral relation between $J_2$ and the internal rotation rate of the Sun have been derived for special cases of a rotation rate dependent on the radius only, or on simple parameterizations with respect to latitude (cf. Gough, 1981, 1982 ; Ulrich & Hawkins, 1981). More general expressions have been given by Dziembowski & Goode (1992) who expand the rotation rate by projection onto Legendre polynomials. However it can be shown that this is a somewhat cumbersome approach and quite simple expressions can be found even for a general distribution of $\Omega (x, \theta)$.
In section 2, the integral relation between the gravitational quadrupole moment of the Sun and a general internal rotation rate is given. In section 3 the results are given of performing the direct inversion for $H$ and the values for $T$ and $J_2$ obtained by taking the square of the resolved rotation rate and re-integrating, using data from GONG and using data from SOI/MDI on board SoHO. Conclusions are presented in section 4.
The gravitational quadrupole moment
===================================
The general expressions relating the various moments of the gravitational potential of rotating stars to their rotation rate have been given by Goldreich & Schubert (1968) and by Lebovitz (1970). These lead to what is essentially Clairaut-Legendre equations for the moments. For convenience the steps will be briefly repeated here. Starting point are Poisson’s equation which relates the gravitational potential to the density distribution : $$\nabla^2 \phi = -4 \pi G \rho\ ,
\eqno\neqn$$ and the equation of motion : $$\rho\nabla\phi = \nabla p - \rho\Omega (r, \theta)^2 r \sin\theta {\bf\pomega}
\eqno\neqn$$ where $\phi$ is the gravitational potential, $G$ is the constant of gravity, $\rho$ and $p$ are the gas density and pressure respectively, and $\Omega$ is the rotation rate which is a function of radius $r$ and co-latitude $\theta$. ${\bf\pomega}$ is a unit vector perpendicular to the rotation axis. Writing equation ) out in components yields : $$\eqalign{
\rho \ddr{\phi} &= \ddr{p} - \rho r (1- u^2) \Omega (r,u)^2 \cr
\rho \ddu{\phi} &= \ddu{p} + \rho r^2 u \Omega (r,u)^2 \cr
}
\eqno\neqn$$ in which $u\equiv\cos\theta$. Following the treatment of Goldreich & Schubert (1968) and Lebovitz (1970) for slowly rotating stars all quantities are described in terms of perturbations of the spherically symmetric non-rotating star, i.e. $\Omega^2$ is treated as a quantity of first order in a small parameter expansion. Subscripts $0$ refer to the non-rotating configuration, and $1$ to the perturbed quantities. Collecting the first order terms in the perturbation analysis of equation ) : $$\eqalign{
\rho_0\ddr{\phi_1} + \rho_1\ddr{\phi_0} &= \ddr{p_1} - \rho_0 r (1- u^2)
\Omega (r,u)^2 \cr
\rho_0\ddu{\phi_1} &= \ddu{p_1} + \rho_0 r^2 u \Omega (r,u)^2 \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ Of interest for the quadrupole moment of the gravitational potential is the projection onto the Legendre polynomial $P_2 (u) = (3u^2-1)/2$. In the first equation of ) all terms are multiplied by ${5\over 2} P_2 (u)$ and then integrated over $u$. The second equation would yield $0=0$ since all its terms are odd in $u$. Therefore this equation is first integrated in $u$ and then projected. In the following the subscripts $12$ refer to the part of the first order perturbed quantities corresponding to these $P_2$ Legendre polynomial projections. $$\eqalign{
\rho_0\ddr{\phi_{12}} + \rho_{12}\ddr{\phi_0} &= \ddr{p_{12}} -
\rho_0 r \int\limits_{-1}^{1}{\rm d}u\ {5\over 3} \left[1-P_2(u)\right]
\cr
&\hskip 1cm\times P_2(u)\Omega(r,u)^2 \cr
\rho_0 \phi_{12} - p_{12} &= \rho_0 r^2 \int\limits_{-1}^{1}{\rm d}u\ {5\over 2}
P_2(u) \int\limits_{-1}^{u}{\rm d}v\, v\Omega(r,v)^2
}\eqno\neqn$$ The double integral in the second equation can be re-written, using partial integration : $$\eqalign{
\int\limits_{-1}^{1}{\rm d}u\ {5\over 2} P_2(u) &\int\limits_{-1}^{u}{\rm d}v
\ v\Omega(r,v)^2 = \cr
&= {5\over 4}\left\{\left[ \left( u^3 - u \right) \int\limits_{-1}^{u}{\rm d}v
\ v\Omega(r,v)^2 \right]_{-1}^{1} \right.\cr
&\hskip 1cm \left. - \int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d}u
\left( u^3 - u \right) u\Omega(r,u)^2\right\} \cr
&= {5\over 4} \int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d}u \left( u^2 - u^4 \right)
\Omega(r,u)^2 \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ The second equality of equation ) can be used to eliminate $p_{12}$ from the first of ). After some rearranging the result is : $$\eqalign{
\rho_{12}\ddr{\phi_0} &= \phi_{12} \ddr{\rho_0} - \ddr{}\left[ \rho_0 r^2
{\cal G}(\Omega)\right] +\cr
&\hskip 12pt -\rho_0 r \int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\ {5\over 3}
\left(1-P_2(u)\right)P_2(u)\Omega(r,u)^2 \cr
p_{12} &= \rho_0\phi_{12} - \rho_0 r^2 {\cal G}(\Omega) \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ where ${\cal G}$ is defined by : $${\cal G}(\Omega) \equiv {5\over 4} \int\limits_{-1}^{1}{\rm d}u\
\left( u^2 - u^4 \right) \Omega(r,u)^2
\eqno\neqn$$ The relevant equations from the perturbed Poisson’s equation ) are : $$\eqalign{
{1\over r^2}\ddr{}\left(r^2\ddr{\phi_0}\right) &= -4\pi G\rho_0 \cr
\dtdr{\phi_{12}} + {2\over r}\ddr{\phi_{12}}- {6\over r^2}\phi_{12} &=
-4 \pi G \rho_{12} \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ in which $\rho_{12}$ can now be substituted using the first of equations ) : $$\eqalign{
\dtdr{\phi_{12}} + &{2\over r}\ddr{\phi_{12}}- {6\over r^2}\phi_{12}
= {4\pi r^2\over {\cal M}_r}\biggl\{ \phi_{12}\ddr{\rho_0} \cr
& -\ddr{}\left[\rho_0 r^2 {\cal G}(\Omega)\right] \cr
&\left. - \rho_0 r \int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\ {5\over 3}
\left(1-P_2(u)\right)P_2(u)\Omega(r,u)^2 \right\}\cr }
\eqno\neqn$$ in which use has been made of the mass within radius $r$ : $${\cal M}_r \equiv \int\limits_0^r{\rm d}r'\ 4\pi\rho_0 r'^2
\eqno\neqn$$ Now define the linear differential operator ${\cal L}$ : $${\cal L}\phi_{12}\ \equiv\ \left\{\ddr{}\left(r^2\ddr{}\right) -
\left( 6 + {4\pi r^4\over{\cal M}_r}\ddr{\rho_0}\right)\right\}
\phi_{12}
\eqno\neqn$$ and a function $f$ : $$\eqalign{
f(r) &\equiv -{4\pi r^4\over {\cal M}_r}\left\{ r^2\ddr{}\left[
\rho_0{\cal G}(\Omega)\right] + \rho_0 r \biggl[ 2{\cal G}(\Omega)+
\right.\cr
&\hskip 1cm \left.\left.
\int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\ {5\over 3}
\left(1-P_2(u)\right)P_2(u)\Omega(r,u)^2 \right]\right\} \cr
&= -{4\pi r^4\over {\cal M}_r}\left\{ r^2\ddr{}\left[
\rho_0{\cal G}(\Omega)\right] - \rho_0 r \times \right.\cr
&\hskip 1cm\left.\int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\
{5\over 4} \left( u^2 -1 \right)\left(5u^2 -1\right) \Omega(r,u)^2
\right\} \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ so that $\phi_{12}$ is the solution of ${\cal L}\phi_{12} = f(r).$ This equation can be solved used Green’s functions. For $r>R_{\odot}$ the density $\rho_0 \equiv 0$ and therefore $f(r) \equiv 0$. An exact solution is then $\phi_{12} = r^{-3}$. If another solution $\psi$ of ${\cal L}\psi = 0$ is constructed which is regular at $r=0$ the general solution is : $$\phi_{12} (R) = \int\limits_0^{\infty}{\rm d}z\ G(R,z) f(z)
\eqno\neqn$$ with the Green’s function : $$G(R,z) = \cases{ \displaystyle {\psi(R) z^{-3} \over z^2 W(z)}
\hskip 2cm 0\leq R \leq z\cr
\displaystyle {\psi(z) R^{-3} \over z^2 W(z)} \hskip 2cm 0\leq z \leq R\cr}
\eqno\neqn$$ where $W(z)$ is the Wronskian of the solutions $r^{-3}$ and $\psi$ : $$W(z) = \left|\matrix{ \psi & z^{-3} \cr \psi' & -3 z^{-4} \cr}\right|
= -z^{-6}{{\rm d}\over {\rm d} z} (z^3 \psi)
\eqno\neqn$$ Since $r^{-3}$ is not a solution of ${\cal L}\psi = 0$ for $r<R_{\odot}$ this equation is [**only**]{} valid for $R\geq R_{\odot}$. Of interest here is the solution $\phi_{12}$ at $R=R_{\odot}$. If in ) $R$ is replaced with $R_{\odot}$ it is allowed to replace $z^2 W(z)$ with $R_{\odot}^2 W(R_{\odot})$, which can be verified by substitution of ) into ). Since $f(r) = 0$ for $r>R_{\odot}$, the expression for $\phi_{12}(R_\odot)$ simplifies to : $$\phi_{12} (R_\odot) = -R_{\odot}^{-3} \left[ r^{-4}{{\rm d}\over {\rm d} r}
(r^3 \psi)\right]^{-1}_{r=R_{\odot}} \int\limits_{0}^{R_{\odot}}{\rm d}z\
\psi (z) f(z)
\eqno\neqn$$ The solar oblateness $\Delta_{\phi}$ is related to $\phi_{12}$ as $$\Delta_{\phi} = -{3\over 2} {R_{\odot} \over G {\cal M}_{\odot}}
\phi_{12} (R_{\odot})
\eqno\neqn$$ Substituting the expressions for $\phi_{12}$ and $f(r)$ : $$\eqalign{
\Delta_{\phi} = &{2\pi R_{\odot}^2 \over G {\cal M}_{\odot}} \left[
{{\rm d}\over {\rm d} r}(r^3 \psi) \right]^{-1}_{r=R_{\odot}}
\int\limits_0^{R_\odot}{\rm d}r\ \left\{{-3r^6 \psi(r) \over {\cal M}_r}
\times\right.\cr
&\ddr{}\left[\rho_0 {\cal G}\right] +
{3 r^6 \psi(r) \over {\cal M}_r} {\rho_0\over r} \left[
\int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\ {5\over 4} \left( u^2 -1 \right)\times\right.\cr
&\hskip 1cm\left.\left(5u^2 -1\right) \Omega(r,u)^2 \right] \biggr\} \cr
=&{2\pi R_{\odot}^2 \over G {\cal M}_{\odot}} \left[
{{\rm d}\over {\rm d} r}(r^3 \psi) \right]^{-1}_{r=R_{\odot}}
\int\limits_0^{R_\odot}{\rm d}r\ \biggl\{ 3\rho_0 {\cal G} \times\cr
&\ddr{}\left({r^6\psi(r)\over {\cal M}_r}\right) +
{3 r^6 \psi(r) \over {\cal M}_r} {\rho_0\over r} \times\cr
&\left.\left[
\int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\ {5\over 4} \left( u^2 -1 \right)\left(5u^2
-1\right) \Omega(r,u)^2 \right] \right\} \cr
= &{2\pi R_{\odot}^2 \over G {\cal M}_{\odot}} \left[
{{\rm d}\over {\rm d} r}(r^3 \psi) \right]^{-1}_{r=R_{\odot}}
\int\limits_0^{R_\odot}{\rm d}r\int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\ \cr
&\hskip 5mm\left[
{15\over 4}\rho_0 \ddr{}\left({r^6\psi(r)\over {\cal M}_r}\right) (u^2 -u^4)
+ \right.\cr
&\hskip 1cm\left.{15\over 4}{r^6 \psi(r) \over {\cal M}_r}
{\rho_0\over r} \left(u^2 -1 \right)\left( 5u^2-1\right)\right]\Omega(r,u)^2 \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ in which the second equality is obtained by partial integration, and the third is a re-arranging of terms making use of the definition ) of ${\cal G}$.
For an $\Omega$ which is a function of $r$ only, integration over $u$ of the second term between square brackets in ) is identical to $0$ and the first term reduces to $\rho_0 \ddr{}\left({r^6\psi(r)\over
{\cal M}_r}\right) \Omega(r,u)^2$. Equation ) then reduces to equation (12) of Gough (1981). Once the density $\rho_0(r)$ of the Sun is known, it is trivial to calculate the two-dimensional kernel : $$\eqalign{
{\cal F} (r, u) \equiv &{15\pi R_{\odot}^2 \over 2 G {\cal M}_{\odot}} \left[
{{\rm d}\over {\rm d} r}(r^3 \psi) \right]^{-1}_{r=R_{\odot}}
{\rho_0 \over r}\left({r^6\psi(r)\over {\cal M}_r}\right) \times\cr
&\hskip 6mm\left[{\partial \ln \left({r^6\psi(r)\over {\cal M}_r}\right)\over
\partial\ln r} u^2 - \left( 5u^2-1\right)\right]\left( 1-u^2\right)
\cr}
\eqno\neqn$$ Determining $\Delta_\phi$ is thus reduced to evaluating the two-dimensional integral : $$\Delta_\phi = \int\limits_0^{R_\odot}{\rm d}r\int\limits_{-1}^1{\rm d} u\
{\cal F} (r, u) \Omega(r,u)^2
\eqno\neqn$$ Direct inversion would have to make use of the second order splittings in an inverse problem, so the same route is followed as with the kinetic energy $T$ : the resolved $\Omega^2$ is multiplied with ${\cal F}$ and integrated.
=11.0cm
Using the standard solar model S of Christensen-Dalsgaard (cf. Christensen-Dalsgaard , 1996) the kernels ${\cal I}$ and ${\cal F}$ were calculated, and normalized to have unit integral over the solar volume. Contour plots in one quadrant are shown in figure . The other quadrants can be obtained by reflection in the coordinate axes.
Results and conclusions
=======================
Two independent data sets have been used to determine the total solar angular momentum, the total kinetic energy and the gravitational quadrupole moment. One dataset is in the form of splittings obtained with the earth-based GONG network of telescopes : 33169 splittings distributed over 542 complete multiplets with $7 \leq l \leq 150$ and $1.5\ {\rm mHz} <
\nu < 3.5\ {\rm mHz}$ gathered from GONG months 4 to 10. The other dataset is in the form of a-coefficients gathered from 144 d out of the first 6 months of operation of the SOI/MDI instrument on board the SoHO satellite. The data consists of 414 multiplets with $1 \leq l \leq 250$ and $1.0\ {\rm mHz} <
\nu < 4.2\ {\rm mHz}$, and the odd a-coefficients up to at most $a_{35}$ are available.
The GONG data leads to the values : $$\eqalign{
H_{\rm d} &= \left[186.3 \pm 2.4 \right] 10^{39}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-1}} \cr
H_{\rm i} &= \left[186.3 \pm 3.7 \right] 10^{39}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-1}} \cr
T &= \left[245.5 \pm 9.8 \right] 10^{33}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-2}} \cr
J_2 &= \left[ 2.14 \pm 0.09 \right] 10^{-7} \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ The MDI data leads to the values : $$\eqalign{
H_{\rm d} &= \left[192.3 \pm 1.9 \right] 10^{39}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-1}} \cr
H_{\rm i} &= \left[192.9 \pm 3.9 \right] 10^{39}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-1}} \cr
T &= \left[262.5 \pm 10. \right] 10^{33}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-2}} \cr
J_2 &= \left[2.23 \pm 0.09 \right] 10^{-7} \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ The subscript d refers to a determination directly from the data using the freedom of the SOLA method to construct the kernel directly, the subscript i refers to the indirect method, which is re-integrating the resolved $\Omega$. $T$ and $J_2$ have been determined by re-integration only. Since the direct method should suffer much less from systematic effects, the value $H_{\rm i}$ is shown merely to demonstrate consistency between the two methods. Error weighted means for $H_{\rm d}, T,$ and $J_2$ are : $$\eqalign{
H &= \left[ 190.0 \pm 1.5 \right] 10^{39}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-1}} \cr
T &= \left[ 253.4 \pm 7.2 \right] 10^{33}\ {\rm kg\ m^2\ s^{-2}} \cr
J_2 &= \left[2.18 \pm 0.06 \right] 10^{-7} \cr
}\eqno\neqn$$ This determination of $J_2$ is entirely consistent with that of Paternó (1996) who used direct oblateness measurements of the solar disk to infer the quadrupole moment.
One of the most well-known tests of GR results from combining measurements of the precession of the orbit of Mercury (cf. Shapiro , 1976 ; Anderson , 1987, 1991, 1992) with a determination of the gravitational quadrupole moment of the Sun $J_2$. In the fully conservative parameterized post-newtonian (PPN) formalism, the predicted advance $\Delta\phi_0$ per orbital period of a planetary orbit with semi-major axis $a$ and eccentricity $e$, after correcting for perturbations due to other planets, is : $$\Delta\phi_0 = {6\pi G M \lambda_p \over a(1-e^2)c^2}
\eqno\neqn$$ where $$\lambda_p = {1\over 3} (2-\beta+2\gamma)+ {R^2 c^2 \over 2 G M a (1-e^2)} J_2
\eqno\neqn$$ Here $M$ and $R$ are the mass and radius of the Sun, $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $c$ is the speed of light. The parameters $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the Eddington-Robertson parameters of the PPN formalism (cf. Misner , 1973), which in general relativity are equal to $1$. For Mercury the above relation ) reduces to : $$\Delta\phi_0 = 42.9794\ \lambda_p\ "/{\rm century}
\eqno\neqn$$ and ) is : $$\lambda_p = {1\over 3} (2-\beta+2\gamma)+ 2.96\ 10^3 \times J_2
\eqno\neqn$$ Shapiro (1976), using planetary radar ranging, found an anomalous precession for Mercury’s orbit of $43.11 \pm 0.21$. Using radar and spacecraft ranging Anderson (1987) found $42.92 \pm 0.20$ and an update (Anderson , 1991) gives the value $42.94 \pm 0.20$. The most recent result reported by Anderson (1992) is $43.13 \pm 0.14$. Combining the most recent value for the anomalous precession of Mercury’s orbit and the value for $J_2$ given above in equations ) yields : $${1\over 3} (2-\beta+2\gamma) = 1.003 \pm 0.003
\eqno\neqn$$ The error quoted here is entirely due to that in the planetary ranging data, since the error due to the uncertainty in $J_2$ is two orders of magnitude smaller.
In this paper it is thus demonstrated that the total solar angular momentum, its total kinetic energy in rotation, and the solar gravitational quadrupole moment can be determined through inverting integral equations that are linear in the rotation rate $\Omega$ or in its square, with known integration kernels. The value of the gravitational quadrupole moment ) when combined with planetary ranging data for the precession of the orbit of Mercury yields a value for the combined PPN formalism parameters ) which is consistent with GR in which this combination is predicted to be exactly equal to unity. More stringent tests of GR using the orbit of Mercury rely on measuring its orbital precession with much greater precision.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The Theoretical Astrophysics Center is a collaboration between Copenhagen University and Aarhus University and is funded by Danmarks Grundforskningsfonden. GONG is managed by NSO, a division of NOAO that is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy under co-operative agreement with NSF. The GONG data were acquired by instruments operated by the BBSO, HAO, Learmonth, Udaipur, IAC, and CTIO. The MDI project operating the SOI/MDI experiment on board the SoHO spacecraft is supported by NASA contract NAG5-3077 at Stanford University.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
\[A\]nderson J.D., Campbell J.K., Jurgens R.F., Lau E.L., Newhall X X, Slade III M.A., Standish Jr. E.M., 1992, Recent Developments in Solar-System Tests of General Relativity, Proceedings of The Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, Eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore \[A\]nderson J.D., Colombo G., Espsitio P.B., Lau E.L., Trager G.B., 1987, [Icarus]{} 71, 337 \[A\]nderson J.D., Slade M.A., Jurgens R.F., Lau E.L., Newhall X X, Standish Jr. E.M., 1991, [Pub. Astron. Soc. Australia]{} 9, 324 \[C\]hristensen-Dalsgaard J., , 1996, [Science]{} 272, 1286 \[D\]ziembowski W.A., Goode P.R., 1992, [ApJ]{} 394, 670 \[G\]oldreich P., Schubert G., 1968, [ApJ]{} 154, 1005 \[G\]ough D.O., 1981, [MNRAS]{} 196, 731 \[G\]ough D.O., 1982, [Nature]{} 298, 334 \[G\]ough D.O, Thompson M., 1990, [MNRAS]{} 242, 25 \[L\]ebovitz N.R., 1970, [ApJ]{} 160, 701 \[M\]isner C., Thorne K.S., Wheeler J.A., 1973, ‘Gravitation’, Freeman, San Francisco, 1072, 1116 \[P\]aternó L., Sofia S., DiMauro M.P., 1996, [A&A]{} 314, 940 \[P\]ijpers F.P., 1997, [A&A]{} 326, 1235 \[\[P\]\]ijpers F.P., 1998, [Proc. IAU symposium 181, ’Sounding Solar and Stellar Interiors’]{} Eds. J. Provost, F.-X. Schmider, Kluwer, Dordrecht, in press \[P\]ijpers F.P., Thompson M.J., 1992, [A&A]{} 262, L33 \[P\]ijpers F.P., Thompson M.J., 1994, [A&A]{} 281, 231 \[P\]ijpers F.P., Thompson M.J., 1996, [MNRAS]{} 279, 498 \[R\]itzwoller M.H., Lavely E.M., 1991, [ApJ]{} 369, 557 \[S\]chou J., , 1997, [ApJ]{} submitted \[S\]hapiro I.I., Counselman C.C. III, King R.W., 1976, Phys. Rev. Lett., 36, 555 \[T\]hompson M., , 1996, [Science]{} 272, 1300 \[U\]lrich R.K, Hawkins G.W., 1981, [ApJ]{}, 246, 985
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the present work, a high order finite element type residual distribution scheme is designed in the framework of multidimensional compressible Euler equations of gas dynamics. The strengths of the proposed approximation rely on the generic spatial discretization of the model equations using a continuous finite element type approximation technique, while avoiding the solution of a large linear system with a sparse mass matrix which would come along with any standard ODE solver in a classical finite element approach to advance the solution in time. In this work, we propose a new Residual Distribution (RD) scheme, which provides an arbitrary explicit high order approximation of the smooth solutions of the Euler equations both in space and time. [The design of the scheme via the coupling of the RD formulation [@mario; @abg] with a Deferred Correction (DeC) type method [@shu-dec; @Minion2], allows to have the matrix associated to the update in time, which needs to be inverted, to be diagonal. The use of Bernstein polynomials as shape functions, guarantees that this diagonal matrix is invertible and ensures strict positivity of the resulting diagonal matrix coefficients. ]{} This work is the extension of [@enumath; @Abgrall2017] to multidimensional systems. We have assessed our method on several challenging benchmark problems for one- and two-dimensional Euler equations and the scheme has proven to be robust and to achieve the theoretically predicted high order of accuracy on smooth solutions.'
author:
- |
R. Abgrall, P. Bacigaluppi, S. Tokareva\
Institute of Mathematics, University of Zurich\
Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland\
$\{$remi.abgrall,paola.bacigaluppi,svetlana.tokareva$\}[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: 'April 15th, 2018'
title: |
High-order residual distribution scheme\
for the time-dependent Euler equations of fluid dynamics
---
[**Keywords**]{} Euler equations, finite elements, residual distribution, unsteady hyperbolic systems, explicit schemes, high order methods
Introduction
============
Consider a generic multidimensional time-dependent hyperbolic system of equations $$\label{system1}
{\dfrac{\partial U}{\partial t}}+\operatorname{div}{\mathbf{F}}(U)=0$$ defined on a space-time domain $\Omega \times T$, with necessary initial and boundary conditions. We are interested in a numerical approximation of by means of a finite element (FE) type technique. In [@enumath; @Abgrall2017], we have shown how one can solve a scalar version of with a method that approximates the spatial term using a Residual Distribution (RD) approach, without having to solve a large linear system with a sparse mass matrix. This means that we are able to avoid any mass matrix “inversion” and have also an explicit scheme. This is achieved by first approximating the time operator in a consistent way with the spatial term. A priori, this would lead either to an implicit method in case of a nonlinear approximation, as done in order to avoid spurious oscillations in the case of discontinuous solutions, or at minima the inversion of a sparse but non diagonal matrix. This apparent difficulty can be solved by applying a Deferred Correction (DeC) type time-stepping method and the use of proper basis functions. It is demonstrated in [@enumath; @Abgrall2017] that Bernstein polynomials are a suitable choice, but this is not the only possible one. [The idea to use as shape functions the Bernstein polynomials, instead of the more typical Lagrange polynomials, has been discussed in [@Abgrall2010; @Abgrall2017] applied to the context of high order residual distribution schemes and very recently, in [@Lohmann2017], this idea has been applied for a different class of methods, namely, the flux-corrected transport method.]{}
The purpose of this paper is to show how these ideas can be further extended for solving the Euler equations of fluid dynamics for the simulation of flows involving strong discontinuities. The RD formulation used here is based on the finite element approximation of the solution as a globally continuous piecewise polynomial. [The design principle of the new RD scheme guarantees a compact approximation stencil even for high order accuracy, which would hold for Discontinuous Galerkin (DG), but not for example for Finite Volume (FV) methods and allows to consider a smaller number of nodes than DG ([@enordhigh; @Cangiani2013; @AbgrallViville2017]).]{}
The format of this paper is the following. In Section \[sec:RD-steady\], we recall the idea of the residual distribution schemes for steady problems and in Section \[sec:DeC\] we describe the time-stepping algorithm and adapt the method developed in [@enumath; @Abgrall2017] to multidimensional systems. We illustrate the robustness and accuracy of the proposed method by means of rigorous numerical tests and discuss the obtained results in Section \[sec:results\]. Finally, we give the conclusive remarks and outline further perspectives.
Basic ideas of residual distribution schemes {#sec:RD-steady}
============================================
Governing equations and approximate solution
--------------------------------------------
Let us consider a generic system of PDEs $$\begin{cases}
{\dfrac{\partial U}{\partial t}} + \text{div\,} \mathbf{F}(U) =0\quad \text{on}\; \;\Omega \times [0,T]\\[0.1em]
U(x,0) = U^0(x),\\
\end{cases}
\label{system}$$ which could, for example, represent the Euler equations of gas dynamics, with $U=[\rho,\; \rho u,\; \rho v,\; E]^T$, with the fluxes ${\mathbf{F}}= ({\mathbf{f}}_1, {\mathbf{f}}_2)$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbf{f}}_1 = (\rho u,\; \rho u^2 + p,\; \rho u v,\; u(E+p))^T, \\
& {\mathbf{f}}_2 = (\rho v,\; \rho u v,\; \rho v^2 + p,\; v(E+p))^T \end{aligned}$$
We discretize the system using the residual distribution approach. In this section, we shall give a brief overview of the RD method for steady problems and discuss the spatial discretization. The reader may refer to [@SWjcp; @abg; @Ricchiuto2007] for further details on the construction of generic residual distribution schemes.
We consider the spatial domain $\Omega$ and its triangulation $\Omega_h$, and denote by $K$ a generic element of the mesh and by $h$ the characteristic mesh size. We also introduce the time discretization with time steps $\Delta t_n = t_{n+1} - t_n$.
![Discretized domain $\Omega_h$ and its boundary $\Gamma$[]{data-label="Step1_RD"}](./Fig/domain_1)
Following the ideas of the Galerkin finite element method (FEM), the solution approximation space $V_h$ is given by globally continuous piecewise polynomials of degree $k$: $$V_h=\{U \in L^2(\Omega_h) \cap C^{0}(\Omega_h), U_{|K} \in \mathcal{P}^{k}, \forall K \in \Omega_h\},$$ so that the numerical solution $U_h^{n} \approx U(\mathbf{x},t_{n})$ can be written as a linear combination of shape functions $\varphi_{\sigma} \in V_h$: $$\label{approx_uh}
U_h^{n}=\sum_{\sigma \in {\Omega_h}} U_\sigma^{n} \varphi_\sigma = \sum_{K \in {\Omega_h}} \sum_{\sigma \in K} U_\sigma^{n} \varphi_\sigma,$$ with coefficients $U_\sigma^n$ to be calculated by a numerical method.
Residual distribution scheme for steady problems
------------------------------------------------
Consider first a steady scalar version of system : $$\nabla_x\cdot \mathbf{F}(U)=0.
\label{steadysys}$$
The main steps of the residual distribution approach could be summarized as follows, [see also Fig. \[Steps\_RD\] where the approach is illustrated for linear FEM on triangular elements]{}:
1. We define $\forall K \in \Omega_h$ a fluctuation term (total residual) $\phi^K=\int_K \nabla_x\cdot \mathbf{F}(U)\,d\mathbf{x}$ (see Fig. \[Steps\_RDa\])
2. We define a nodal residual $\phi_\sigma^K$ as the contribution to the fluctuation term $\phi^K$ from a degree of freedom (DoF) $\sigma$ within the element $K$, so that the following conservation property holds (see Fig. \[Steps\_RDb\]): $$\phi^K(U_h)=\sum_{\sigma \in K} \phi_\sigma^K, \quad \forall K \in \Omega_h, \quad\forall \Omega_h
\label{RD_distrib}$$
The distribution strategy, i.e. how much of the fluctuation term has to be taken into account on each DoF $\sigma \in K$, is defined by means of the so-called distribution coefficients $\beta_\sigma$: $$\phi_\sigma^K=\beta_\sigma^K \; \phi^K,
\label{def_phiK}$$ where, due to , $$\sum_{\sigma \in K} \beta_\sigma^K = 1.$$
3. The resulting scheme is obtained by collecting all the residual contributions $\phi_\sigma^K$ from elements $K$ surrounding a node $\sigma \in \Omega_h$ (see Fig. \[Steps\_RDc\]), that is $$\sum_{K | \sigma \in K} \phi_\sigma^K = 0, \quad \forall \sigma \in \Omega_h,
\label{RD_nodal}$$ which allows to calculate the coefficients $U_\sigma$ in the approximation .
On the choice of the spatial discretization
-------------------------------------------
In [@abgrall2017jcp; @Abgrall2017; @Abgrall99] it has been shown that any known finite element or finite volume scheme (such as SUPG, DG, FV-WENO, etc.) can be written in a generic residual distribution form . In case $\sigma \in \Gamma$, equation [can be split]{} for any degree of freedom (DoF) $\sigma$ into the internal and boundary contributions: $$\label{RD_nodaldecomp}
\sum\limits_{K \subset \Omega_h,\sigma\in K} \phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^{K}(U_h)+\sum\limits_{\gamma\subset \Gamma, \sigma\in \gamma}\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^{\gamma}(U_h)=0,$$ where $\gamma$ is an edge on the boundary $\Gamma$ of the computational domain $\Omega_h$. The values $\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^{K}$ and $\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^{\gamma}$ are the residuals corresponding only to the spatial discretization, which is emphasized by the subscript $\mathbf{x}$. Assuming that $u=g$ on $\Gamma$, both residuals satisfy the following conservation relations $$\begin{split}
& \sum_{\sigma \in K}\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^K (U_h) = \int_{\partial K} {\mathbf{F}}(U_h) \cdot {\mathbf{n}}, \quad \forall K\\[0.3em]
& \sum_{\sigma\in \Gamma} \phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^{\Gamma}(U_h)=\int_{\Gamma} (\mathcal{F}_{{\mathbf{n}}}(U_h,g)-{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot{\mathbf{n}}), \quad \forall \Gamma.
\end{split}
\label{RD_nodaldecomp_contrib}$$
Below we outline some of the schemes written in terms of residuals which satisfy the conservation relations , see also [@Abgrall2017]:
- the SUPG scheme [@hughes]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{SUPG}
\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^K(U_h)=\int_{\partial K}\varphi_\sigma {\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot {\mathbf{n}}\,d\gamma - \int_K \nabla \varphi_\sigma\cdot {\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\,d{\mathbf{x}}\\ + h_K
\int_K \bigg (\nabla_U\,{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot \nabla \varphi_\sigma \bigg )\tau \bigg (\nabla_U\,{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot \nabla U_h \bigg )\,d{\mathbf{x}}\end{gathered}$$ with $\tau>0$.
- the Galerkin FEM scheme with jump stabilization [@burman]: $$\label{burman}
\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^K(U_h)=\int_{\partial K}\varphi_\sigma {\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot {\mathbf{n}}\,d\gamma -\int_K \nabla \varphi_\sigma\cdot {\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\,d{\mathbf{x}}+\sum_{e \in K}
\theta h_e^2 \int_e \,[\nabla U_h]\cdot [\nabla \varphi_\sigma]\,d\gamma$$ with $\theta\geq0$ (see [@burman] for details). Note that in this case if the mesh is conformal, any edge $e$ (or face in 3D) is the intersection of the element $K$ and another element denoted by $K^+$. For any function $\psi$, we define $[\nabla \psi ]=\nabla \psi_{|K}-\nabla \psi_{| K^+}$.
- for the boundary approximation, it is possible to follow the same technique as in [@DeSantis2015], so that for $\sigma \in \gamma \subset \Gamma$ we have $$\phi_{\sigma}^{\gamma,{\mathbf{x}}}(U_h) =\int_{\gamma} \Big( \mathcal{F}(U_h,g)-{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot {\mathbf{n}}\Big) d\gamma.$$
It is also possible to consider schemes that do not have a straightforward variational formulation, as for example the limited residual distribution scheme (RDS) [@enordhigh; @DeSantis2015; @icm; @CanadaCFD]: $$\label{schema RDS SUPG}
\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^K(U_h)=\beta_\sigma^K \int_{\partial K}{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot {\mathbf{n}}\,d\gamma + h_K
\int_K \bigg (\nabla_U\,{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot \nabla \varphi_\sigma \bigg )\tau \bigg (\nabla_U\,{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot \nabla U_h \bigg )\,d{\mathbf{x}}$$ or $$\label{schema_RDS_jump}
\phi_{\sigma,{\mathbf{x}}}^K(U_h)=\beta_\sigma^K \int_{\partial K}{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot {\mathbf{n}}\,d\gamma + \sum_{\text{edges of }K}
\theta h_e^2 \int_e \,[\nabla U_h]\cdot [\nabla \varphi_\sigma]\,d\gamma.$$ [where $\beta_\sigma^K$ are parameters that guarantee conservation and $\sum_{\sigma \in K} \beta_{\sigma}^K=1.$]{}
[ One may notice that in and the streamline diffusion term and jump term are introduced due to the possible existence of spurious modes in the solution, but their role is somehow different compared to and where they are introduced to stabilize the Galerkin schemes (see [@ENORD; @enordhigh; @Abgrall2017] for more details). Indeed, without the streamline term and without the jump term satisfy a discrete maximum principle, and adding this terms violates formally the maximum principle, while experimentally this violation results to be extremely small if not non-existent.]{}\
It is important to remark that, at least formally, the exact solution cancels the residuals in the case of SUPG and RDS-SUPG, while in case of Burman’s jump stabilization, we are able to rewrite the scheme as $$\phi_\sigma^K(U_h)=\int_K\psi_\sigma \operatorname{div}{\mathbf{F}}(U)\,d{\mathbf{x}}+ R_\sigma(U_h)$$ with $$R_\sigma=\sum_{\text{edges of }K}
\theta h_e^2 \int_e\;[\nabla U_h]\cdot [\nabla \varphi_\sigma]\,d\gamma.$$ where $\sum\limits_{\sigma\in K} R_\sigma=0$. Here, $R_\sigma$ is not zero, except for the exact solution unless this solution has continuous normal gradients, see [@burman] for more details.
An Explicit High Order timestepping approach {#sec:DeC}
============================================
Iterative timestepping method
-----------------------------
In the previous sections, we have shown how system can be discretized in terms of residual distributions approach. The main target of this paper is to extend this approximation to unsteady problems. Moreover, we aim to have a high order and explicit approximation method in time. In the rest of this paragraph, we rephrase [@Abgrall2017], since the discussion on the scalar case extends in a straightforward manner to the system case.
Here we describe the timestepping algorithm that we use in combination with the RD discretization in space to achieve high order accuracy in time. We consider $M$ subintervals within each time step $[t_n, t_{n+1}]$, so that $t_n = t_{n,0} < t_{n,1} < \dots < t_{n,m} < \dots < t_{n,M} = t_{n+1}$. Next, for each subinterval $[t_{n,m},t_{n,m+1}]$, we introduce the corrections $r=0,\dots,R$ and denote the solution at the $r$-th correction and the $m$-th substep $t_{n,m}$ as $U_h^{n,m,r}$ and the solution at $t_n$ by $U_h^n$. In addition, we define the solution vector $$U^{(r)} = (U_h^{n,1,r},...,U_h^{n,m,r},...,U_h^{n,M,r}).$$
We propose a timestepping method that can be interpreted as a deferred correction method and proceed as follows within the time interval $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$:
1. for $r=0$, set $U_h^{(0)} = (U_h^{n,1,0},\dots,U_h^{n,m,0},\dots,U_h^{n,M,0}) = (U_h^n,\dots,U_h^n,\dots,U_h^n)$;
2. for each correction $r>0$, knowing $U^{(r)}$, evaluate $U^{(r+1)}$ as the solution of $$\mathcal{L}^1(U^{(r+1)})=\mathcal{L}^1(U^{(r)})-\mathcal{L}^2(U^{(r)})
\label{HO_timestepping}$$
3. set the solution $U_h^{n+1}=U_h^{n,M,R}.$
Formulation relies on a Lemma which has been proven in [@Abgrall2017].
\[ZeLem\] If two operators $\mathcal{L}^1_\Delta$ and $\mathcal{L}^2_\Delta$ depending on a parameter $\Delta$ are such that:
1. There exists a unique $U^\star_\Delta$ such that $\mathcal{L}^2_\Delta(U^\star_\Delta)=0$;
2. There exists $\alpha_1>0$ independent of $\Delta$, such that for any $U$ and $V$ the operator $\mathcal{L}^1_\Delta$ is coercive, i. e. $$\label{coercive}
\alpha_1 ||U-V||\leq ||\mathcal{L}^1_\Delta (U)-\mathcal{L}^1_\Delta (V)||;$$
3. There exists $\alpha_2>0$ independent of $\Delta$, such that, for any $U$ and $V$ $$\label{error}
\bigg |\bigg | \big (\mathcal{L}^1_\Delta(U)-\mathcal{L}^2_\Delta(U)\big )-\big (\mathcal{L}^1_\Delta(V)-\mathcal{L}^2_\Delta(V)\big )\bigg |\bigg |\leq \alpha_2 \Delta ||U-V||.$$ This last condition is nothing more than saying that the operator $\mathcal{L}^1_\Delta -\mathcal{L}^2_\Delta$ is uniformly Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant $\alpha_2 \Delta$.
Then if $\nu =\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_1}\Delta <1$ the deferred correction method is convergent, and after $R$ iterations the error is smaller than $\nu^R || U^{(0)} - U^\star_\Delta ||$.
The differential operators $\mathcal{L}^1$ and $\mathcal{L}^2$ will be defined in the following sections; the detailed error analysis can be found in [@Abgrall2017].
On the low order differential operator $\mathcal{L}^1$ {#Sec_L1operator}
------------------------------------------------------
Our discretization in time relies on the fact that the system can be formally integrated on $[0,t]$ as $$U({\mathbf{x}},t)=U({\mathbf{x}},0)+\int_0^t \operatorname{div}{\mathbf{F}}(U(x,s))\,ds,$$ and the solution can be further approximated using a quadrature formula as $$U({\mathbf{x}},t)\approx U({\mathbf{x}},0)+t\;\sum_{l=0}^{r} \omega_l \operatorname{div}{\mathbf{F}}(U({\mathbf{x}}, s_l)),$$ with the same conventions as in the ODE case in [@Abgrall2017].
For any $\sigma\in K$, define $\mathcal{L}^1_\sigma$ as: $$\label{L1_complete}
\mathcal{L}^1_\sigma(U^{(r)})= \mathcal{L}^1_\sigma(U^{n,1,r}, \ldots , U^{n,M,r})=\begin{pmatrix}
|C_\sigma|\big ( U_\sigma^{n,M,r} - U_\sigma^{n,0} \big)\, + \sum\limits_{K|\sigma\in K} \displaystyle\int_{t_{n,0}}^{t_{n,M}} \mathcal{I}_{0}\big(\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^K(U^{(r)}),s\big) \,ds\\
\vdots\\
|C_\sigma| \big ( U_\sigma^{n,1,r} - U_\sigma^{n,0}\big )+ \sum\limits_{K|\sigma\in K} \displaystyle\int_{t_{n,0}}^{t_{n,1}} \mathcal{I}_{0}\big(\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^K(U^{(r)}),s\big)\,ds
\end{pmatrix}.$$ where $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ represents any first order piecewise-constant interpolant and where we have adopted a notation $$\mathcal{I}_{0}\big(\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^K(U^{(r)}),s\big) = \mathcal{I}_{0}\big(\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K}(U^{n,0,r}),\ldots,\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K}(U^{n,M,r}),s\big).$$ In order to simplify and make the operator explicit in time, we take the interpolant $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ as a simple approximation at $U^{n,0}$, so that becomes $$\mathcal{L}^1_\sigma(U^{(r)})= \mathcal{L}^1_\sigma(U^{n,1,r},\ldots , U^{n,M,r})=\begin{pmatrix}
|C_\sigma|(U^{n,M,r}-U^{n,0})+\xi_M\;\Delta t\; \sum\limits_{K|\sigma\in K} \phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^K(U^{n,0})\\
\vdots\\
|C_\sigma|(U^{n,1,r}-U^{n,0})+\xi_1\;\Delta t \; \sum\limits_{K|\sigma\in K} \phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^K(U^{n,0})\\\
\end{pmatrix},
\label{L1}$$ [where the weights $\xi_m$ with $m=1,..,M$ are chosen in $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$ to satisfy $t_{n,m}=t_{n}+\xi_m\Delta t$ and $0=\xi_0< ...<\xi_m<\xi_{m+1}<...<\xi_M=1$.\
]{} In this system the coefficients $|C_\sigma|$ play the role of the dual cell measures and are defined as $$|C_\sigma|:= \int_K \varphi_\sigma d{\mathbf{x}}\label{Ci}$$ A direct consequence of Lemma \[ZeLem\] is that in order for to be solvable, we have to satisfy the constraint $$\label{Ci:constraint}
|C_\sigma|>0.$$ This means that we are not free to choose any family of polynomials as shape functions but only those guaranteeing this property. For instance, for the family of the Lagrangian polynomials $\mathcal{P}^k$ the condition doesn’t hold for $k > 1$. [Therefore, in this work we investigate the use of Bernstein polynomials for high-order residual distribution approximations.]{}\
The low order differential operator $\mathcal{L}^1_\sigma$ constructed this way is explicit in time.\
The drawback of using Bernstein polynomials is that not all degrees of freedom $U_{\sigma}^n$ in the expansion will represent the solution values at certain nodes, however, the advantage of this family of shape functions is their positivity on $K$ that will enforce .
[We next provide the expressions for the families of Bernstein polynomials used in this paper. On triangular elements, given the barycentric coordinates $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$, the Bernstein shape functions are defined as follows.]{}
[2]{}
- [Order 1 (’B1’): $$\varphi_1 = x_1, \ \varphi_2 = x_2, \ \varphi_3 = x_3. \quad \quad \quad \quad$$]{}
- [Order 2 (’B2’): $$\begin{aligned}
& \varphi_1 = x_1^2, \ \varphi_2 = x_2^2, \ \varphi_3= x_3^2, \\
& \varphi_4 = 2 x_1 x_2, \ \varphi_5 = 2 x_2 x_3, \ \varphi_6 = 2 x_1 x_3.
\end{aligned}$$]{}
- [Order 3 (’B3’): $$\begin{aligned}
& \varphi_1 = x_1^3, \ \varphi_2 = x_2^3, \ \varphi_3= x_3^3, \\
& \varphi_4 = 3 x_1^2 x_2, \ \varphi_5 = 3 x_1 x_2^2, \ \varphi_6 = 3 x_2^2 x_3, \\
& \varphi_7 = 3 x_2 x_3^2, \ \varphi_8 = 3 x_1 x_3^2, \ \varphi_9 = 3 x_1^2 x_3, \\
& \varphi_{10} = 6 x_1 x_2 x_3.
\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
![[Nomenclature of the DoFs within a $B_2$ (upper triangle) and a $B_3$ (lower triangle) element. ]{}](./Fig/Triangle_B2 "fig:")\
![[Nomenclature of the DoFs within a $B_2$ (upper triangle) and a $B_3$ (lower triangle) element. ]{}](./Fig/Triangle_B3 "fig:")
On the high order differential operator $\mathcal{L}^2$
-------------------------------------------------------
The high order differential operator $\mathcal{L}^2_\sigma$ reads $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}^2_\sigma(U^{(r)})&= \mathcal{L}^2_\sigma(U^{n,1,r}, \ldots , U^{n,M,r})\\&=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum\limits_{K|\sigma\in K} \Big{(} \int_K \psi_\sigma \big( U_\sigma^{n,M,r} - U_\sigma^{n,0} \big)\,d\mathbf{x} + \displaystyle\int_{t_{n,0}}^{t_{n,M}} \mathcal{I}_{M} \big( \phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K}(U^{(r)}),s\big) \,ds \Big{)}\\
\vdots\\
\sum\limits_{K|\sigma\in K} \Big{(} \int_K \psi_\sigma \big ( U_\sigma^{n,1,r} - U_\sigma^{n,0} \big)\,d\mathbf{x} + \displaystyle\int_{t_{n,0}}^{t_{n,1}} \mathcal{I}_{M} \big( \phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K}(U^{(r)}),s\big) \,ds \Big{)}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}
\label{L2_simplif}$$
In practice, we compute the coefficients of the interpolating polynomial $\mathcal{I}_{M}$ of degree $M$ and perform exact integration to obtain the approximation for every row of in the form $$\label{Interp_M}
\int_{t_{n,0}}^{t_{n,m}}\mathcal{I}_{M}\big(\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K}(U^{n,0,r}),\ldots,\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K}(U^{n,M,r}),s\big) \,ds=\sum_{l=0}^{M}\theta_{m,l} \;\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K}(U^{n,l,r}).$$ This high order differential operator ensures a high order approximation of the space-time term $\partial_t U + \text{div}\,{\mathbf{F}}(U)$, but is implicit in time, and therefore the iterative formulation is used in the timestepping to obtain an explicit scheme which ensures high order of accuracy both in space and time.
On the choice of the sub-time and correction steps
--------------------------------------------------
[ As outlined in [@Abgrall2017], after $R$ corrections we have $\mathcal{L}^1(U^{(R+1)})=\mathcal{O}(h^{R+1})$, as for each correction holds $$\mathcal{L}^1(U^{(r+1)})=\mathcal{L}^1(U^{(r)})-\mathcal{L}^2(U^{(r)})=\mathcal{O}(h^{r+1}).
\label{HO_timestepping_order}$$ The approximation $ \mathcal{L}^1(U)=0$ corresponds to a two level scheme for each of the sub-time steps $m$, and, thus, the solution $U_h^{n,M,R}$ is obtained from a two-level scheme that is perturbed by an $\mathcal{O}(h^{r+1})$ term. From a result in [@Morton], we see that, given a norm, the stability condition of the method corresponds to $ \mathcal{L}^1$. Further, $ \mathcal{L}^1$ is recast in terms of a forward Euler method and to obtain a method of order $M$ in space, the time step must be divided by $M$ with respect to the time step needed for the first order in space scheme. Therefore, as a general rule, the idea is to take as many sub-timesteps $M$ as corrections $R$, in order to provide the desired order. ]{}
Extension to systems {#Section_Extend_sys}
--------------------
Out of the schemes described in the previous section, we have considered an approximation given by the limited RDS with an additional jump stabilization in the form of , since the results obtained in [@Abgrall2017] have shown the supremacy of the jump formulation with respect to the SUPG scheme in terms of dispersive errors.
The boundary term $\int_{\partial K}\varphi_\sigma {\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\cdot {\mathbf{n}}$ is evaluated with the same quadrature formula as the face term $ \int_e [\nabla U_h]\cdot [\nabla \varphi_\sigma]$.The volume term is evaluated by quadrature as well, and the accuracy requirements on these quadrature formula are similar to those of the discontinuous Galerkin (DG) methods.
The approximation of ${\mathbf{F}}$ which we denote by ${\mathbf{F}}(U_h)$ can be done in two possible ways. Either from the data $U_h$ one evaluates the values of the flux at the DoFs ${\mathbf{F}}_\sigma$ and defines ${\mathbf{F}}(U_h)$ as: $$\label{flux:approximation}
{\mathbf{F}}(U_h)\approx \sum_{\sigma\in K}{\mathbf{F}}_\sigma \varphi_\sigma,$$ which leads to a quadrature-free implementation since the integrals of the shape functions and/or gradients can be evaluated explicitly. Alternatively, one can define ${\mathbf{F}}(U_h)$ as the flux evaluated for the local value of $U_h$ at the quadrature point, since both approaches are formally equivalent from the accuracy point of view. The $\varphi_\sigma$ have degree $k$.
Let us now explain how the nonlinear residual is calculated in case of systems, omitting the jump stabilization term for simplicity. We also omit the correction index $r$ and describe the calculation for the $m$-th substep in time.
We start by introducing a local Lax-Friedrichs type nodal residual on the steady part of : $$\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K,LxF}(U_h)=\int_{\partial K}\varphi_\sigma \mathbf{F}(U_h)\cdot \mathbf{n}\,d\gamma -\int_K \nabla \varphi_\sigma\cdot \mathbf{F}(U_h)\,d \mathbf{x} +\alpha_K(U_\sigma-\overline{U}_h^K)
\label{phi_LxF_xI}$$ and define the nodal residual in space and time of as $$\phi_\sigma^{K,LxF}(U_h) = \int_K \psi_\sigma \big( U_\sigma^{n,m} - U_\sigma^{n,0} \big)\,d\mathbf{x} + \displaystyle\int_{t_{n,0}}^{t_{n,{m}}} \mathcal{I}_{M} \big( \phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K,LxF}(U),s\big) \,ds
\label{phi_LxF}$$ where $\overline{U}_h^K$ is the arithmetic average of all degrees of freedom defining $U_h$ in $K$. [The coefficient $\alpha_K$ is defined via the spectral radius of the flux Jacobian matrix ${\mathbf{A}}(U) = \nabla_U{\mathbf{F}}(U) \cdot {\mathbf{n}}$ as follows $$\alpha_K = \max\limits_{\sigma\in K} \bigg ( \rho_S\Big ( \nabla_U\big{(}{\mathbf{A}}(U_\sigma) \Big )\bigg ).$$]{} [The use of this classic formulation of the Lax-Friedrichs results, nevertheless, in a very dissipative scheme when dealing with higher than second order schemes (see cf. Fig. \[Fig:SO\_200comp\]). This observation has led to a reformulation of the term $\alpha_K(U_\sigma-\overline{U}_h^K)$ of equation . This reformulation requires the fullfillment of a Lax-Wendroff like theorem [@abg2001d; @AbgrallViville2017] that sets the constraint on the conservation of at an element interface level and not globally on the element. ]{}
To achieve this, we consider the flux approximation . If the basis functions are of degree $k$, the approximation of is denoted by ${\mathbf{F}}^{(k)}$. Following the idea of [@AbgrallViville2017], we can rewrite the residuals $\int_K \text{ div }{\mathbf{F}}^{(k)} d\mathbf{x}$ as $$\int_K \text{div }{\mathbf{F}}^{(k)} d\mathbf{x}=\sum_{K_i\subset K} \omega_{K_i} \int_{K_i}\text{ div }{\mathbf{F}}^{(1)}\;d\mathbf{x},
\label{divkinto1}$$ which is a weighted sum of the first order residuals $\int_{K_i} \text{ div }{\mathbf{F}}_{K_i}^{(1)} \; d{\mathbf{x}}$, where ${\mathbf{F}}_{K_i}^{(1)}$ is the piecewise linear interpolation of the flux ${\mathbf{F}}$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_\sigma$ represents the values at the vertices $\sigma$ of $K_i$. The weights $\omega_{K_i}$ are positive (refer to \[appendix A\] for more details).\
Equation allows to reformulate a new version of as $$\sum_{K_i\in K,\sigma \in K_i} \omega_{K_i} \,\big{[} \int_{\partial K_i}\varphi_\sigma \mathbf{F}^{(1)}\cdot \mathbf{n}\,d\gamma_i -\int_{K_i} \nabla \varphi_\sigma\cdot \mathbf{F}^{(1)}\,d \mathbf{x} + \alpha_{K_i}(U_{\sigma,K_i}-\overline{U}_{h,K_i})\big{]},
\label{phi_LxF_sub}$$ which corresponds to recast the Lax-Friedrichs term as a weighted sum over each node $i$ belonging to a sub-cell $K_i$ within a cell $K$. In the proposed formulation, we do not write the Galerkin term for degree $k$ $$\int_K \varphi_\sigma \text{ div }{\mathbf{F}}^{(k)}\; d\mathbf{x}=-\int_K\nabla\varphi_\sigma \cdot {\mathbf{F}}^{(k)}\; d\mathbf x +\int_{\partial K} \varphi_\sigma {\mathbf{F}}^{(k)}\cdot{\mathbf{n}}\; d\gamma,$$ as a weighted sum of the Galerkin term for degree $1$ (though this is also possible, with positive weights), but we consider the Lax Friedrichs scheme for the sub-elements $K_i$ and we weight them in such a way that the conservation at the element-level $K$ is recovered.
To get a non oscillatory scheme, the dissipation terms $\alpha_{K_i}$ are defined by $$\alpha_{K_i} = \max\limits_{\sigma\in K_i} \bigg ( \rho_S\Big ({\mathbf{A}}(U_\sigma) \Big )\bigg ).$$ The weights $\omega_{K_i}$ are set to $1$ in the one dimensional case, so that the sum corresponds basically to a telescopic sum over the sub-cells. In two-dimensions, we have set for the Bernstein approximation of order 2 $$\omega_{K_i}=
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{2}{3},\quad \text{for}\,\, i=1,2,3\\
2,\quad \text{for}\,\, i=4\\
\end{cases}$$ and for the Bernstein approximation of order 3 $$\omega_{K_i}=
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{1}{2},\quad \text{for}\,\, i=1,2,..,6\\
1,\quad \text{for}\,\, i=7,8,9\\
\end{cases}$$ following the sub-cell nomenclature as in Fig. \[Fig:sub\_elements\] (see for more details [@AbgrallViville2017]).
![Nomenclature of the sub-cells $K_i$ within a generic linear triangular element $K$ for ’B2’ (left) and ’B3’ (right). []{data-label="Fig:sub_elements"}](Fig/sub_elements)
In order to achieve high order accuracy and guarantee the monotonicity of the solution near strong discontinuities, we proceed as follows. For a scalar problem we would compute the distribution coefficients $\beta_\sigma^K$ as $$\beta_\sigma^K(U_h)=\dfrac{\max\big( \frac{\phi_\sigma^{K,LxF}}{\phi^K},0 \big)}{\sum\limits_{j\in K} \max\big( \frac{\phi_j^{K,LxF}}{\phi^K},0 \big)}, \quad \phi^K = \sum_{\sigma\in K} \phi_\sigma^{K,LxF}
\label{beta_singularity}$$ [In case of systems, to allow less dissipation, is applied to each variable by considering their characteristic decomposition as described e. g. in [@DeSantis2015]]{}. To this end, one considers the eigen-decomposition of the Jacobian matrix ${\mathbf{A}}(U) = \nabla_U{\mathbf{F}}(U) \cdot {\mathbf{n}}$ of the flux $\mathbf{F}$ with respect to the state $\overline{U}_h^K$, where as ${\mathbf{n}}$ we take the average fluid velocity vector or we choose an arbitrary direction (for example the $x$-coordinate) in case the average velocity vanishes. The matrix composed of the right eigenvectors of ${\mathbf{A}}(U)$ is denoted by ${\mathbf{R}}$, so that ${\mathbf{L}}= {\mathbf{R}}^{-1}$ is the matrix of left eigenvectors. More precisely, and as described in [@DeSantis2015], the distribution coefficients for the system of equations are calculated in local characteristic variables by projecting the first order residuals onto a space of left eigenvalues, as $$\label{phi_char}
\hat{\phi}_\sigma^{K,LxF} = {\mathbf{L}}\,\phi_\sigma^{K,LxF}, \quad \hat{\phi}^K = {\mathbf{L}}\,\phi^K.$$
The high order nodal limited residuals are then obtained as follows. We first calculate the distribution coefficients according to $$\beta_\sigma^K = \dfrac{\max\big( \frac{\hat{\phi}_\sigma^{K,LxF}}{\hat{\phi}^K},0 \big)}{\sum\limits_{j\in K} \max\big( \frac{\hat{\phi}_j^{K,LxF}}{\hat{\phi}^K},0 \big)}, \quad \hat{\phi}^K = \sum_{\sigma\in K} \hat{\phi}_\sigma^{K,LxF}.
\label{beta_char}$$ Next, we apply the blending scheme $$\hat{\phi}_\sigma^{K,\star} = (1-\Theta)\,\beta_\sigma^K \hat{\phi}^K + \Theta\,\hat{\phi}_\sigma^{K,LxF},
\label{limiting}$$ where the blending coefficient $\Theta$ is defined by $$\label{theta}
\Theta = \dfrac{\big| \hat{\phi}^K \big|}{\sum\limits_{\sigma'\in K} \big| \hat{\phi}_{\sigma'}^{K,LxF} \big|}.$$ Clearly, $0 \leq \Theta \leq 1$, and $\Theta = O(h)$ for a smooth solution, thus ensuring accuracy and $\Theta = O(1)$ at the discontinuity, thus ensuring monotonicity [@abg]. Finally, the high order nodal residuals are projected back to the physical space: $$\label{phi_phys}
\phi_\sigma^{K,\star} = {\mathbf{R}}\,\hat{\phi}_\sigma^{K,\star}.$$ This guarantees that the scheme is high order in time and space and (formally) non-oscillatory, see [@mario; @abg] for more details.
[ When possible singularities may arise as, for example, due to pressures close to zero, instead of applying the characteristic limiting -, we adopt locally in the affected cells the limiting as in .These two limiting strategies are both Lipschitz continuous, so that the switch does indeed not affect the property , causing convergence problems. Further, the only situation when the pressure becomes close to zero, or, eventually negative, typically occurs in problems with strong interacting discontinuities, and across shocks one would have a first order monotone method due to the limiting formulation.]{}
[ After the application of the limiter, we add the jump stabilization term $$\phi_{\sigma,\mathbf{x}}^{K,jump}(U_h)= \sum_{\text{edges of }K}
\theta_1 h_e^2 \int_e [\nabla U_h]\cdot [\nabla \varphi_\sigma]\,d\gamma+\sum_{\text{edges of }K}
\theta_2 h_e^4 \int_e [\nabla^2 U_h{\mathbf{n}}]\cdot [\nabla^2 \varphi_\sigma{\mathbf{n}}]\,d\gamma
\label{phi_burman}$$ where ${\mathbf{n}}$ is a normal to $e$. ]{} [ In general, since we are adding the edge stabilization terms of to the residual distribution scheme after the high order limiting, the question may arise, wheather the inclusion of an unlimited high-order stabilization term might destroy monotonicity-preserving properties [@Jameson1995]. Numerical experiments show that this method is essentially non-oscillatory. Formally the monotonicity property is violated, in practice, nevertheless, this is not the case: we can see very small undershoots/overshoots. Moreover, in our experiments, we have observed that an appropriate choice of the coefficient $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ in does not lead to any spurious oscillations at shocks and has only the beneficial effect to stabilize the solution for high order, ensuring, thus the aimed accuracy. ]{}
Numerical results {#sec:results}
=================
To assess the accuracy and robustness of the proposed high order residual distribution scheme, in the following section we perform the convergence analysis for the wave equation and isentropic flow and study several benchmark problems in one and two spatial dimensions for the Euler equations of gas dynamics. In the following, we shall refer to the second order scheme obtained by using linear shape functions on each element as ’B1’. Higher order approximations are obtained by choosing quadratic (’B2’) or cubic (’B3’) Bernstein polynomials as shape functions. [ For the B1 approximation we consider $M=2$ and $R=2$, for B2 $M=3$ and $R=3$ and, finally, for B3 $M=4$ and $R=4$ in algorithm . All test cases are advanced in time using the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy condition $\Delta t= \text{CFL} \cdot\Delta x$ which is then updated by computing $\Delta t= \text{CFL}\cdot \min_{\sigma} \big{(} \frac{\Delta x_{\sigma}}{|u_{\sigma}+c_{\sigma}|}\big{)} $, where $\Delta x_{\sigma}$ represents the volume of the cell corresponding to the considered degree of freedom $\sigma$ and $|u_{\sigma}+c_{\sigma}|$ the spectral radius of the solution in $\sigma$. We have set for all the considered tests a fixed $CFL=0.1$. The parameters of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ depend on the order of accuracy and on the typology of considered system, i.e. they change from 1D to 2D and from the wave equation to the Euler system. In the following considered benchmark problems, we set empirically the values of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ that show a robust stabilization capability. ]{}
Numerical results for 1D test cases
-----------------------------------
### Convergence study: wave equation
We start by considering the one dimensional wave equation $q_{tt} - a^2 q_{xx} = 0$ which we rewrite as a first-order system of PDEs with respect to the variables $u = q_t$ and $v = q_x$: $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
& u_t - a^2 &&v_x &&= 0, \\
& v_t - &&u_x &&= 0.\end{aligned}$$
We perform the convergence analysis on the smooth problem with initial condition $$q(x,0) = \exp\big(-\beta (x-1/2)^2\big)\sin(\alpha x), \quad -1 \leq x \leq 2,$$ where we set $\alpha = \beta = 100$ and $a=1$. The initial condition for the new variables $u$ and $v$ is derived from $q(x,0)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,0) = 0, \\
& v(x,0) = \exp\big(-\beta (x-1/2)^2\big)\big(\alpha\cos(\alpha x) - 2\beta(x-1/2)\sin(\alpha x)\big).\end{aligned}$$ The final time of the computation is $T=0.5$.
The computations have been performed for B1, B2 and B3 shape functions, leading to schemes of second, third and fourth order of accuracy, respectively. [In order to stabilize the approximation, we set w.r.t. for B1 $\theta_1=0.2$ and $\theta_2=0$, for B2 $\theta_1=0.1$ and $\theta_2=0$ and for B3 $\theta_1=2.$ and $\theta_2=4.$]{}
[The numerical solution obtained with $600$ grid cells is shown in Fig. \[wave1D:sol\] and the convergence plot is given in Fig. \[Fig:wave1D\_convergence\] along its Table \[Table:wave1D\_convergence\]. In Table \[Table:wave1D\_convergence\] we have reported two different convergence studies for B3 elements: one with $R=4$ corrections which gives a decreasing order of accuracy along a mesh refinement, and one with the double amount of corrections, which results in the predicted convergence rates of fourth order.]{} We see that the solution given by B1 elements fails to capture the correct location of the waves in discretized domains with low number of cells, while the B2 and B3 elements at the same mesh are already able to provide a very accurate solution, however, the situation improves for B1 elements as the mesh is refined, which can be seen from the convergence plot. The scheme reaches the theoretically predicted convergence rates for all approximation orders that we have tested here.
d[![Numerical solution for the 1D wave system using $600$ cells at $T=0.5$ in the range $-0.5 \leq x \leq 0.5$[]{data-label="wave1D:sol"}](Fig/Test_1D_wave_600 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}]{}
[c|| l l |l l| l l| l l ]{} & B1 & &B2 & & B3& & B3\
&$M=1$ & & $M=2$ & & $M=4$, & & $M=4$,\
&$R=2$ & & $ R=3$ & & $R=4$ & & $R=8$\
& & & & & & & &\
$\log_{10}(h)$ & $L_1$-error & slope & $L_1$-error & slope & $L_1$-error & slope & $L_1$-error & slope\
\
\
$2.6021$ & $9.623$ & $-$ & $1.565 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & $-$ & $ 5.105 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $-$ & $7.857 \cdot 10^{-3}$& $-$\
$2.7782$ & $11.655$ & $-0.47$ & $3.817 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $3.48$ & $1.092 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $3.803$ & $1.356\cdot 10^{-3}$ & $4.33$\
$2.9031$ & $8.601$ & $1.06$ & $ 1.744 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $2.72$ & $4.537 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $3.05$ & $4.004\cdot 10^{-4}$ & $4.24$\
$3.0000$ & $6.006$ & $1.61$ & $9.543 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $2.70$ &$2.520\cdot 10^{-3}$ & $2.64$ & $1.625 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $4.04$\
$3.0792$ & $4.319$ & $1.81$ & $ 5.772 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $2.76$ & $1.600 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $2.49$ & $7.654 \cdot 10^{-5}$ &$4.05$\
$3.1461$ & $3.228$ & $1.89$ & $3.752 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $2.79$ & $1.109\cdot 10^{-3}$ &$2.38$ & $3.996 \cdot 10^{-5}$ & $4.31$\
$3.2041$ & $2.492$ &$1.94$ & $3.955 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $1.57$& $8.237 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $2.23$ & $2.395 \cdot 10^{-5}$ & $3.83$\
$3.5051$ & $0.632$ & $1.98$ & $1.134 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $1.80$& $1.873 \cdot 10^{-4}$& $2.14$ & $2.346 \cdot 10^{-6}$ & $ 3.35$
### Convergence study: smooth isentropic flow {#Isoflow_1D}
The next considered test case in 1D [for the Euler system]{} is performed to assess the accuracy of our scheme on a smooth isentropic flow problem introduced in [@ChengShu2014]. The initial data for this test problem is the following: $$\rho_0(x) = 1 + 0.9999995\sin(\pi x), \quad u_0(x) = 0, \quad p_0(x) = \rho^{\gamma}(x,0),$$ with $x \in [-1,1]$, $\gamma=3$ and periodic boundary conditions.
The exact density and velocity in this case can be obtained by the method of characteristics and is explicitly given by $$\rho(x,t) = \dfrac12\big( \rho_0(x_1) + \rho_0(x_2)\big), \quad u(x,t) = \sqrt{3}\big(\rho(x,t)-\rho_0(x_1) \big),$$ where for each coordinate $x$ and time $t$ the values $x_1$ and $x_2$ are solutions of the non-linear equations $$\begin{aligned}
& x + \sqrt{3}\rho_0(x_1) t - x_1 = 0, \\
& x - \sqrt{3}\rho_0(x_2) t - x_2 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
[The smooth isoentropic flow test has been run with the parameters in as follows: B1 $\theta_1=1$ and $\theta_2=0$; B2 $\theta_1=1$ and $\theta_2=0$; B3 $\theta_1=3$ and $\theta_2=10$.]{}
[The convergence of the second (’B1’), third (’B2’) and fourth (’B3’) order RD schemes is demonstrated in Fig. \[Fig:convergence\]. We observe an overall good convergence rate for all the variables. It is nevertheless interesting to note, that increasing the amount of the performed corrections, i.e. setting for the fourth order scheme $R=8$ corrections, greatly improves the convergence rate or ’B3’ as shown in Fig. \[Fig:convergence\_10corr\]. ]{}
\
\
### Sod’s shock tube problem
The Sod shock tube is a classical test problem for the assessment of the numerical methods for solving the Euler equations. Its solution consists of a left rarefaction, a contact and a right shock wave. The initial data for this problem is given as follows: $$(\rho_0, u_0, p_0) =
\begin{cases}
(1, 0, 1), \quad &x < 0, \\
(0.125, 0, 0.1), \quad &x > 0.
\end{cases}$$ [The jump stabilization parameters have been set as in Section \[Isoflow\_1D\].]{} The results of the simulations comparing the second, third and fourth order RD scheme are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Sod\]. The numerical solution converges to the exact one and higher order schemes show much more accurate approximation then the second order scheme.
### Woodward-Colella problem
The interaction of blast waves is a standard low energy benchmark problem involving strong shocks reflecting from the walls of the tube with further mutual interactions. The initial data is the following: $$(\rho_0,u_0,p_0) =
\begin{cases}
[1, 0, 10^3], \; &0 \leq x \leq 0.1, \\
[1, 0, 10^{-2}], \; &0.1 < x < 0.9, \\
[1, 0, 10^2], \; &0.9 \leq x \leq 1.
\end{cases}$$ [The jump stabilization parameters have been set as in Section \[Isoflow\_1D\].]{} The results of the simulations using second (’B1’), third (’B2’) and fourth (’B3’) order RD schemes are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:WC\]. The plots show a very good behavior of the numerical scheme even for this extremely demanding test case. The solution is well approximated already on a 400 cell mesh with B3, and further mesh refinement shows the expected convergence to the exact solution.
### Shu-Osher problem
This test case, introduced in [@shuOsher1989], is intended to demonstrate the advantages of high order schemes for problems involving some structure in smooth regions. In this test, we solve the Euler equations with initial conditions containing a moving Mach 3 shock wave which later interacts with periodic perturbations in density. The initial data for this problem is defined as follows: $$W=[\rho,u,p]=
\begin{cases}
[3.857143, 2.629369, 10.333333], \; &-5 \leq x \leq -4, \\
[1 + 0.2\sin(5x), 0, 1], \; &-4 < x \leq 5.
\end{cases}$$ [Also in this case, the jump stabilization parameters have been set as in Section \[Isoflow\_1D\].]{} The more accurate approximation obtained by the fourth order scheme in comparison to the second and third order is clearly visible in this benchmark problem, and increasing the number of mesh elements within the domain strongly increases the quality of the solution.
This benchmark problem allows, further, to highlight the dissipative character of the original local Lax-Friedrichs approximation when dealing with higher than second order of accuracy and the improvement one may achieve with its reformulation in terms of a telescopic sum as in . On a grid with 200 nodes we can observe in Fig. \[Fig:SO\_before\] how the approximation has extremely clipped extrema when the proposed method with is applied, while with in Fig. \[Fig:SO\_after\] results in sharper extrema on such a coarse mesh.
\[Fig:SO\_before\] \[Fig:SO\_after\]\
\[Fig:SO\_before\] \[Fig:SO\_after\]
Numerical results for 2D test cases
-----------------------------------
### Stationary vortex {#Section:Vortex}
The first considered test case in 2D is the stationary isentropic vortex evolution problem, see e. g. [@Yee1999]. Initially, an isentropic perturbation $(\delta S=0)$ is applied to the system, such that $$\label{isentropic:delta}
\begin{cases}
\delta u=-\bar{y}\frac{\beta}{2\pi}e^{(1-r^2)/2}\\[0.3em]
\delta v=\bar{x}\frac{\beta}{2\pi}e^{(1-r^2)/2}\\[0.3em]
\delta T =-\frac{(\gamma-1)\beta^2}{8\gamma\pi^2}e^{1-r^2}.
\end{cases}$$ The initial conditions are thus set to $$\label{isentropic:IC}
\begin{cases}
\rho=T^{1/(\gamma-1)}=(T_{\infty}+\delta T)^{1/(\gamma-1)}=\Big{[}1-\frac{(\gamma-1)\beta^2}{8\gamma\pi^2}e^{1-r^2}\Big{]}^{1/(\gamma-1)}\\[0.3em]
\rho u=\rho(u_{\infty}+\delta u)=\rho \Big{[}1-\bar{y} \frac{\beta}{2\pi}e^{(1-r^2)/2}\Big{]}\\[0.3em]
\rho v=\rho(v_{\infty}+\delta v)=\rho \Big{[}1+\bar{x} \frac{\beta}{2\pi}e^{(1-r^2)/2}\Big{]}\\[0.3em]
\rho E=\frac{\rho^\gamma}{\gamma-1}+\frac{1}{2}\rho (u^2+v^2),
\end{cases}$$ where $\beta=5$, $r=\bar{x}^2+\bar{y}^2$ and $(\bar{x},\bar{y})=\big{(}(x-x_0),(y-y_0)\big{)}$. The computational domain is a circle with radius of $10$ and center at $(0,0)$. The center of the vortex is set in $(x_0,y_0)=(0,0)$. The parameters of the unperturbed flow are set to $u_{\infty}=v_{\infty}=0$ for the velocities, $p_{\infty}=1$ for the pressure, $T_{\infty}=1$ for the temperature and $\rho_{\infty}=1$ for the density.
The proposed RD method has been tested with $B1$, $B2$ and $B3$ basis polynomials on four different meshes with the number of triangular elements equal to $N_0=608$, $N_1=934$, $N_2=14176$ and $N_3=56192$, respectively[^1]. [In order to stabilize the approximation, we set w.r.t. for B1 $\theta_1=0.1$ and $\theta_2=0$, for B2 $\theta_1=0.01$ and $\theta_2=0$ and for B3 $\theta_1=0.001$ and $\theta_2=0.$]{} The obtained convergence curves for the three schemes considered are displayed in Figure \[vortex\_convergence\_2D\] and show an excellent correspondence to the theoretically predicted order. From Figures \[vortex\_rho\_2D\] and \[vortex\_scatter\_2D\] it can be seen that a very good approximation is already achieved on the mesh with $934$ cells. As expected, the $B1$ approximation is the most dissipative, while $B2$ becomes more accurate despite having a small density undershoot at the center of the vortex, and $B3$ shows an excellent approximation which is practically indistinguishable from the exact solution.
\
![2D stationary vortex scatter plot for the density on a mesh given by $N_0=934$ elements. Results for $B1$ (dashed black), $B2$ (dashed blue) and $B3$ (dashed red) and the exact (continuous black) at $T=50$.[]{data-label="vortex_scatter_2D"}](Fig/vortex_scatter_rho_r){width="40.00000%"}
In our numerical experiments this test case represents the only exception revealing the difference between the two approximating strategies of the fluxes, as described in Section \[Section\_Extend\_sys\]. From a formal point of view, it is equivalent to interpolate the flux or to compute the flux for the solution interpolated at a quadrature point. However, from a computational point of view, the first strategy leads to a quadrature-free algorithm, while the second one requires a quadrature formula. For this test case, the quadrature-free strategy proved to be unstable while the second one led to the results presented above. We have never encountered this issue in the 1D simulations, which have all been computed with the quadrature-free approximation. In order to be consistent with the presented results, the 2D test cases have accordingly been computed using the second approximation strategy. [We note that instability of the quadrature-free version can be attributed to a violation of stability conditions derived in the recent paper [@Barrenechea].]{}
### 2D Sod problem {#Section:2D_Sod}
Further, we have tested our high order RD scheme on a well-known 2D Sod benchmark problem. The initial conditions are given by $$(\rho_0,u_0,v_0,p_0) =
\begin{cases}
[1, 0, 0, 1], \; &0 \leq r \leq 0.5, \\
[0.125, 0, 0, 0.1], \; &0.5 < r \leq 1,
\end{cases}$$ where $r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ is the distance of the point $(x,y)$ from the origin.
The computations have been performed a triangular mesh consisting of approximately [$3500$ and $13500$]{} elements[^2]. [The stabilizing parameters of have been set for B1, B2 and B3 as in Section \[Section:Vortex\]. The 2D plot of the solution in Figure \[Sod\_2D\_coarse\] and \[Sod\_2D\_fine\], as well as the behavior of the scatter plot of the density, velocity and pressure in Figure \[Sod\_2D\_scatter\_coarse\] and \[Sod\_2D\_scatter\_fine\]]{} are in agreement with the previous test cases: increasing the order of the basis polynomials leads to the improvement of the solution quality and, thus, an enhanced representation of the shock waves. [Further, one may note also how increasing the mesh refinement, we can observe an increase of the symmetry of the solution from \[Sod\_2D\_scatter\_coarse\] to \[Sod\_2D\_scatter\_fine\].]{}
### Mach 3 channel with forward-facing step
To assess the robustness of the proposed scheme in multidimensional problems involving strong shock waves, the Mach $3$ channel with a forward-facing step [@Woodward1984] test case has been used with $B1$, $B2$ and $B3$ elements on both coarse mesh having $N=2848$ cells[^3] and finer one having $N=11072$ cells[^4]) (see Fig. \[step\_2D\]). [The stabilizing parameters have been set for B1 to $\theta_1=0.1$ and $\theta_2=0$, for B2 to $\theta_1=0.3$ and $\theta_2=0$ and for B3 $\theta_1=0.05$ and $\theta_2=0$.]{} As expected, the quality of the solution increases when going from the second to fourth order scheme even on coarse meshes. Indeed, while in $B1$ case in Fig. \[step\_2D\_B1N0\] it is not possible to recognize the structure forming at the triple point, in $B2$ and $B3$ cases (Figs. \[step\_2D\_B2N0\] and \[step\_2D\_B3N0\], respectively) this structure is already very well represented. On finer mesh, see Figs. \[step\_2D\_B1N1\],\[step\_2D\_B2N1\] and \[step\_2D\_B3N1\], it is also possible to observe the gain in the quality of the approximation of shock waves when using a higher order RD method.
\
\
\
### Double Mach Reflection problem
Finally, we present a widely used benchmark problem of a double Mack reflection problem as described in [@Woodward1984]. In this case, $B1$, $B2$ and $B3$ elements have been computed on a coarse mesh having $N=4908$ cells[^5] and a finer one having $N=19248$ cells[^6]) (see Fig. \[Fig:DMR\]). [The stabilizing parameters have been set as in Section \[Section:Vortex\].]{} Also here, as expected, the quality of the solution increases when going from the second to fourth order scheme on coarse meshes and more details are outlined on the finer mesh.
\
\
\
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, extending the ideas of [@mario] and [@Abgrall2017], we have developed an explicit high order residual distribution scheme for multidimensional hyperbolic systems. The main advantage of this approach consists in a simple way to detain high order of accuracy both in time and space, while having an explicit scheme in time which does not have the typical matrix “inversion” pertinent to classical finite element methodologies. We have demonstrated the mesh convergence to exact solutions with theoretically predicted high orders of accuracy by this new class of RD schemes. Further, several benchmark problems have assessed the robustness of the scheme when dealing with strong discontinuities. Extensions to other models, such as multiphase flows or Lagrangian hydrodynamics, and further investigations of high order residual distribution schemes will be considered in forthcoming papers. [Finally, we are currently extending the proposed approach to viscous problems by combining it with the discretisation technique as explained in [@DeSantis2015]. In this case, the time step results, of course, very small, and thus an implicit approach is needed with the challenge to have, nevertheless, a diagonal ’mass matrix’.]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
ST and PB have been funded by SNSF project 200021\_153604 “High fidelity simulation for compressible materials”. R.A. has been funded in part by the same project. The authors would like to thank M. Han Veiga and D. Torlo for their useful feedbacks on this paper. [A special acknowledgement goes to D. Kuzmin who made very useful suggestions to lower the numerical dissipation of the Lax-Friedrichs scheme.]{}
[A remark on the total residual as a weighted sum on triangular elements]{} {#appendix A}
===========================================================================
[ For a better understanding of and following [@AbgrallViville2017], we rewrite explicitly how the total residual is obtained in 2D on triangular elements in terms of a weighted sum of first order residuals. This is carried out for the case of a B2 approximation.\
Let us define first the nomenclature of the considered element to be as the left triangle of Figure \[Fig:sub\_elements\] with $k$ in to be $2$. Take $\sigma$ as the generic degree of freedom on the considered element $K$, while $\sigma'$ the degree of freedom of the sub-triangles $K_i$ with $i=1,..,4$. Further, let $\varphi$ be the Bernstein shape function of order 2, $x_j$ the barycentric coordinates corresponding to the vertices of the triangular element with $j=1,2,3$, and $(y_i^j)_{i=1,2,3}$ the local barycentric coordinates of the element $K_j$. We define the first order approximation of the Flux as in to read $${\mathbf{F}}_{K_i}^{(1)}=\sum\limits_{\sigma'_j \text{ vertex of } K_i} {\mathbf{F}}_{\sigma'}y_i^j.$$ We set for the B2 approximation $${\mathbf{F}}^{(2)}=\sum_{i=1}^{6} {\mathbf{F}}_i\varphi_i.$$ The gradient of the Bernstein basis functions, which have been defined at the end of Section \[Sec\_L1operator\] are defined as $$\begin{split}
&\nabla \varphi_j=2x_j\nabla x_j,\,\, \text{for}\,\, j=1,2,3\\
&\nabla \varphi_4=2(x_1\nabla x_2+x_2\nabla x_1),\\
& \nabla \varphi_5=2(x_2\nabla x_3+x_3\nabla x_2),\\
& \nabla \varphi_5=2(x_1\nabla x_3+x_3\nabla x_1).
\end{split}$$ Rewriting the total residual explicitly will result in the following $$\begin{split}
\int_K \varphi_\sigma \text{ div }{\mathbf{F}}^{(2)}\; d\mathbf{x} =\,&\sum_{K_i \in K, \sigma'
\in K_i} \big(\int_K \varphi_\sigma \text{ div } \varphi_{\sigma'} \big) {\mathbf{F}}_{\sigma'} \\=\, &
\quad \, 2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_1\nabla x_1 {\mathbf{F}}_1+2\big( \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_2 \nabla x_1 + \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_1 \nabla x_2 \big) {\mathbf{F}}_4\\&+
2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_2\nabla x_2 {\mathbf{F}}_2+2\big( \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_2 \nabla x_3 + \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_3 \nabla x_2 \big) {\mathbf{F}}_5\\&+
2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_3\nabla x_3 {\mathbf{F}}_3+2\big( \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_1 \nabla x_3 + \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_3 \nabla x_1 \big) {\mathbf{F}}_6,
\end{split}$$ which in terms of the sum over the sub-triangles is equivalent to $$\begin{split}
\int_K \varphi_\sigma \text{ div }{\mathbf{F}}^{(2)}\; d\mathbf{x} =\,&
\quad \, 2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_1\nabla x_1 {\mathbf{F}}_1+2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_1 \nabla x_2 {\mathbf{F}}_4 + 2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_1 \nabla x_3 {\mathbf{F}}_6\quad \quad \quad (K_1)\\&+
2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_2\nabla x_2 {\mathbf{F}}_2+2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_2 \nabla x_1 {\mathbf{F}}_4 + 2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_2 \nabla x_3 {\mathbf{F}}_5\quad \quad \quad (K_2)\\&+
2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_3\nabla x_3 {\mathbf{F}}_3+2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_3 \nabla x_1 {\mathbf{F}}_6 + 2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_3 \nabla x_2 {\mathbf{F}}_5\quad \quad \quad (K_3)\\&-
2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_3\nabla x_3 {\mathbf{F}}_4-2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_1\nabla x_1 {\mathbf{F}}_5-2\int_K \varphi_{\sigma} x_2\nabla x_2 {\mathbf{F}}_6 \quad \quad \quad (K_4)\\=\,&
\quad \, \sum_{i=1}^4 2 \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} \text{ div }{\mathbf{F}}^{(1)}\; d\mathbf{x}
\end{split}
\label{explicit_weightedsum}$$ From one can easily see the relation with , where in particular $$\omega_{K_i}=2 \int_K \varphi_{\sigma} d\mathbf{x}.$$ For Bernstein shape functions of order 3 the same idea is applied. ]{}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: corresponding to typical element sizes $h=0.7$, $0.57$, $0.14$ and $0.075$, respectively
[^2]: this last corresponds roughly to $115\times 115$ grid points on a Cartesian grid
[^3]: corresponds roughly to $30\times 100$ grid points
[^4]: corresponds roughly to $60\times 200$ grid points
[^5]: corresponds roughly to $30\times 100$ grid points
[^6]: corresponds roughly to $60\times 200$ grid points
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A Helson matrix is an infinite matrix $A = (a_{m,n})_{m,n\geq1}$ such that the entry $a_{m,n}$ depends only on the product $mn$. We demonstrate that the orthogonal projection from the Hilbert–Schmidt class $\mathcal{S}_2$ onto the subspace of Hilbert–Schmidt Helson matrices does not extend to a bounded operator on the Schatten class $\mathcal{S}_q$ for $1 \leq q \neq 2 < \infty$. In fact, we prove a more general result showing that a large class of natural projections onto Helson matrices are unbounded in the $\mathcal{S}_q$-norm for $1 \leq q \neq 2 < \infty$. Two additional results are also presented.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway'
- 'Department of Mathematics, King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom'
author:
- Ole Fredrik Brevig
- Nazar Miheisi
bibliography:
- 'helsonproj.bib'
title: |
Projecting onto Helson matrices\
in Schatten classes
---
Introduction
============
Let $\gamma = (\gamma_k)_{k\geq0}$ be a sequence of complex numbers. A *Hankel matrix* is an infinite matrix of the form $$\label{eq:Hankel}
H_\gamma = \left(\gamma_{i+j}\right)_{i,j\geq0}.$$ We consider the matrices as linear operators on $\ell^2(\mathbb{N}_0)$, where $\mathbb{N}_0=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$. The multiplicative analogues of Hankel matrices — that is, matrices whose entries depend on the product rather than the sum of the coordinates — are known as *Helson matrices*. To be precise, a Helson matrix is an infinite matrix of the form $$\label{eq:Helson}
M_\varrho = \left(\varrho_{mn}\right)_{m,n\geq1}$$ for some sequence of complex numbers $\varrho = (\varrho_k)_{k\geq1}$. In this case, we consider the matrices as linear operators on $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$, where $\mathbb{N}=\{1,2,3,\dots\}$.
Helson matrices, whose study was initiated in the papers [@Helson06; @Helson10], play a similar role in the analysis of Dirichlet series as (additive) Hankel matrices play in the analysis of holomorphic functions in the unit disk. As such, questions regarding whether or not classical results for Hankel matrices can be extended to the multiplicative setting have attracted considerable recent attention (see e.g. [@BP15; @MP18; @OCS12; @PP218]). This note deals with one such question.
Recall that a compact operator $A\colon\ell^2\to\ell^2$ is in the Schatten class $\mathcal{S}_q$ if its sequence of singular values $s(A)=(s_k(A))_{k\geq0}$ is in $\ell^q$ and in this case $$\|A\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}=\|s(A)\|_{\ell^q}.$$ Note that the Hilbert–Schmidt class $\mathcal{S}_2$ is a Hilbert space with inner product $$\label{eq:HS}
\langle A, B \rangle = \operatorname{Tr}(AB^\ast) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_{i,j} \overline{b_{i,j}}.$$ The *averaging projection* $P$ onto the set of Hankel matrices is defined by $$\label{proj.Hankel}
P\colon \left(a_{i,j}\right)_{i,j\geq0} \mapsto H_\gamma, \qquad \gamma_k = \frac{1}{k+1}\sum_{i+j=k}a_{i,j}.$$ It is not hard to see that the restriction of $P$ to $\mathcal{S}_2$ is the orthogonal projection onto the subspace of Hilbert–Schmidt Hankel matrices. A well-known result due to Peller [@Peller82] (see also [@Peller03 Ch. 6.5]) is that the averaging projection $P$ is bounded on the Schatten class $\mathcal{S}_q$ for every $1<q<\infty$.
The main purpose of this note is to show that the analogous statement for Helson matrices is false. We therefore define the *averaging projection* $\mathcal{P}$ onto Helson matrices by $$\label{proj.Helson}
\mathcal{P}\colon \left(a_{m,n}\right)_{m,n\geq1} \mapsto M_\varrho, \qquad \varrho_k = \frac{1}{d(k)}\sum_{mn=k} a_{m,n},$$ where $d(k)$ denotes the number of divisors of the integer $k$. As before it is clear that the restriction of $\mathcal{P}$ to $\mathcal{S}_2$ is the orthogonal projection onto the subspace of Hilbert–Schmidt Helson matrices. Our first result is the following:
\[thm.1\] The projection $\mathcal{P}$ is unbounded on $\mathcal{S}_q$ for every $1\leq q\neq 2 < \infty$.
Although the natural projection $P$ given by is unbounded on $\mathcal{S}_1$, there do exist bounded projections onto the trace class Hankel operators. Let $\varphi\colon\mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a non-negative function such that for every integer $k\geq0$ it holds that $$\label{avg.conditions}
\sum_{i+j=k} \varphi(i,j) = 1.$$ Consider the *weighted averaging projection* $P_\varphi$ defined by $$\label{proj.Hankel3}
P_\varphi\colon \left(a_{i,j}\right)_{i,j\geq0} \mapsto H_\gamma, \qquad \gamma_k = \sum_{i+j=k}\varphi(i,j) a_{i,j}.$$ The condition ensures that $P_\varphi$ is indeed a projection. For $\alpha\geq1$, consider $$\frac{1}{(1-z)^\alpha} = \sum_{j=0}^\infty c_\alpha(j) z^j, \qquad c_\alpha(j) = \binom{j+\alpha-1}{j}.$$ The weight $\varphi_{\alpha,\beta}(i,j) = c_\alpha(i)c_\beta(j) / c_{\alpha+\beta}(i+j)$ satisfies the condition and the projection $P_{\varphi_{\alpha,\beta}}$ is bounded on $\mathcal{S}_1$ if $\alpha,\beta>1$ (see [@Peller03 Ch. 6.5] and [@BW86]). Note that the averaging projection corresponds to the endpoint case $\alpha=\beta=1$.
It is natural to ask if we can similarly find a weighted averaging projection onto Helson matrices which is bounded in $\mathcal{S}_q$ for some $1 \leq q\neq 2 < \infty$. We will show that if the weight function is multiplicative (see Section \[multiplicative\] for the definition), this question has a negative answer.
\[thm.2\] Let $\Phi\colon \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{R}$ be a non-negative multiplicative function such that for every integer $k\geq 1$ it holds that $$\label{eq:avgHelson}
\sum_{mn=k} \Phi(m,n) = 1.$$ Define the weighted projection $\mathcal{P}_\Phi$ by $$\label{proj.Helson3}
\mathcal{P}_\Phi\colon \left(a_{m,n}\right)_{m,n\geq1} \mapsto M_\varrho, \qquad \varrho_k = \sum_{mn=k} \Phi(m,n) a_{m,n}.$$ Then $\mathcal{P}_\Phi$ is unbounded on $\mathcal{S}_q$ for every $1\leq q\neq 2 < \infty$.
The Riemann zeta function can be represented, when $\operatorname{Re}{s}>1$, by an absolutely convergent Dirichlet series or by an absolutely convergent Euler product, $$\label{eq:Riemannzeta}
\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s} = \prod_p (1-p^{-s})^{-1}.$$ The Euler product is taken over the increasing sequence of prime numbers. For $\alpha\geq1$, the general divisor function $d_\alpha(n)$ is defined by $$\zeta^\alpha(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty d_\alpha(n) n^{-s}.$$ Note that $d_2$ is the usual divisor function $d$ appearing in the projection . One family of weights that satisfy the assumptions of Theorem \[thm.2\] are $$\Phi_{\alpha,\beta}(m,n) = \frac{d_\alpha(m)d_\beta(n)}{d_{\alpha+\beta}(mn)}$$ for $\alpha,\beta\geq1$. Note that the averaging projection again is equal to the endpoint case $\alpha=\beta=1$, and hence Theorem \[thm.1\] is a special case of Theorem \[thm.2\].
Organization {#organization .unnumbered}
------------
The present note is organized into four sections. In Section \[sec:prelim\] we collect some preliminary material on infinite tensor products and multiplicative matrices. Section \[sec:proof\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm.2\]. The final section contains two additional results. The first is that there are no bounded projections from the spaces of compact and bounded operators to Helson matrices, while the second is a corollary of Theorem \[thm.1\] showing that the usual duality relation between Hankel matrices in $\mathcal{S}_q$ does not extend to Helson matrices.
Infinite tensor products and multiplicative matrices {#sec:prelim}
====================================================
In the present section we seek to represent $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$ as an infinite tensor product of $\ell^2(\mathbb{N}_0)$. We will then discuss multiplicative matrices, with particular emphasis on Helson matrices. Our presentation and notation is inspired by [@Hilberdink17].
Tensor product representation of $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$ {#sec:tensor}
-----------------------------------------------------
For each prime $p$, consider the index set $\langle p \rangle = \{p^\kappa \,:\, \kappa \in \mathbb{N}_0\}$. It evidently holds that $\ell^2(\mathbb{N}_0) \simeq \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ through the obvious mapping. Note also that $\ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ is a natural subspace of $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$ since $\langle p \rangle \subseteq \mathbb{N}$. Let $(e_k)_{k\geq 1}$ (resp. $(e_k)_{k\geq0}$) denote the standard orthonormal basis of $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$ (resp. $\ell^2(\mathbb{N}_0)$). Then $(e_{p^\kappa})_{\kappa\geq0}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$; throughout we will identify each operator on $\ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ with its matrix in this basis.
Let $\bigotimes_{p \leq p_N} \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ denote the Hilbert space tensor product of $\ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ over the first $N$ primes. The linear extension of the map $$\otimes_{p\leq p_N} x_p \mapsto \left( \otimes_{p\leq p_N} x_p \right)\otimes e_1$$ gives an embedding of $\bigotimes_{p \leq p_N} \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ into $\bigotimes_{p \leq p_{N+1}} \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$. The inductive limit of this system as $N\to\infty$ can be identified with the linear span of all elements of the form $\otimes_p x_p$ such that only finitely many of the $x_p \in \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ are different from $e_1$. We can endow the limit with an inner product by setting $$\label{inner-prod}
\langle \otimes_p x_p, \otimes_p y_p \rangle = \prod_p \langle x_p, y_p \rangle$$ and extending linearly. The infinite tensor product $\bigotimes_p \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ is defined to be the completion of the inductive limit with respect to the norm induced by the inner product .
Consider the prime factorization $$\label{eq:primefact}
n = \prod_{p} p^{\kappa_p}$$ and note that for every integer $n\geq1$, it holds that $\kappa_p=0$ for all but a finite number of primes $p$. In view of , we define a linear map from $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$ to $\bigotimes_p \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ by setting $$e_n \mapsto \otimes_p e_{p^{\kappa_p}}.$$ It is easily seen that this map extends to a unitary operator and thus allows us to make the identification $$\label{tensor}
\ell^2(\mathbb{N}) \simeq \bigotimes_p \ell^2(\langle p \rangle).$$
For each prime number $p$, let $\mathcal{R}_p$ denote the orthogonal projection from $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$ to $\ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$, i.e. the operator defined by $$\label{eq:Rp}
\mathcal{R}_p e_n =
\begin{cases}
e_n & \text{if } n=p^\kappa, \\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ and extending linearly. For a matrix $A \colon \ell^2(\mathbb{N})\to \ell^2(\mathbb{N})$, set $A_p = \mathcal{R}_p A \mathcal{R}_p^\ast$. We consider $A_p$ an operator on $\ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ and note that its matrix can be obtained by deleting all rows and columns of $A$ whose index is not a power of $p$. It evidently holds that $\|A_p\| \leq \|A\|$ and the same estimate holds also for the $\mathcal{S}_q$-norms. Note that if $A$ is the Helson matrix generated by the sequence $\varrho=(\varrho_k)_{k\geq1}$, then $A_p$ is the Hankel matrix generated by $\gamma=(\gamma_\kappa)_{\kappa\geq0} = (\varrho_{p^\kappa})_{\kappa\geq0}$.
Multiplicative functions {#multiplicative}
------------------------
A function $F\colon\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{C}$ is said to be *multiplicative* if $F(1)=1$ and $$F(mn)=F(m)F(n)$$ whenever $m$ and $n$ are coprime. Similarly, a function of two variables $f\colon\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{C}$ is called *multiplicative* if $f(1,1)=1$ and $$f(m_1n_1,m_2n_2)=f(m_1,m_2)f(n_1,n_2)$$ whenever $m_1m_2$ and $n_1n_2$ are coprime. If $F \colon \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{C}$ is multiplicative, then $f(m,n)=F(mn)$ is evidently also multiplicative. We shall also have use of the following basic result, which is certainly not new. However, we include a short proof for the benefit of the reader.
\[lem:conv\] If $f \colon \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{C}$ is multiplicative, then the convolution $$F(k) = \sum_{mn=k} f(m,n)$$ is also multiplicative.
Suppose that $k$ and $l$ are coprime. If $mn=kl$, then we can factor $m= m_1 n_1$ and $n = m_2 n_2$ such that $m_1 m_2 = k$ and $n_1 n_2 = l$. Clearly $m_1 m_2$ and $n_1 n_2$ are coprime, and so it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
F(kl) = \sum_{mn = kl} f(m,n) &= \sum_{\substack{m_1 m_2 = k \\
n_1 n_2 = l}} f(m_1 n_1, m_2 n_2) \\
&= \sum_{\substack{m_1 m_2 = k \\
n_1 n_2 = l}}f(m_1,m_2)f(n_1,n_2) = F(k)F(l)
\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Multiplicative matrices {#sec:multmat}
-----------------------
For every prime $p$ let $A_p$ be a bounded linear operator on $\ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$. If $\prod_p \|A_p\|$ converges, and each of the sums $$\sum_p \big|\|A_p e_1\|-1\big| \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sum_p\big|\langle A_p e_1, e_1 \rangle -1\big|$$ also converge, then the infinite tensor product $\bigotimes_p A_p$ defines a bounded operator on $\bigotimes_p \ell^2(\langle p \rangle)$ (see e.g. [@Guichardet69 Prop. 6]). Suppose in addition that $A_p\in\mathcal{S}_q$ for each $p$, and $\bigotimes_p A_p\in\mathcal{S}_q$. Then as a consequence of [@Hilberdink17 Thm. 2.4] we have that $$\label{cross-norm}
\Big\|\bigotimes_p A_p\Big\|_{\mathcal{S}_q} = \prod_p \|A_p\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}.$$ We remark that the identity is also valid for the operator norm. By the identification we can regard $A = \bigotimes_p A_p$ as an operator on $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$.
A matrix $A = (a_{m,n})_{m,n\geq1}$ is called *multiplicative* if there is a multiplicative function $f \colon \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{C}$ such that $a_{m,n}=f(m,n)$. In the case $A = \bigotimes_p A_p$ discussed above, it is easily verified that $A$ is multiplicative if $\langle A_p e_1, e_1 \rangle=1$ for every $p$. Note that in this case, we also have $A_p = \mathcal{R}_p A \mathcal{R}_p^\ast$ where $\mathcal{R}_p$ is as in . Conversely, if $A$ is multiplicative, then we have $A = \bigotimes_p A_p$, where again $A_p = \mathcal{R}_p A \mathcal{R}_p^\ast$.
Returning to the case of Helson matrices, we find that a Helson matrix $M_\varrho$ is multiplicative if and only if $\varrho_k = F(k)$ for a multiplicative function $F$. As mentioned in Section \[sec:tensor\], in this case $\mathcal{R}_p M_\varrho \mathcal{R}_p^\ast = H_{\gamma}$ where $\gamma_j = F(p^j)$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm.2\] {#sec:proof}
==========================
The proof of Theorem \[thm.2\] is inspired by the counter-examples to Nehari’s theorem for Helson matrices constructed in [@BP15; @OCS12]. We will demonstrate that any weighted averaging projection onto Hankel matrices cannot be contractive on $\mathcal{S}_q$ for $1 \leq q \neq 2 < \infty$. Specifically, we will prove that there is a universal lower bound for the norm of $P_\varphi$ on $\mathcal{S}_q$ which is strictly greater than $1$.
If $\Phi$ is multiplicative, then the projection $\mathcal{P}_\Phi A$ given by will preserve the tensor structure $A = \bigotimes_p A_p$ of a multiplicative matrix and factor into a tensor product of the projections $P_{\varphi_p} A_p$ given by , for some weight functions $\varphi_p$. The result will then follow from a standard argument.
Note that for the projection $P$ given by , it is not hard to show, using Peller’s criterion for Hankel operators of class $\mathcal{S}_q$ (see [@Peller03 Ch. 6.2]), that there is a constant $C$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|P\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} &\geq \frac{C}{\sqrt{q-1}} \intertext{as $q\to 1^+$. By a duality argument it also follows that as $q\to\infty$ we have} \|P\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} &\geq C \sqrt{q}. \end{aligned}$$ In particular, the projection $P$ cannot be a contraction on $\mathcal{S}_q$ for $q$ sufficiently close to 1 or $q$ sufficiently large. The key point of the following result therefore is that this also holds for $q$ close to $2$ and that the lower bound holds uniformly for all weighted averaging projections.
\[lem:1p2\] Fix $1\leq q\neq2 < \infty$. There exists some $\delta=\delta_q>0$ such that for every non-negative function $\varphi\colon\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}$ satisfying , the weighted averaging projection $P_\varphi$ given by satisfies the bound $\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} \geq 1+\delta.$
The proof consists of three parts. We first compile some preliminary information. The two cases $1 \leq q < 2$ and $2<q<\infty$ will then be handled separately, but by fairly similar arguments.
For non-negative real numbers $t$ we will consider the following matrices: $$A(t) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & t & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad B(t) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & t \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ $$C(t) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & t \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
t & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad D(t) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & t \\
0 & t & 0 \\
t & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ The singular values of $A(t)$ are $1$ and $t$, while $B(t)$ has only one singular value $\sqrt{1+t^2}$. A direct computation yields that the singular values of $C(t)$ are $$s(C(t)) = \left\{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+t^2},\,-\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+t^2}\right\}.$$ The same computation also yields that $s(D(t)) = s(C(t))\cup\{t\}$. We will only have need to refer to $\varphi(0,2)$, $\varphi(1,1)$ and $\varphi(2,0)$ and so for ease of notation we set $$\varphi_0 = \varphi(0,2), \qquad \varphi_1 = \varphi(1,1), \qquad \varphi_2 = \varphi(2,0).$$ Recalling that $\varphi(0,0)=1$ we find that $$P_\varphi A(t) = D(\varphi_1 t), \qquad P_\varphi B(t) = D(\varphi_0 t), \qquad P_\varphi C(t) = D((\varphi_0 + \varphi_2) t ).$$
Suppose that $1 \leq q < 2$. We consider $A(t)$ and find that $$\label{eq:1p2est1}
\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} \geq \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{\|P_\varphi A(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}}{\|A(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}} = \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{\|D(\varphi_1 t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}}{\|A(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}}= 3^{1/q} \varphi_1.$$ We now consider $B(t)$. We estimate the $\mathcal{S}_q$-norm of $P_\varphi B(t) = D(\varphi_0 t)$ from below by considering only the two largest singular values, and noting that the largest is bounded below by $1$. Hence we obtain $$\label{eq:1p2est2}
\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} \geq \sup_{t\geq0} \frac{\|P_\varphi B(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}}{\|B(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}} \geq \sup_{t\geq0} \frac{\left(1+(\varphi_0 t)^q\right)^\frac{1}{q}}{\left(1+t^2\right)^\frac{1}{2}} \geq \big(1 + \varphi_0^\frac{2q}{2-q}\big)^\frac{2-q}{2q},$$ where in the final estimate we chose $t = \varphi_0^{q/(2-q)}$. Considering the matrix transpose of $B(t)$ we see that the estimate also holds if $\varphi_0$ is replaced by $\varphi_2$. Recalling that $\varphi_0 + \varphi_1 + \varphi_2 = 1$, we conclude that $\varphi_1 \geq 1 -2x$ with $x = \max(\varphi_0,\varphi_2)$. Combining and we hence obtain the uniform lower bound $$\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} \geq \inf_{0 \leq x \leq 1} \max\left(3^{1/q}(1-2x), \big(1 + x^\frac{2q}{2-q}\big)^\frac{2-q}{2q} \right) = \big(1 + x_q^\frac{2q}{2-q}\big)^\frac{2-q}{2q},$$ where $0<x_q<1$ denotes the unique positive solution of the equation $$\label{eq:1p2lb}
3^{1/q}(1-2x) = \big(1 + x^\frac{2q}{2-q}\big)^\frac{2-q}{2q}.$$ This completes the proof in the case $1 \leq q < 2$.
Next, we suppose that $2<q<\infty$. We consider $C(t)$ and after recalling that $P_\varphi C(t) = D((\varphi_0+\varphi_2)t)$, we obtain the lower bound $$\label{eq:1p2est3}
\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} \geq \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{\|P_\varphi C(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}}{\|C(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}} = \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{1/q} (\varphi_0+\varphi_2).$$ We now consider $A(t)$ and estimate $P_\varphi A(t) = D(\varphi_1 t)$ from below by considering only the largest singular value and using a trivial inequality, to obtain $$\|P_\varphi A(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q} \geq \frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+(\varphi_1 t)^2} \geq \sqrt{1+(\varphi_1 t)^2}.$$ Hence we find that $$\label{eq:1p2est4}
\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} \geq \sup_{t\geq0} \frac{\|P_\varphi A(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}}{\|A(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}} \geq \sup_{t\geq0} \frac{\left(1+(\varphi_1 t)^2\right)^\frac{1}{2}}{\left(1+t^q\right)^\frac{1}{q}} \geq \big(1 + \varphi_1^\frac{2q}{q-2}\big)^\frac{q-2}{2q},$$ where we in the final estimate chose $t = \varphi_1^{2/(q-2)}$. Recalling that $\varphi_0+\varphi_2 = 1 - \varphi_1$ and setting $x=\varphi_1$, we combine and to obtain $$\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to\mathcal{S}_q} \geq \inf_{0 \leq x \leq 1} \max\left(\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{1/q}(1-x), \big(1 + x^\frac{2q}{q-2}\big)^\frac{q-2}{2q} \right) = \big(1 + x_q^\frac{2q}{q-2}\big)^\frac{q-2}{2q},$$ where $0<x_q<1$ denotes the unique positive solution of the equation $$\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{1/q}(1-x) = \big(1 + x^\frac{2q}{q-2}\big)^\frac{q-2}{2q}.$$ This completes the proof in the case $2<q<\infty$.
We can solve the equation for $q=1$ and obtain the explicit lower bound $$\|P_\varphi\|_{\mathcal{S}_1\to\mathcal{S}_1}\geq \frac{3}{35}\left(4\sqrt{11}-1\right) = 1.0514142138\ldots$$ which holds for all weighted averaging projections .
For each prime $p$ set $\varphi_p(i,j)=\Phi(p^i, p^j)$. Since $\Phi$ satisfies , we see that $\varphi_p$ satisfies . Suppose that $A = \bigotimes_p A_p$ is a multiplicative matrix. Since the weight $\Phi$ is also assumed to be multiplicative, we find by Lemma \[lem:conv\] that the sequence $$\varrho_k = \sum_{mn=k} \Phi(m,n)a_{m,n}$$ is multiplicative. This means that $\mathcal{P}_\Phi A$ is a multiplicative Helson matrix, and since clearly $\mathcal{R}_p \mathcal{P}_\Phi A \mathcal{R}_p^\ast = P_{\varphi_p} A_p$ by the discussion in Section \[sec:prelim\], we get that $$\mathcal{P}_\Phi A = \bigotimes_p P_{\varphi_p} A_p.$$ Fix a positive integer $N$. For $p \leq p_N$, we choose $A_p$ such that $\|A_p\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}=1$ and $\|P_{\varphi_p}A_p\|_{\mathcal{S}_q}\geq 1+\delta$, where $\delta>0$ depends only on $1 \leq q \neq 2 < \infty$. Observe that as a consequence of Lemma \[lem:1p2\], we can always make such a choice for $A_p$. For $p>p_N$ we choose $A_p=H_{e_0}$ so that $P_{\varphi_p} A_p = H_{e_0}$. We then obtain from that $$\|\mathcal{P}_\Phi\|_{\mathcal{S}_q\to \mathcal{S}_q} \geq (1+\delta)^N.$$ Then letting $N\to\infty$ we see that $\mathcal{P}_\Phi$ is unbounded on $\mathcal{S}_q$.
The weights $\Phi_{\alpha,\beta}$ and $\varphi_{\alpha,\beta}$ discussed in the introduction are related as in the proof of Theorem \[thm.2\]. Indeed, inspecting the Euler product of the Riemann zeta function we find that $d_\alpha(p^j)=c_\alpha(j)$ for every prime $p$ and every $j\geq0$.
Additional results
==================
Projections on spaces of compact and bounded operators
------------------------------------------------------
Consulting Theorem 5.11 and Theorem 5.12 in [@Peller03 Ch. 6.5], we recall that there are no bounded projections $P_\varphi$ from the space of compact (resp. bounded) operators onto the space of compact (resp. bounded) Hankel matrices. It is trivial to extend this result to Helson matrices, and in this case we do not require the weight to be multiplicative.
\[thm:boundedcompact\] There are no bounded projections from the space of compact (resp. bounded) operators onto the space of compact (resp. bounded) Helson matrices.
Clearly, a bounded projection $\mathcal{P}_\Phi$ must satisfy . Then $\varphi(i,j)=\Phi(2^i,2^j)$ satisfies . For any compact (resp. bounded) operator $A \colon \ell^2(\mathbb{N}_0)\to\ell^2(\mathbb{N}_0)$ define the operator $\widetilde{A} \colon \ell^2(\mathbb{N})\to\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$ by $$\widetilde{a}_{m,n} =
\begin{cases}
a_{i,j} & \text{if } m=2^{i} \text{ and } n=2^{j}, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Since $\mathcal{P}_\Phi \widetilde{A} = \widetilde{P_\varphi A}$, we see that if $\mathcal{P}_\Phi$ acts boundedly on the space of compact (resp. bounded) operators on $\ell^2(\mathbb{N})$, then $P_\varphi$ acts boundedly on the space of compact (resp. bounded) operators on $\ell^2(\mathbb{N}_0)$. However, this is impossible by the results mentioned above.
We actually have $\widetilde{A} = A \otimes H_{e_0} \otimes H_{e_0} \otimes \cdots$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm.2\].
Duality
-------
We fix $1<q<\infty$ and set $1/q+1/r=1$. It is a standard fact that $(\mathcal{S}_q)^\ast\simeq\mathcal{S}_r$ with respect to the pairing arising from the inner product of $\mathcal{S}_2$, i.e. the pairing $\langle A, B \rangle = \operatorname{Tr}(AB^\ast)$ for $A \in \mathcal{S}_q$ and $B \in \mathcal{S}_r$.
Let $H\mathcal{S}_q$ and $M\mathcal{S}_q$ denote the spaces of Hankel matrices and Helson matrices respectively of class $\mathcal{S}_q$. It is well-known that the pairing also yields the duality $(H\mathcal{S}_q)^\ast\simeq H\mathcal{S}_r$. Clearly, the map $M_\varrho \mapsto \langle \cdot, M_\varrho \rangle$, is an embedding of $M\mathcal{S}_r$ into $(M\mathcal{S}_q)^\ast$. We now show that in contrast to Hankel matrices, this is not an isomorphism unless $q=2$.
\[duality\] Let $1<q\neq2<\infty$ and set $1/q+1/r=1$. The map $M_\varrho \mapsto \langle \cdot, M_\varrho \rangle$ from $M\mathcal{S}_r$ to $(M\mathcal{S}_q)^\ast$ is not surjective.
Before proceeding, we fix some notation. For a subset $X\subseteq \mathcal{S}_q$, we denote by $X^\perp$ the *annihilator* of $X$ in $\mathcal{S}_r$, i.e. $X^\perp$ consists of all $B\in\mathcal{S}_r$ such that $\langle A, B \rangle =0$ for all $A\in X$.
First observe that for a Helson matrix $M_\varrho \in\mathcal{S}_q$ and $A=\left(a_{m,n}\right)_{m,n\geq 1}\in\mathcal{S}_r$ we have that $$\langle M_\varrho, A \rangle = \sum_{m=1}^\infty \sum_{n=1}^\infty \varrho_{mn} \overline{a_{m,n}} = \sum_{k=1}^\infty d(k) \varrho_k \frac{1}{d(k)} \sum_{mn=k} \overline{a_{m,n}} = \langle M_\varrho, \mathcal{P}A \rangle.$$ Therefore $(M\mathcal{S}_q)^\perp = \operatorname{Ker} \mathcal{P}\cap\mathcal{S}_r$, where $\mathcal{P}$ is the averaging projection . In particular, this shows that $\operatorname{Ker} \mathcal{P}\cap\mathcal{S}_r$ is a closed subspace of $\mathcal{S}_r$. Suppose that $M_\varrho \mapsto \langle \cdot, M_\varrho \rangle$ is surjective. Then by the open mapping theorem we have the isomorphism $M\mathcal{S}_r\simeq (M\mathcal{S}_q)^\ast$, with the pairing . By elementary functional analysis it follows that $M\mathcal{S}_r \simeq \mathcal{S}_r/(\operatorname{Ker} \mathcal{P}\cap\mathcal{S}_r)$ and so $$\mathcal{S}_r = M\mathcal{S}_r \oplus (\operatorname{Ker}\mathcal{P}\cap\mathcal{S}_r).$$ However, this would imply that $\mathcal{P}$ is bounded on $\mathcal{S}_r$ (by e.g. [@Rudin73 Thm. 5.16]), contradicting Theorem \[thm.1\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: ' An examples of Monge-Ampere equations connected with six-dimensional generalization of the Plebanski four-dimensional space are considered.'
author:
- |
V.Dryuma\*, L.Bogdanov\*\*\
[\*IMI AS RM,]{}\
[*5 Academiei Street, 2028 Kishinev, Moldova*]{},\
[\*\*L.D. Landau ITP RAS,]{}\
[*Kosygin str. 2, Moscow 119334, Russia*]{}
title: |
ON NONLINEAR EQUATIONS CONNECTED\
WITH SIX-DIMENSIONAL PLEBANSKI SPACE
---
=-5mm
The four-dimensional second heavenly equation
=============================================
Plebanski second heavenly equation is connected with the metric of the form $$\label{dryuma:eq1}
ds^2=C(x,y,z,u){{\it dz}}^{2}+2\,B(x, y,z,u){\it dz}\,{\it
du}+A(x,y,z,u){{\it du}}^{2}+{\it dx}\,{\it du}+{\it dy}\,{\it dz}$$
Conditions for the metric (\[dryuma:eq1\]) to be Ricci-flat $$R_{ik}=0$$ lead to the equations on the coefficients $$R_{xz}=R_{yz}= {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}B(x,y,z,u)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}C(x,y,z,u)=0,$$ $$R_{xu}=R_{yu}= {\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}A(x,y,z,u)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}B(x,y,z,u)=0.$$ $$R_{zz}=2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}A(x,y,z,u)\right
){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}C(x,y,z,u)+2\,A(x,y,z,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {x}^{2}}}C(x,y,z,u)+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}
B(x,y,z,u)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}C(x,y,z,u)+4\,B(x,y,z ,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}C(x,y,z,u)+2\,{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}B(x,y,z,u)-$$$$-2\,{\frac {\partial ^{
2}}{\partial u\partial x}}C(x,y,z,u)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial x}}B(x,y,z,u)\right )^{2}+2\,C(x,y,z,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}
{\partial {y}^{2}}}C(x,y,z,u)-$$$$-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial x} }C(x,y,z,u)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}B(x,y,z,u)=0,$$ $$R_{zu}=2\,A(x,y,z,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}B(x,y,z,u)+2\, \left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}B(x,y,z,u)\right ){\frac {
\partial }{\partial y}}B(x,y,z,u)+$$$$+4\,B(x,y,z,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial x\partial y}}B(x,y,z,u)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x
\partial z}}A(x,y,z,u)-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u\partial x}}B(
x,y,z,u)-$$$$-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
x}}C(x,y,z,u)\right ){ \frac {\partial }{\partial
y}}A(x,y,z,u)+2\,C(x,y,z,u){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}B(x,y,z,u)-$$$$-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial y\partial z}}B(x,y,z,u)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u
\partial y}}C(x,y,z,u)=0,$$ $$R_{uu}=2\,A(x,y,z,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}A(x,y,z,u)+4\,B( x,y,z,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}A(x,y,z,u)+$$$$+2\, \left ({\frac {\partial
}{\partial y}}B(x,y,z,u)\right ){\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}A(x,y,z,u)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{
\partial y}}C(x,y,z,u)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}A(x,y,z,u
)+$$$$+2\,C(x,y,z,u){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}A(x,y,z,u)+2\, {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u\partial
y}}B(x,y,z,u)-2\,{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}A(x,y,z,u)-$$$$-2\,\left ({\frac {
\partial }{\partial x}}B(x,y,z,u)\right ){\frac {\partial }{\partial y
}}A(x,y,z,u)-2\,\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial y}}B(x,y,z,u)
\right )^{2}=0.$$
After the substitution $$C(x,y,z,u)=-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\theta(x,y,z,u)
,\quad B(x,y,z,u)={\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}\theta(x,y,z,u ),$$ $$A(x,y,z,u)=-{\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\theta(x,y,z,u)$$ metric (\[dryuma:eq1\]) takes the form $$ds^2=-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {x}^{2}}}\theta(x,y,z,u)\right ){{\it dz}}^{2}+2\,\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}\theta(x,y,z,u)\right
){ \it dz}\,{\it du}-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}} \theta(x,y,z,u)\right ){{\it du}}^{2}+{\it dx}\,{\it
du}+{\it dy}\,{\it dz}.$$
It is Ricci-flat if the function $\theta(x,y,z,u)$ satisfies the second Plebanski equation $$\label{dryuma:eq2}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u\partial x}}\theta(x,y,z,u)+{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}\theta(x,y,z,u)+\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\theta(x,y,z,u)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\theta(x,y,z,u)-\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}\theta(x,y,z,u)\right
)^{2}=0$$ [@dryuma:dr2].
Six-dimensional generalization
===============================
We introduce the following six-dimensional generalization of the metric (\[dryuma:eq1\]), $$\label{dryuma:eq3}
{{\it ds}}^{2}={\it dx}\,{\it du}+{\it dy}\,{\it dv}+{\it
dz}\,{\it dw }+A(x,y,z,u,v,w){{\it
du}}^{2}+\]\[+2\,B(x,y,z,u,v,w){\it du}\,{\it dv}+2\,
E(x,y,z,u,v,w){\it du}\,{\it dw}+C(x,y,z,u,v,w){{\it
dv}}^{2}+\]\[+2\,H(x,y ,z,u,v,w){\it dv}\,{\it
dw}+F(x,y,z,u,v,w){{\it dw}}^{2}.$$
The Ricci tensor of the metric (\[dryuma:eq3\]) has fifteen components. Nine of them are equal to zero due the conditions $$\label{dryuma:eq4}
{\frac {\partial }{\partial u}}E(x,y,z,u,v,w)+{\frac {\partial }{
\partial v}}H(x,y,z,u,v,w)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial w}}F(x,y,z,u,v,
w)=0,\]\[{\frac {\partial }{\partial u}}B(x,y,z,u,v,w)+{\frac
{\partial }{
\partial v}}C(x,y,z,u,v,w)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial w}}H(x,y,z,u,v,
w)=0,\]\[{\frac {\partial }{\partial u}}A(x,y,z,u,v,w)+{\frac
{\partial }{
\partial v}}B(x,y,z,u,v,w)+{\frac {\partial }{\partial w}}E(x,y,z,u,v.
w)=0.$$
This system of equation has solutions depending on arbitrary functions.
In a simplest case we have the solution $$A(x,y,z,u,v,w)=\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{z}^{2}}}f(x,y,z ,u,v,w)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w) -\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
y\partial z}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w) \right )^{2},$$$$C(x,y,z,u,v,w)=\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(x,y,z ,u,v,w)\right
){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w) -\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w)
\right )^{2},$$$$F(x,y,z,u,v,w)=\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(x,y,z ,u,v,w)\right ){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w) -\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w) \right )^{2},$$$$\quad
E(x,y,z,u,v,w)=\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial
z}}f(x ,y,z,u,v,w)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}f(x,y, z,u,v,w)-$$$$-\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}f(x,y,z,u ,v,w)\right ){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w)$$$$B(x,y,z,u,v,w)=\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial z}}f(x ,y,z,u,v,w)\right ){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}f(x,y, z,u,v,w)-$$$$-\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f(x,y,z,u ,v,w)\right
){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w)$$$$H(x,y,z,u,v,w)=\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
z}}f(x ,y,z,u,v,w)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}f(x,y, z,u,v,w)-$$$$-\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}f(x,y,z,u ,v,w)\right ){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(x,y,z,u,v,w)$$ depending on one arbitrary function.
Corresponding six-dimensional metric looks as $$\label{dryuma:eq5}
^{6}ds^2=\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {w}^{2}}}K(\vec x)
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {v}^{2}}}K(\vec x)-\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial v\partial w}}K(\vec x)\right )^{ 2}\right
){d{{x}}}^{2}\!+\!\]\[+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial u\partial w}}K(\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial v\partial w}}K(\vec x)\!-\!{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {w}^{2}}}K(\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial u\partial v}}K(\vec x)\right )d{{x}}d{{y}}\!+\!\]\[\!+\!\left (
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {u}^{2}}}K(\vec x) {\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {w}^{2}}}K(\vec x)\!-\!\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial u\partial w}}K(\vec x)\right )^{2} \right
){d{{y}}}^{2}\!+\!\]\[+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial v\partial w}}K(\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial u\partial v}}K(\vec x)\!-\!{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial u\partial w}}K(\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {v}^{2}}}K(\vec x)\right )d{{x}}d{{z}}\!+\!\]\[\!+\!\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {v}^{2}}}K(\vec x){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {u}^{2}}}K(\vec x)\!-\!\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial u\partial v}}K(\vec x)\right )^{2}\right
){d{{z}}}^{2}\!+\!\]\[\!+\!2\,\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial u
\partial w}}K(\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u
\partial v}}K(\vec x)\!-\!{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {u}^
{2}}}K(\vec x){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial v\partial w }}K(\vec
x)\right )d{{z}}d{{y}}\!+\!\]\[\!+\!d{{x}}d{{u}}+d{{y}}d{{v}}+d
{{z}}d{{w}}$$ where $K(\vec x)=K(x,y,z,u,v,w)$ is an arbitrary function.
The Ricci tensor $R_{ij}$ of the metric (\[dryuma:eq5\]) has six components.
All equations $$R_{ij}=0$$ after the substitution $$K(x,y,z,u,v,w)=\phi(y+v+x,z+w+x)$$ are reduced to one equation $$\label{dryuma:eq6}
-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial \xi\partial {\rho}^{2}
\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {
\xi}^{2}}}\phi(\xi,\rho)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
\xi
\partial \rho\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho)\right )^{2}-2\,\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {\rho}^{2}\partial
\xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho) \right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
{\xi}^{3}}}\phi(\xi,\rho)-\]\[- \left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {\rho}^{2}}}\phi(\xi,\rho) \right ){\frac {\partial
^{4}}{\partial {\xi}^{4}}}\phi(\xi,\rho)+2\, \left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \rho\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho )\right
){\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial {\xi}^{2}\partial \rho
\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho)+\]\[+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{
\partial {\rho}^{2}\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho)\right )^{2}-\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial {\rho}^{4}}}\phi(\xi,\rho)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\xi}^{2}}}\phi(\xi,\rho)-2\,\left
({ \frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {\rho}^{3}}}\phi(\xi,\rho)\right
){ \frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial \xi\partial \rho\partial
\xi}}\phi(\xi, \rho)-\]\[-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\rho}^{2}}}\phi(\xi,\rho )\right ){\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial
\xi\partial {\rho}^{2}
\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial \rho\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{4}
}{\partial {\rho}^{3}\partial \xi}}\phi(\xi,\rho)=0,$$ where $$\xi=x+y+v,\quad \rho=z+x+w.$$
In compact form this equation can be rewritten as $$\Delta\psi(\xi,\rho)=0$$ where $$\psi=(\xi,~\rho)=\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\xi}^{2}}}\phi(\xi,\rho) \right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\rho}^{2}}}\phi(\xi,\rho)- \left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
\xi\partial \rho}}\phi(\xi,\rho )\right )^{2}$$ and $$\Delta=\frac{\partial^2}{ \partial \xi^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{
\partial \rho^2}$$ is the Laplace operator.
Its solutions give Ricci-flat examples of the metric (\[dryuma:eq5\]).
The Beltrami parameters
========================
Two invariant equations defined by the first $$\Delta \psi= g^{i j}\frac{\partial \psi}{ \partial
x^i}\frac{\partial \psi}{
\partial x^j}$$ and the second $$\Box \psi=g^{ij}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{ \partial x^i
\partial x^j}-\Gamma^k_{ij}\frac{\partial}{
\partial x^k}\right)\psi$$ Beltrami parameters can be considered to investigate the properties of the metrics (\[dryuma:eq5\]).
For the metric (\[dryuma:eq5\]) the equation $\Box \phi=0$ looks as $$\label{dryuma:eq7}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u\partial x}}\phi(\vec x)+{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial w\partial z}}\phi(\vec x)+{ \frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial v\partial y}}\phi(\vec x)- \left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}\phi(\vec x) \right )\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(\vec x) \right ){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}f(\vec x)+\]\[+2\, \left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}\phi(\vec x) \right )\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(\vec x)-2 \,\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}\phi(\vec x)\right
)\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}f(\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f(\vec
x)+\]\[+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}\phi(\vec x)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}f(\vec x)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{z}^{2}}}f(\vec x)-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}\phi(\vec x )\right )\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}f(\vec x )\right ){\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(\vec x)+\]\[+2\, \left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}\phi(\vec x) \right )\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right ){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(\vec x)-2 \,\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}\phi(\vec x )\right )\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f(\vec x)-\]\[-\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\phi(\vec x)\right
)\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(\vec x)\right
){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(\vec x)-2\, \left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}\phi(\vec x) \right
)\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}f(\vec
x)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}f(\vec
x)+\]\[+\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\phi(\vec
x) \right )\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}f(\vec x)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}} \phi(\vec x)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x
\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right )^{2}+\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}
}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\phi(\vec x)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right )^{2}=0.$$
In a special case equation (\[dryuma:eq7\]) after the substitution $$\phi(\vec x)=f(\vec x)$$ takes the form $$\label{dryuma:eq8}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial u\partial x}}f(\vec x)+{ \frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial w\partial z}}f(\vec x)+{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial v\partial y}}f(\vec x)-3\,\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(\vec x)\right )\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(\vec x)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}f(\vec x)+\]\[+3\,\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right )^{2}{\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(\vec x)-6\,\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right )\left ({
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right ){
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}f(\vec
x)+\]\[+3\,\left ( {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial
y}}f(\vec x)\right )^{2 }{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{z}^{2}}}f(\vec x)+3\,\left ({ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
y\partial z}}f(\vec x)\right )^{2} {\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}f(\vec x)=0.$$
After the change of variables $$f(\vec x)=f(x,y,z,u,v,w)=h(x+u,v+y,w+z)=h(\eta,\xi,\rho)$$ equation (\[dryuma:eq8\]) is reduced to the form $$\label{dryuma:eq9}
{\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {\eta}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)+{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\rho}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)+{\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {\xi}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)+3\,\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \eta\partial \rho}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\right
)^{2}{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\xi}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)-\]\[-6\,\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial \eta\partial \rho}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\right )
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial \rho\partial
\xi}}h(\eta,\xi, \rho)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
\eta\partial \xi}}h(\eta, \xi,\rho)+3\,\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial \eta\partial \xi}} h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\right
)^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\rho}^{2}
}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)-\]\[-3\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\xi}^{2} }}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {\eta }^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\right ){\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\rho}^ {2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)+3\,\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial \rho
\partial \xi}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\right )^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {\eta}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)=0$$ or $$\Delta h(\eta,\xi,\rho)-3\det\left [\begin {array}{ccc} {\frac
{\partial ^{2}}{
\partial {\eta}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)&{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial \eta\partial \xi}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)&{\frac {\partial ^{2}}
{\partial \eta\partial \rho}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\\\noalign{\medskip}{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial \eta\partial \xi}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)&
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\xi}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)&{
\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial \rho\partial \xi}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)
\\\noalign{\medskip}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial \eta\partial
\rho}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)&{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial \rho
\partial \xi}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)&{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {
\rho}^{2}}}h(\eta,\xi,\rho)\end {array}\right ]=0,$$ where $$\Delta=\frac{\partial^2}{ \partial
\eta^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{ \partial \xi^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{
\partial \rho^2}$$ is a three-dimensional Laplace operator.
Solutions of equation (\[dryuma:eq9\]) are characterized the properties of the metric (\[dryuma:eq5\]).
Particular solutions of equation (\[dryuma:eq6\])
==================================================
To obtain particular solutions of partial nonlinear differential equation $$\label{Dr3}
F(x,y,z,f_x,f_y,f_z,f_{xx},f_{xy},f_{xz},f_{yy},f_{yz},f_{xxx},f_{xyy},f_{xxy},..)=0,$$ a following approach can be applied.
We use parametric presentation of the functions and variables $$\label{Dr4}
f(x,y,z,s)\rightarrow u(x,t,z,s),\quad y \rightarrow
v(x,t,z,s),\quad f_x\rightarrow
u_x-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_x,f_s\rightarrow \quad
u_s-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_s,\]\[ f_z\rightarrow
u_z-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_z,\quad f_y \rightarrow \frac{u_t}{v_t},
\quad f_{yy} \rightarrow \frac{(\frac{u_t}{v_t})_t}{v_t}, \quad
f_{xy} \rightarrow \frac{(u_x-\frac{u_t}{v_t}v_x)_t}{v_t},...$$ where variable $t$ is considered as parameter.
Note that conditions of the type $$f_{xy}=f_{yx},\quad f_{xz}=f_{zx},\quad f_{xs}=f_{sx}...$$ are fulfilled at the such type of presentation.
As a result instead of equation (\[Dr3\]) one gets the relation between new variables $u(x,t,z)$ and $v(x,t,z)$ and their partial derivatives $$\label{Dr5}
\Psi(u,v,u_x,u_z,u_t,u_s,v_x,v_z,v_t,v_s...)=0.$$
This relation coincides with initial p.d.e. for $v(x,t,z,s)=t$ and takes more general form after presentation of the functions $u,v$ in the form $u(x,t,z,,s)=F(\omega,\omega_t...)$, $v(x,t,z,s)=\Phi(\omega,\omega_t...)$ with some function $\omega(x,t,z,s)$ .
The example. Laplace equation
-----------------------------
Two-dimensional Laplace equation $$\label{Dr6}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}f(x,y)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}}
{\partial {y}^{2}}}f(x,y) =0$$ after $(u,v)$-transformation with the conditions $$u(x,t)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t)-\omega(x,t),\quad
v(x,t)={\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\omega(x,t)$$ takes the form of Monge-Ampere equation $$\label{Dr7}
-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)\right
){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)+\left
({\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}}\omega(x,t)\right )^{2}+1=0.$$
Particular solution of this equation is $$\omega(x,t)=A(t)+x+{x}^{2}C(t)$$ where $$A(t)=-1/12\,{\it \_C1}\,{t}^{3}+{\it \_C4}$$ and $$C(t)=-{\frac {1}{{\it \_C1}\,t}}.$$
The elimination of the parameter $t$ from the relations $$4\,y{\it \_C1}\,{t}^{2}+{{\it \_C1}}^{2}{t}^{4}-4\,{x}^{2}
=0,$$ $$\quad 6\,f(x,y){\it \_C1}\,t+{{\it
\_C1}}^{2}{t}^{4}-12\,{x}^{2}+6\,{\it \_C4}\,{\it \_C1}\,t+6\,{\it
\_C1}\,tx =0$$ gives us the function $$f(x,y)=$$$$=1/18\,{\frac {-18\,{\it \_C4}\,{\it \_C1}-18\,x{\it \_C1}+12\,
\sqrt {-2\,{y}^{3}{\it \_C1}+2\,{\it \_C1}\,\sqrt
{{x}^{6}+3\,{x}^{4}{
y}^{2}+3\,{y}^{4}{x}^{2}+{y}^{6}}+6\,{x}^{2}y{\it \_C1}}}{{\it
\_C1}}}$$ satisfying two-dimensional Laplace equation (\[Dr6\]).
More general solutions of equation (\[Dr6\]) can be also constructed from solutions of equation (\[Dr7\]) in a similar way.
Note that such type of solutions of Laplace equation may be applied in the theory of water waves.
To construct particular solutions of equation (\[dryuma:eq6\]) $$-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial y\partial {x}^{2}\partial
y}} \phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}\phi(x,y)+2 \,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial
{x}^{2}\partial y}}\phi(x,y) \right )^{2}-2\,\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x
\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3}}{\partial {x}^{3}}}
\phi(x,y)-$$$$-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}\phi(x,y) \right ){\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial
{x}^{4}}}\phi(x,y)+2\,\left ({ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{4}}{\partial {x}^{3}\partial y}}\phi(x,y)+$$$$+2\,\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{3}}{\partial y\partial x\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\right
)^{2}- \left ({\frac {\partial ^{4}}{\partial
{y}^{4}}}\phi(x,y)\right ){ \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}\phi(x,y)-2\,\left ({\frac {
\partial ^{3}}{\partial {y}^{3}}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{3
}}{\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}\phi(x,y)-$$$$-\left ({\frac
{\partial ^{2}} {\partial {y}^{2}}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac
{\partial ^{4}}{\partial y
\partial {x}^{2}\partial y}}\phi(x,y)+2\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}
{\partial x\partial y}}\phi(x,y)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{4}}{
\partial {y}^{2}\partial x\partial y}}\phi(x,y)
=0.$$ we use the method described above.
After the transformation of the function $\phi(x,y)$ and its derivatives in accordance with the rules (\[Dr4\]) and substitution of corresponding expressions into equation (\[dryuma:eq6\]) one obtains relation of the type (\[Dr5\]).
From this relation in a simplest case $$u(x,t)=A(t)x+{x}^{2},\quad
v(x,t)=B(t)x+x ,\quad B(t)=t$$ we get the equation for the function $A(t)$ $$\left ({\frac {d^{4}}{d{t}^{4}}}A(t)\right ){t}^{2}+2\,\left
({\frac { d^{4}}{d{t}^{4}}}A(t)\right )t+2\,{\frac
{d^{4}}{d{t}^{4}}}A(t)+4\, \left ({\frac
{d^{3}}{d{t}^{3}}}A(t)\right )t+4\,{\frac {d^{3}}{d{t}^{
3}}}A(t)+2\,{\frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}A(t)=0,$$ having a general solution $$\label{Dr8}
A(t)={\it \_C1}+{\it \_C2}\,t+{\it \_C3}\,\left
(\arctan(t+1)t+\arctan (t+1)-1/2\,\ln ({t}^{2}+2\,t+2)\right
)+\]\[+{\it \_C4}\,\left (1/2\,t\ln ( {t}^{2}+2\,t+2)+\ln
({t}^{2}+2\,t+2)-\arctan(t+1)t\right ).$$
Elimination of the parameter $t$ from the conditions $$\phi(x,y)-(A(t)x+x^2)=0,\quad
y-tx-x=0$$ with the function $A(t)$ from (\[Dr8\]) leads to the solution of equation (\[dryuma:eq6\]) $$\phi(x,y)=x{\it \_C1}+{\it \_C2}\,y-{\it \_C2}\,x+{\it
\_C3}\,\arctan({\frac {y} {x}})y-1/2\,x{\it \_C3}\,\ln ({\frac
{{y}^{2}+{x}^{2}}{{x}^{2}}})+$$$$+1/2 \,{\it \_C4}\,\ln ({\frac
{{y}^{2}+{x}^{2}}{{x}^{2}}})y+1/2\,x{\it \_C4}\,\ln ({\frac
{{y}^{2}+{x}^{2}}{{x}^{2}}})-{\it \_C4}\,\arctan({ \frac
{y}{x}})y+{\it \_C4}\,\arctan({\frac {y}{x}})x+{x}^{2}.$$
Particular solutions of equation (\[dryuma:eq9\])
==================================================
Equation (\[dryuma:eq9\]), rewritten in new notations $$\label{Dr8a}
{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}h(x,y,z)+{\frac {\partial
^{2 }}{\partial {z}^{2}}}h(x,y,z)+{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}} }h(x,y,z)+3\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial z}}h(x,y ,z)\right )^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{y}^{2}}}h(x,y,z)-\]\[-6\, \left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
x\partial z}}h(x,y,z)\right ) \left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial y\partial z}}h(x,y,z)\right ){ \frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}h(x,y,z)+3\,\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}}h(x,y,z)\right )^{2}{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}h(x,y,z)-\]\[-3\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^
{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}h(x,y,z)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{
\partial {x}^{2}}}h(x,y,z)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^
{2}}}h(x,y,z)+3\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial y\partial
z}}h (x,y,z)\right )^{2}{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}h(x,y,z)=0,$$ can be transformed into the form $$\label{Dr9}
-3\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega(x,t,z)
\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}\omega(x,t,z)+3\,
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial x\partial z}}\omega(x,t,z)
\right )^{2}-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{t}^{2}}}\omega(x, t,z)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{x}^{2}}}\omega(x,t,z)+\]\[+1+ \left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial t\partial z}}\omega(x,t,z) \right )^{2}+\left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial t\partial x}} \omega(x,t,z)\right
)^{2}-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{
2}}}\omega(x,t,z)\right ){\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {z}^{2}}}
\omega(x,t,z)=0,$$ according to the rules (\[Dr4\]) and using the substitution $$u(x,t,z)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,z)-\omega(x,t,z),\quad
v(x,t,z)={\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z).$$
In particular case $$\omega(x,t,z)=A({x}^{2}+{z}^{2},t)$$ equation (\[Dr9\]) takes the form $$\label{Dr10}
-24\,\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial
{\xi}^{2}}}A(\xi,t)\right )\left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\xi}}A(\xi,t)\right )\xi-12\, \left ({\frac {\partial }{\partial
\xi}}A(\xi,t)\right )^{2}-4\,\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}A(\xi,t)\right )\left ({ \frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial {\xi}^{2}}}A(\xi,t)\right )\xi-\]\[-4\, \left
({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}A(\xi,t)\right ){ \frac
{\partial }{\partial \xi}}A(\xi,t)+1+4\,\left ({\frac {\partial
^{2}}{\partial t\partial \xi}}A(\xi,t)\right )^{2}\xi=0,$$ where $\xi=x^2+z^2$.
This type of equations meet in the theory of turbulent flow [@rubts].
Particular solution of equation (\[Dr10\]) is of the form $$A(\xi,t)=B(t)+\xi\,{e^{Ct}},$$ where the function $B(t)$ is defined by the expression $$B(t)=1/4\,{\frac {{e^{-Ct}}}{{C}^{2}}}-3\,{\frac
{{e^{Ct}}}{{C}^{2}}}+ {\it \_C1}\,t+{\it \_C2}.$$ Now elimination of the parameter $t$ from the system of equations $$h(x,y,z)-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,z)+\omega(x,t,z)=0,$$ $$y-{\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)=0.$$ leads in the case $\_C1=0,~\_C2=0,~C=1$ to the function $$h(x,y,z)=\left (y\sqrt {{y}^{2}-3+{x}^{2}+{z}^{2}}+{y}^{2}\right
)\ln ({\frac {y+\sqrt
{{y}^{2}-3+{x}^{2}+{z}^{2}}}{-3+{x}^{2}+{z}^{2}}}) \left (y+\sqrt
{{y}^{2}-3+{x}^{2}+{z}^{2}}\right )^{-1}+$$$$+{\frac {3-{x}^
{2}-{y}^{2}-{z}^{2}-\ln (2)y\sqrt {{y}^{2}-3+{x}^{2}+{z}^{2}}-\ln
(2){ y}^{2}-y\sqrt {{y}^{2}-3+{x}^{2}+{z}^{2}}}{y+\sqrt
{{y}^{2}-3+{x}^{2}+ {z}^{2}}}}$$ satisfying the equation (\[Dr8a\]).
Another type of particular solutions of equation (\[Dr8a\]) can be obtained using the reduction of equation (\[Dr9\]) after the substitution $$\omega(x,t,z)=A(x+t,z)$$ to the form $$\label{Dr11}
\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}A(x,y)\right ){\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {y}^{2}}}A(x,y)-\left ({\frac {\partial ^{2}}{
\partial x\partial y}}A(x,y)\right )^{2}-1/4=0,$$ where $A(x,y)=A(x+t,z)$.
The $(u,v)$-transformation of equation (\[Dr11\]) with the condition $$u(x,t)=t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t)-\omega(x,t),\quad
v(x,t)={\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\omega(x,t)$$ leads to Laplace equation for the function $\omega(x,t)$ $$4\,{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {x}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)+{\frac {
\partial ^{2}}{\partial {t}^{2}}}\omega(x,t)=0.$$
Its general solution has the form $$\omega(x,t)=M(x+2\,I t)+N(x-2\,I t),$$ where $M$ and $N$ are arbitrary functions.
After the choice of the function $\omega(x,t)$ and elimination of the parameter $t$ from equations $$A(x,y)-(t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t)-\omega(x,t)=0,\quad
y-{\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\omega(x,t)=0,$$ the function $A(x,y)$ and then the function $$\omega(x,t,z)=A(x+t,z)$$ can be found.
Elimination of parameter $t$ from equations $$\label{Dr12}
h(x,y,z)-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega(x,t,z)+\omega(x,t,z)=0,
\]
\[ y-{\frac {\partial
}{\partial t}}\omega(x,t,z)=0$$ with a given function $\omega(x,t,z)$ allow us to obtain particular solution of equation (\[Dr8a\]).
Let us consider an example.
We take solution of the Laplace equation of the form $$\omega(x,t)=\left (x+2\,I t\right )^{2}+\left (x-2\,I t\right )^{3}$$ or $$\omega(x,t)={x}^{2}-4\,{t}^{2}+{x}^{3}-12\,x{t}^{2}+I\left
(4\,tx-6\,t{x}^{2}+8\,{ t}^{3}\right ).$$
Its imaginary part $$\omega_1= 4\,tx-6\,t{x}^{2}+8\,{t}^{3}$$ satisfies Laplace equation.
From the conditions $$A(x,y)-t{\frac {\partial }{\partial
t}}\omega_1(x,t)+\omega_1(x,t)=0,$$ $$y-{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\omega_1(x,t)=0$$ we get the system of equations $$A(x,y)-16\,{t}^{3}=0,\quad y-4\,x+6\,{x}^{2}-24\,{t}^{2}=0$$ from which we eliminate the parameter $t$.
As a result we find the function $A(x,y)$ $$A(x,y)=1/18\,\sqrt {6\,y-24\,x+36\,{x}^{2}}y-2/9\,\sqrt {6\,y-24\,x+36
\,{x}^{2}}x+1/3\,\sqrt {6\,y-24\,x+36\,{x}^{2}}{x}^{2}$$ satisfying equation (\[Dr11\]).
From this function after the change of variables $$x=x+t,\quad
y=z$$ we find the function $$\omega(x,t,z)=1/18\,\sqrt
{6\,z-24\,x-24\,t+36\,{x}^{2}+72\,tx+36\,{t} ^{2}}\left
(z-4\,x-4\,t+6\,{x}^{2}+12\,tx+6\,{t}^{2}\right )$$
Using this function we eliminate the parameter $t$ from relations (\[Dr12\]) and obtain corresponding solution $$h(x,y,z)=-{\frac {1}{54}}\,{\frac {\left (-2-3\,\sqrt
{2-3\,z+T}+3\,z+ 9\,x\sqrt {2-3\,z+T}\right )T}{\sqrt
{-2+3\,z+T}}}-$$$$-{\frac {1}{54}}\,{ \frac
{\!-\!12\,z\!+\!6\,\sqrt {2\!-\!3\,z+T}\!-\!18\,x\sqrt
{2-3\,z\!+\!T}\!+\!4-\!\!9\,z\sqrt {2
-3\,z\!+\!T}\!+\!9\,{z}^{2}\!+\!27\,zx\sqrt
{2-3\,z\!+\!T}\!-\!36\,{y}^{2}}{\sqrt {\!-\!2+\!3\,z\!+\!T}}},$$ where $$T=\sqrt {9\,{z}^{2}-12\,z+4+36\,{y}^{2}}.$$
Acknowledgements
================
The research was partially supported in the framework of joint Russian-Moldavian research project (Grant 08.820.08.07 RF of HCSTD ASM, Moldova, and RFBR grant 08-01-90104, Russia).
[909]{}
V.S. Dryuma, On solutions of a Heavenly equations and their generalization, [*ArXiv: gr-qc/0611001*]{}, v1 31 Oct 2006, p.1-13.
V. Rubtsov, Monge-Ampere geometry arising in some models of turbulent flow dynamics\
in two and three dimensions, [*http://math.univ-angers.fr/publications/\
/prepub/fichiers/00242.pdf., Novemre 2007, 1–9*]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Large scale mapping observations of the $^{3}P_{1}$–$^{3}P_{0}$ fine structure transition of atomic carbon (CI, 492 GHz) and the $J$=3-2 transition of CO (346 GHz) toward the Orion A molecular cloud have been carried out with the Mt. Fuji submillimeter-wave telescope. The observations cover 9 square degrees, and include the Orion nebula M42 and the L1641 dark cloud complex. The CI emission extends over almost the entire region of the Orion A cloud and is surprisingly similar to that of $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0). The CO($J$=3-2) emission shows a more featureless and extended distribution than CI. The CI/CO($J$=3-2) integrated intensity ratio shows a spatial gradient running from the north (0.10) to the south (1.2) of the Orion A cloud, which we interpret as a consequence of the temperature gradient. On the other hand, the CI/$^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) intensity ratio shows no systematic gradient. We have found a good correlation between the CI and $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) intensities over the Orion A cloud. This result is discussed on the basis of photodissociation region models.
———————————————-
author:
- 'Masafumi Ikeda, Hiroyuki Maezawa, Tetsuya Ito, Gaku Saito, Yutaro Sekimoto, Satoshi Yamamoto, Ken’ichi Tatematsu, Yuji Arikawa, Yoshiyuki Aso, Takashi Noguchi, Sheng-Cai Shi , Keisuke Miyazawa, Shuji Saito, Hiroyuki Ozeki, Hideo Fujiwara, Masatoshi Ohishi, and Junji Inatani'
title: |
LARGE SCALE MAPPING OBSERVATIONS\
OF THE CI ($^{3}P_{1}-^{3}P_{0}$) AND CO ($J=3-2$) LINES\
TOWARD THE ORION A MOLECULAR CLOUD
---
Introduction
============
Neutral atomic carbon (CI) plays important roles in cooling and chemical processes in interstellar clouds, and its submillimeter-wave transitions ($^{3}P_{1}$–$^{3}P_{0}$, 492 GHz; $^{3}P_{2}$–$^{3}P_{1}$, 809 GHz) have been observed toward various objects. The detailed distribution of CI around representative objects including photodissociation regions (PDR) has been studied at high angular resolution (e.g., Minchin et al. 1994; Tauber et al. 1995; White and Sandell 1995). Since CI is widely distributed throughout our Galaxy according to the data from the COBE satellite [@wr91], it is of fundamental importance to map its large scale distribution over molecular clouds. Pioneering studies in this direction have been made using a focal reducer installed on the CSO 10 m antenna [@pl94; @pl99; @tate99], to survey the distribution of CI toward several molecular clouds with a moderate resolution of $\sim3'$. In spite of these efforts, the observed areas are still limited relative to available maps of CO and its isotopomers. With this in mind, we have recently constructed a 1.2 m submillimeter-wave telescope for the exclusive use of CI survey observations at the summit of Mt. Fuji.
The Orion A cloud is the nearest giant molecular cloud, and is located at about 450 pc from the Sun [@ge89]. Extensive observations of the cloud have been made in CO ($J$ = 2-1) [@sak94], $^{13}$CO ($J$ = 1-0) [@bal87; @nag98], CS ($J$ = 1-0) [@tate93] and CS ($J$ = 2-1) [@tate98]. These observations have revealed that numerous dense cores, some of which are the birthplaces of new stars, are distributed throughout the cloud. The northern part of the Orion A cloud is known to be an active site of massive star formation. As a result, the cloud is illuminated by strong UV radiation from OB stars ($G_0$ is $\sim$$10^5$ in the vicinity of Orion KL). By contrast, the central and southern parts of the Orion A cloud are more quiescent, and known as the L1641 dark cloud. Although a number of low mass protostars, T Tauri stars, and H$\alpha$ emission-line stars are present, no massive stars are found there, and the UV radiation field is much weaker ($G_0\sim$1-5). Therefore, the Orion A cloud is a good target for studying structure of a molecular cloud under various UV field strengths.
In contrast to the extensive studies of the molecular gas distribution, only a few mapping observations of CI have been reported toward small portions of the Orion A cloud. @wh91 and @wh95 observed the Orion-KL region with a $9''.8$ beam. @tau95 reported a 15$''$ map of the Orion bright bar and Orion-S cloud. @tate99 explored the CI distribution in a part of the $\int$-shaped filament with a focal reducer system on the CSO. In this paper, we present the first large scale maps of CI and CO($J$=3-2) covering the entire region of the Orion A cloud.
Observations
============
The CI($^{3}P_{1}-^{3}P_{0}$) and CO($J$=3$-$2) data were taken between December 1998 and March 1999 using the Mt. Fuji submillimeter-wave telescope. The diameter of the main reflector is 1.2 m, corresponding to a HPBW of $2'.2$ and $3'.0$ at 492 GHz and 346 GHz, respectively. The telescope is enclosed in a space frame radome whose transmission efficiency is 0.8 at 492 GHz and 0.9 at 346 GHz. The pointing of the telescope was checked and corrected by observing 346 GHz continuum emission from the Sun and the Moon every month, and the pointing accuracy has been maintained within $20''$(rms) during the observing run. We used a 346/492 GHz dual band SIS mixer receiver in our observations. Typical system temperatures including the atmospheric attenuation were 500 K (DSB) at 346 GHz and 1500 K (SSB) at 492 GHz. The backend is a 1024 channel acousto-optical spectrometer which has a total bandwidth of 900 MHz and an effective spectral resolution of 1.6 MHz. We split the spectrometer into two halves, each with 450 MHz bandwidth, to allow simultaneous observations of the CI and CO($J$=3-2) lines. Further details of the telescope will be described elsewhere [@sek99; @mae99].
We observed using position switching, where the off-source position was at ($\alpha_{1950}$, $\delta_{1950}$) = (${\rm 05^{h} 28^{m} 46^{s}.5, -05^{\circ} 54' 28".0}$) for observations of the northern region and (${\rm 05^{h} 32^{m} 00^{s}.0, -07^{\circ} 18' 00".0}$) for the southern region, which were free of line emission to an rms noise level of 40 mK in the 1.6 MHz resolution. The intensity scale was calibrated using a chopper-wheel method. The moon efficiency including the radome loss is measured to be 0.75 at 346 GHz and 0.72 at 492 GHz. We will present intensities in the main-beam temperature scale ($T_{\rm MB}$) throughout this paper. The line intensities were checked every 4 hours by observing Orion-KL. The overall relative uncertainty in the final intensity scale is estimated to be within 20 %. The zenith optical depth at 492 GHz ranged from 0.4 to 1.0 during the observations.
We have observed an $\sim$9 square degree area of the Orion A cloud with a grid spacing of $3'$. For most positions, the CI and CO($J$=3-2) lines were observed simultaneously. Furthermore we have taken additional CI data with a grid spacing of $1'.5$ for an $\sim$0.9 square degree region around Orion-KL and L1641N. In total, 4613 CI spectra and 3087 CO($J$=3-2) spectra were obtained. The on-source integration time ranged from 20 to 40 seconds per position and yielded typical rms noise temperatures of 0.5 K for CO($J$=3-2) and 0.6 K for CI. In this letter we concentrate on the global distributions of CI and CO($J$=3-2).
Overall distribution of CI and CO($J$=3-2)
==========================================
Figure 1a shows the intensity map for CI, integrated between 3 km s$^{-1}$ and 13 km s$^{-1}$. CI emission is detected over almost the entire region of the Orion A cloud. The strongest CI emission is seen toward ($\Delta\alpha$, $\Delta\delta$) = ($-40''$, $-220''$) from Orion-KL (${\rm 05^{h}32^{m}46^{s}.5, -05^{\circ}24'28''}$), where the peak temperature is 14.0 K, and slightly weaker toward Orion-KL. This trend was also seen in the higher resolution beam of @wh95. At Orion-KL the peak temperature is 9.1 K, the FWHM line width 4.4 km s$^{-1}$, and the peak LSR velocity 9.4 km s$^{-1}$, which agree closely with the results reported with a similar beam size by @ph81. In the CI map, the $\int$-shaped filament reported by @bal87 is clearly seen. At the southern end of the $\int$-shaped filament, a large dark cloud called L1641N can be identified, which is known to be a formation site of a low-mass cluster [@ho93]. The peak temperature of CI ranges up to 7 K around this region. From the south of L1641N, a filamentary structure continues to the southern end of the cloud with an almost constant width of about 4.4 pc. The left edge of this filament forms a straight line, and the filament is broken into a number of smaller clumps. The CI intensity decreases toward the south with $T_{\rm MB}\le$3 K and $\Delta v\sim$2.5 km s$^{-1}$, similar to values reported for HCL2 [@mae99]. The overall distribution of the CI emission closely resembles that of $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) by @bal87 with a similar ($1'.7$) beam to the CI observations.
Figure 1b shows the integrated intensity map for CO($J$=3-2). The emission peaks at Ori-KL where its $T_{\rm MB}$=67.8 K and the line width $\Delta v$= 5.8 km s$^{-1}$. The line profile of CO($J$=3-2) shows wing emission originating from the molecular outflow, which is not seen in the CI spectra. The CO($J$=3-2) intensity drops sharply away from Ori-KL, and the $\int$-shaped filament is less clearly seen than in the CI map. In the central and southern parts of the cloud, the CO($J$=3-2) intensity distribution is rather featureless compared to that of CI. Although the large scale distribution of CO($J$=3-2) is similar to that of CI, the spatial extent is much larger. These features are probably due to a large optical depth in the CO($J$=3-2) line. Toward the southern part of the Orion A cloud, $T_{\rm MB}$ of CO($J$=3-2) is typically 3 K and $\Delta v\sim$3.0 km s$^{-1}$, similar to that of the CI line.
CI/CO($J$=3-2) intensity ratio
==============================
Figure 2a shows a map of the integrated intensity ratio of CI/CO($J$=3-2). The ratio shows a gradient from north to south. Around the Orion-KL region the ratio is as low as 0.10, increasing to 0.29 in L1641N, and 1.2 at the southern end of the cloud. The total intensity ratio for the Orion A cloud is evaluated to be 0.37. This value is slightly lower than the value for the Galactic plane, 0.57, reduced to the intensity ratio from the values observed by the COBE satellite [@wr91].
The CI optical depth has been suggested to be small or moderate ($\sim$3) for a wide range of UV fields and densities [@zm88; @pl99]. By contrast the optical depth of CO($J$=3-2) is expected to be much larger than that of CI. The CI/CO($J$=3-2) ratio is sensitive to the optical depth of CI, if the CO($J$=3-2) line is saturated and the excitation temperatures for both lines are similar. The observed gradient suggests that $\tau$(CI) increases from the northern to the southern parts. The CI optical depth depends on the excitation temperature and on the column density ($N$(CI)). The gas kinetic temperature is known to have a spatial gradient, from 60 K at Orion-KL to $\sim$15 K at the southern end of L1641 (Tatematsu & Wilson 1998). If we assume the LTE condition, the CI optical depth increases by a factor of 6 from north to south with a fixed column density. Thus, the optical depth gradient is likely to reflect the temperature gradient, although a gradient in the CI /CO abundance ratio cannot be ruled out completely.
Correlation between CI and $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0)
=============================================
Figure 2b shows a map of the integrated intensity ratio of CI/$^{13}$CO($J$=1-0), where the $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) data were taken from @bal87. No systematic gradient is seen in this map. If we assume that the $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) line is optically thin for the entire cloud, the CI/$^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) integrated intensity ratio approximately expresses the optical depth ratio $\tau$(CI)/$\tau$($^{13}$CO). Since the column density ratio $N$(CI)/$N$(CO) is proportional to the optical depth ratio at a given temperature, our result may suggest an almost uniform $N$(CI)/$N$(CO) ratio from north to south along the cloud regardless of the strength of the UV field. In order to confirm this, we derived the column densities of CI and CO under the LTE condition toward several representative positions as shown in Table 1, and find that the $N$(CI)/$N$(CO) ratio remains almost constant. However, the ratio along the ridge of the filament tends to be slightly lower than toward the edges. This trend is particularly clear in the $\int$-shaped filament, and similar to that reported by @pl99 for much smaller regions toward W3, NGC2024, S140, and Cep A.
Figure 2b also suggests that the integrated intensity of CI correlates well with that of $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0). A correlation between CI and $^{13}$CO($J$=2-1) intensity has previously been suggested by @tau95 and @tate99 toward small portions of the Orion A cloud. Our results show that this correlation holds over an almost entire region of the Orion A cloud. In order to investigate this in detail, we prepared a correlation diagram by integrating the intensities over the 1 km s$^{-1}$ velocity width for the whole Orion A cloud (Figure 3a) and the southern region of the cloud (Figure 3b). The $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) data were smoothed to a $3'$ grid for comparison with our CI data. The CI intensity has an offset at zero intensity from $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0), and increases almost linearly as the $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) intensity increases. We least-square fitted the following equations; $\int T_{\rm MB}({\rm C_I}) dv = A \int T_{\rm MB}(^{13}{\rm CO}(J=1-0)) dv + B$, where we used the data above the 3$\sigma$ noise level for the $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) in this analysis. The coefficients ($A$, $B$) are derived to be (0.55$\pm$0.02, 0.87$\pm$0.04 K km s$^{-1}$) and (0.46$\pm$0.03, 0.92$\pm$0.06 K km s$^{-1}$), and the correlation coefficients are 0.82 and 0.80 for the whole cloud and southern regions, respectively. It should be noted that the CI emission tends to saturate for the larger $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) intensities as seen in Figure 3b.
One explanation for these properties can be given in terms of a picture of a PDR. An almost identical CI distribution to that of $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) could not easily be explained by homogeneous PDR models (e.g. Tielens and Hollenbach 1985). Taking this into account, we will assume that the cloud consists of a numerous small clumps, which are exposed to the external UV radiation. In a small clump with low visual extinction, all the CO is destroyed and only CI exists [@mo91]. This may be the reason why the offset in the CI intensity is seen. The H$_2$ column density of such a clump is estimated from the $B$ constants to be $\sim$1$\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, where the CI abundance is assumed to be 10$^{-4}$ [@suz92]. This corresponds to a visual extinction $Av\sim$1, which agrees with the depth of the CI layers in PDR models (e.g. Köster et al 1994; Spaans 1996). As the clump size increases, CO can exist in the central part of the clump. For larger clumps, the size of the CO core increases, and CI exists only near the clump surface. Therefore the CI emission tends to saturate for larger $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) intensities.
If the above picture based on the PDR model is correct, the $N$(CI)/$N$(CO) ratio should depend on the size distribution of clumps as well as the UV field intensity. It is therefore curious that the $N$(CI)/$N$(CO) ratio shows no such systematic gradient from the northern to the southern part of the Orion A cloud. Considering this fact, the possibility that CI co-exists with CO in the deep interior of the cloud should also be considered seriously. Evolutionary models [@suz92] and chemical bi-stability models [@leb93] may be potential candidates. Further observations including the CI ($^3P_2-^3P_1$) line are necessary to characterize physical conditions of the CI emitting regions, which will be a key to solve the above problem.
We would like to acknowledge John Bally for allowing us to use their $^{13}$CO($J$=1-0) data in digital form. We are grateful to Tomoharu Oka for valuable discussions, and to Glenn White for his critical reading of the manuscript. This study is supported by Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture (Nos. 07CE2002 and 11304010).
Bally, J., Langer, W. D., Stark, A. A., and Wilson, R. W. 1987, , 312, L45 Genzel, R., & Stutzki, J. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 41 Hodapp, K., & Deane, J. 1993, , 88, 119 Köster, B., Störzer, H., Stutzki, J., and Sternberg, A. 1994, A&A, 284, 545 Langer, W. D., & Penzias, A. A. 1993, , 408, 539 Le Bourlot, J., des Forêts, G. P., and Roueff, E. 1993, , 416, L87 Maezawa, H., et al. 1999, submitted Minchin, N. R., White, G. J., Stutzki, J., and Krause, D. 1994, A&A, 291, 250 Monteiro, T. T. 1991, A&A, 241, L5 Nagahama, T., Mizuno, A., Ogawa, H., and Fukui, Y. 1998, , 116, 336 Phillips, T. G., and Huggins, P. J. 1981, , 251, 533 Plume, R., Jaffe, D. T., and Keene, J. 1994, , 425, L49 Plume, R., Jaffe, D. T., Tatematsu, K., Evans II, N. J., and Keene, J. 1999, , 512, 768 Sakamoto, S., Hayashi, M., Hasegawa, T., Handa, T., and Oka, T. 1994, , 425, 641 Sekimoto, Y., et al. 1999, in preparation Suzuki, H., Yamamoto, S., Ohishi, M., Kaifu, N., Ishikawa, S., Hirahara, Y., and Takano, S. 1992, , 392, 551 Spaans, M. 1996, A&A, 307, 271 Tatematsu, K., et al. 1993, , 404, 643 Tatematsu, K., Umemoto, T., Heyer, M. H., Hirano, N., Kameya, O., and Jaffe, D. T. 1998, , 118, 517 Tatematsu, K., & Wilson, T. L. 1998, In the Orion Complex Revisited, A.S.P. Conference Series, ed. M. McCaughrean & A. Burkert (San Francisco: Astronimical Society of the Pacific), in press Tatematsu, K., Jaffe, D. T., Plume, R., Evans II, N. J., and Keene, J. 1999, , in press Tauber, J. A., Lis, D. C., Keene, J., Schilke, P., and Büttgenbach, T. H. 1995, A&A, 297, 567 Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Hollenbach, D. 1985, , 291, 722 White, G. J., & Padman, R. 1991, , 354, 511 White, G. J., & Sandell, G. 1995, A&A, 299, 179 Wright, E. L., et al. 1991, , 381, 200 Zmuidzinas, J., Betz, A. L., Boreiko, R. T., and Goldhaber, D. M. 1988, , 335, 774
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Ultracold collisions between spin-polarized Na atoms and vibrationally excited Na$_2$ molecules are investigated theoretically, using both an inelastic formalism (neglecting atom exchange channels) and a reactive formalism (including atom exchange). Calculations are carried out on both pairwise additive and non-additive potential energy surfaces for the quartet electronic state. In both inelastic and reactive calculations, the Wigner threshold laws are followed for energies below $10^{-6}$ K. It is found that vibrational relaxation processes dominate elastic processes for temperatures below $10^{-3}-10^{-4}$ K. For temperatures below $10^{-5}$ K, the rate coefficients for vibrational relaxation ($v=1\rightarrow 0$) from the full calculation are $4.8\times10^{-11}$ and $5.2\times10^{-10}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ for the additive and non-additive potentials respectively.'
address:
- 'Department of Chemistry, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, England'
- 'UMR 6627 du CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique des Atomes, Lasers, Molécules et Surfaces, Université de Rennes, France'
author:
- 'Pavel Soldán, Marko T. Cvitaš and Jeremy M. Hutson'
- 'Pascal Honvault and Jean-Michel Launay'
title: 'Quantum Dynamics of Ultracold Na + Na$_2$ collisions'
---
=cmr7
Methods for creating diatomic molecules in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) are now starting to be realised experimentally. They include photoassociation spectroscopy [@Stw99; @Wyn00; @Ger00; @McK02] and magnetic tuning through a Feshbach resonance [@Mie00; @Don02]. An important long-range goal of such experiments is the production of a stable molecular BEC. However, in most cases the molecules are produced initially in vibrationally excited states, and their lifetime is limited by collisions with other atoms or molecules. Since the magnetic trap depth is typically 1 mK, any vibrationally or rotationally inelastic collision will release enough kinetic energy for both collision partners to be ejected from the trap.
Very little is known about vibrational relaxation rates for ultracold alkali dimers. Wynar [*et al.*]{} [@Wyn00] produced $^{87}$Rb$_2$ molecules in very high vibrational levels of the ground electronic state in an atomic BEC by stimulated Raman scattering. They analyzed their line shapes to obtain an upper bound on the inelastic rate coefficient $k^{\rm
inel} < 8 \times 10^{-11}$ cm$^3$/s. In subsequent experiments [@Hei02] on ultracold (but not condensed) Rb$_2$ molecules in a different set of vibrational levels, they measured $k^{\rm inel} = 3 \times 10^{-11}$ cm$^3$/s. These rates are too high for the production of long-lived molecules, but there is a hope that lower-lying states will relax more slowly [@Bal97thresh; @Bal98HeH2] and that methods for stabilizing the molecules can be found.
Several calculations have been carried out on the vibrational relaxation of molecules such as H$_2$ [@Bal97thresh; @Bal98HeH2] and CO [@Bal00HeCO; @Zhu01HeCO] at ultralow energies. Spin-changing collisions of O$_2$ have also been investigated. [@Boh00HeO2; @Avd01O2O2] However, collisions of alkali dimers present new theoretical challenges that are not present for collisions of stabler molecules. In particular, the potential energy surfaces are such that barrierless atom-exchange reactions can occur; even if the products are indistinguishable from the reactants, the reactive channels must be taken into account in a full treatment of the collision dynamics. Barrierless reactions are significantly different from reactions such as F + H$_2$, [@Bal01FH2] which have substantial barriers, and have not yet been investigated at ultralow energies. This Letter presents an initial investigation of alkali + alkali dimer collisions, for the case of Na + Na$_2$ collisions occurring on the lowest quartet surface for Na$_3$. This corresponds physically to collisions of atoms in their “stretched” spin states, with $F=F_{\rm max}=I+S$ and $|M_F|=F$. In this work we use the potential energy surfaces of Higgins [*et al.*]{} [@Hig00] for the $1^4A'_2$ state of Na$_3$. Their full (non-additive) potential was obtained from a grid of [*ab initio*]{} calculations with a large basis set, interpolated using the reproducing-kernel Hilbert space scheme of Ho and Rabitz [@hojcp104]. The potential has a global minimum at $-1222.1$ K, with the atoms in an equilateral triangle configuration 4.41 Å apart. The symmetric linear geometry is a saddle point at $-554.4$ K (667.7 K above the minimum), with $r=5.10$ Å. Comparison with the corresponding triplet Na$_2$ pair potential [@gutjcp110], which has $r_e=5.192$ Å and $D_e=255.7$ K, shows that large non-additive effects are present. In the present work, we test the sensitivity of our results to the potential surface by performing calculations using both the full non-additive potential and a potential obtained by neglecting the non-additive part.
We initially carried out inelastic scattering calculations of vibrational relaxation from the $v=1$ state of triplet Na$_2$, using the MOLSCAT program [@molscat]. Such calculations are carried out in Jacobi coordinates $(R,r,\theta)$ for a single arrangement of the atoms, and neglect the reactive channels. The wavefunction in the interaction region is expanded in a basis set of Na$_2$ vibrational functions that are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian for free Na$_2$, supplemented by a wall at large $R$ to provide a representation of the Na$_2$ continuum.
For full close-coupling or coupled states calculations, it proved impossible to converge the basis set of Na$_2$ vibrational functions. This may readily be understood in terms of the potential energy surface. Consider Na approaching Na$_2$ for a T-shaped geometry, $\theta=90^\circ$, allowing the Na$_2$ bond length $r$ to relax to minimize the energy at each intermolecular distance $R$. The system passes through the minimum-energy equilateral geometry, and then the two atoms of the Na$_2$ move apart to allow the Na atom to insert between them. However, even at $R=0$ (the linear geometry), the energy is below that for separated Na + Na$_2$. At this configuration, the optimum value of $r$ is 10.4 Å, and the basis set of Na$_2$ vibrational functions centered around $r_e=5.1$ Å is completely inadequate for representing such dramatically expanded geometries.
This problem does not arise for collinear scattering, for which the vibrational basis set is adequately converged for $v_{\rm max}=20$. We therefore carried out collinear calculations of the elastic and vibrational relaxation cross sections. The coupled equations were integrated from $R=2.3$ Å to 2500 Å. The resulting elastic and inelastic cross sections for collisions of Na$_2$ initially in $v=1$ are shown in Figs.\[fig1\] and \[fig2\] for both the pairwise-additive and non-additive potentials.
The cross sections all follow the expected Wigner threshold laws [@Bal97thresh; @Wig48; @Rjpb00] at energies below $10^{-6}$ K. For elastic collisions, the cross sections are proportional to $E^0$, $E^2$ and $E^3$ for s, p and d waves respectively. The $E^3$ dependence for the d wave arises because the long-range dispersion ($R^{-6}$) term in the atom-diatom potential modifies the threshold behavior for $l>1$ [@Rjpb00]. For vibrational relaxation, the cross sections are proportional to $E^{-1/2}$, $E^{1/2}$ and $E^{3/2}$ for s, p and d waves respectively. The oscillations that occur for $E>1$ mK arise simply from zeroes in $\sin^2\eta$, where $\eta$ is the scattering phase shift.
The [*elastic*]{} cross sections are dramatically different for the additive and non-additive potentials (by a factor of almost $10^3$), while the [*inelastic*]{} cross sections are much more similar (differing by a factor of only 10). The large difference in the elastic cross sections presumably occurs because the zero-energy elastic cross section may be written as $\sigma^{\rm el}_0 = 4\pi |a|^2$, where $a$ is the atom-diatom complex scattering length [@Bal97complexa]. This is accidentally close to zero for the non-additive potential: $a = (-0.90-1.19i)$ nm, compared to $(33.83 -0.46i)$ nm for the additive potential. This has the effect that $\sigma^{\rm el} > \sigma^{\rm inel}$ for $T>10^{-10}$ K on the additive surface, but only for $T>10^{-4}$ K on the non-additive surface.
An intriguing feature of the results is the appearance of a second linear region (in the log-log plots) for inelastic s-wave scattering between about $10^{-5}$ and 10$^{-2}$ K. The cross section in this region is proportional to $E^{-1}$ for the non-additive potential but to about $E^{-4/3}$ for the additive potential. A possible reason for this is that the vibrational coupling at long range decays as $R^{-6}$ for the full potential but as $R^{-8}$ for the pairwise-additive potential.
As described above, the MOLSCAT calculations are restricted to collinear geometries and a single arrangement channel. To go beyond this requires a reactive scattering formalism in which all three arrangement channels are included. Such calculations are more expensive, and have not previously been attempted for systems containing three non-hydrogen atoms.
As a first step towards a rigorous treatment, we have performed three-dimensional quantum reactive scattering calculations for total nuclear orbital angular momentum $J=0$. The configuration space is divided into an inner and an outer region, depending on the atom-diatom distance. In the inner region, we use a formalism based on body-frame democratic hyperspherical coordinates [@launay89]. This has already proved successful in describing atom-diatom insertion reactions such as N($^2$D) + H$_2$$\rightarrow$ NH + H [@nh2jcp99] and O($^1$D) + H$_2$$\rightarrow$ OH + H [@oh2jcp01; @oh2prl01]. A related approach has also been used in studies of three-body recombination of ultracold atoms [@Esr99recomb]. The scattering wave function is expanded on a set of hyperspherical adiabatic states. This yields a set of close-coupling equations, which in our method are solved using the Johnson-Manolopoulos log-derivative propagator [@mano86]. In the outer region, we use the Arthurs-Dalgarno formalism [@arthurs60], which is based on Jacobi coordinates. Matching of the wavefunctions in the inner and outer regions is performed on a boundary which is an hypersphere of radius 25 Å. This yields the reactance $K$-matrix and the scattering $S$-matrix.
The inner region starts at a hyperradius of 4 Å and is split into 297 sectors. The adiabatic states in each sector are obtained by a variational expansion on a basis of hyperspherical harmonics with $A_1$ symmetry. They are fully symmetric with respect to particle permutations to account for the indistinguishability of atoms. At large hyperradius, the adiabatic states concentrate into the arrangement channels and describe Na$_2$ molecules in even $j$ states. At small hyperradius, they span a large fraction of configuration space and allow for atom exchange. The hyperspherical harmonic basis is truncated at $\Lambda_{\rm max}$, the maximum value of the grand angular momentum. $\Lambda_{\rm max}$ varies from 198 (867 harmonics) at small hyperradius to 398 (3400 harmonics) at large hyperradius. A fixed number of 135 adiabatic states is used in the close-coupling expansion in each sector. At the boundary between the inner and outer regions, the adiabatic states are projected onto a set of Na$_2$ rovibrational states, with $j_{\rm max} = 48$, 44, 40, 36, 30, 26, 20, 10 for vibrational levels $v=0,1,\dots,7$. The boundary between the inner and outer regions was placed at a distance such that couplings due to the atom-diatom residual interaction can be neglected outside the boundary. In the outer region, regular and irregular solutions of a radial Schr[ö]{}dinger equation which includes the isotropic ($R^{-6}$) part of the interaction were integrated inwards from very large distances (5000 Å).
Fig. \[fig3\] shows the cross sections as a function of collision energy for the additive and non-additive potentials. All collisions that are energetically elastic, with or without atom exchange, are included in the elastic cross section. All other processes (which produce Na$_2$ $(v=0,j)$) contribute to the quenching cross section. Na$_2$ rotational levels up to $j=20$ are energetically accessible at the energy of the $v=1$ state (23.5 cm$^{-1}$), and all accessible levels are populated in the products.
It may be seen that the Wigner threshold laws for the elastic and quenching cross sections hold below $10^{-5}$ K for both potentials. The cross sections are larger for the non-additive than for the additive potential, by a factor of about 10 for both elastic and quenching cross sections. The $E^{-1/2}$ dependence of the quenching cross sections corresponds to a constant rate coefficient below $10^{-5}$ K, which is $k^{\rm inel} = 4.8
\times 10^{-11}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ for the additive potential and $5.2 \times
10^{-10}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ for the non-additive potential. The corresponding scattering lengths are $a = (2.26-0.80i)$ and $(2.38-8.54i)$ nm, respectively.
Outside the Wigner region, the cross sections have a more complicated energy dependence. The quenching probability increases with increasing energy and approaches unity at the limit of the Wigner region. The quenching cross sections thus vary approximately as $E^{-1}$ above $10^{-4}$ K, because of the $k^{-2}$ factor in the expression for the cross section. Above $10^{-3}$ K, the elastic cross sections show oscillations which are similar to but less pronounced than the ones in Fig. \[fig1\].
Finally, the ratio of quenching to elastic cross sections is larger than 1 at energies below $10^{-4}$ K for the additive potential and below $10^{-3}$ K for the non-additive potential. It increases up to 500 in the nK range for both potentials.
In future work, we intend to investigate the dependence of quenching rates on the initial vibrational quantum number and to investigate the effects of magnetic fields and nuclear spin coupling.
The three-dimensional quantum dynamical calculations were performed on a NEC-SX5 vector supercomputer, through a grant from the “Institut du D[é]{}veloppement des Ressources en Informatique Scientifique” (IDRIS) in Orsay (France). PS is grateful to the EPSRC for a Research Associateship under grant no. GR/R17522/01.
[10]{}
W. C. Stwalley and H. Wang, [J. Mol. Spectrosc.]{} [**195**]{}, 194 (1999).
R. Wynar, R. S. Freeland, D. J. Han, C. Ryu, and D. J. Heinzen, [Science]{} [**287**]{}, 1016 (2000).
J. M. Gerton, D. Strekalov, I. Prodan and R. G. Hulet, [Nature]{} [**408**]{}, 692 (2000).
C. McKenzie, J. H. Denschlag, H. Hä ffner, A. Browaeys, [*et al.*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**88**]{}, 120403 (2002).
D. J. Heinzen et al., unpublished work.
F. H. Mies, E. Tiesinga and P. S. Julienne, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**61**]{}, 022721 (2000).
E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. T. Thompson and C. E. Wieman, [**]{} Science, submitted. (available at http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0204436)
N. Balakrishnan, R. C. Forrey, and A. Dalgarno, [Chem. Phys. Lett.]{} [**280**]{}, 1 (1997).
N. Balakrishnan, V. Kharchenko, R. C. Forrey, and A. Dalgarno, [Chem. Phys. Lett.]{} [**280**]{}, 5 (1997).
N. Balakrishnan, R. C. Forrey, and A. Dalgarno, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**80**]{}, 3224 (1998).
N. Balakrishnan, A. Dalgarno, and R. C. Forrey, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**113**]{}, 621 (2000).
C. Zhu, N. Balakrishnan and A. Dalgarno, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**115**]{}, 1335 (2001).
J. L. Bohn, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**62**]{}, 032701 (2000).
A. V. Avdeenkov and J. L. Bohn, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**64**]{}, 052703 (2001).
N. Balakrishnan and A. Dalgarno, [Chem. Phys. Lett.]{} [**341**]{}, 652 (2001).
N. Balakrishnan and A. Dalgarno, [Chem. Phys. Lett.]{} [**341**]{}, 652 (2001).
J. Higgins, T. Hollebeek, J. Reho, T.-S. Ho, K. K. Lehmann, H. Rabitz, and G. Scoles, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**112**]{}, 5751 (2000).
T.-S. Ho and H. Rabitz, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**104**]{}, 2584 (1996).
M. Gutowski, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**110**]{}, 4695 (1999).
E. P. Wigner, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**73**]{}, 1002 (1948).
H. R. Sadeghpour, J. L. Bohn, M. J. Cavagnero, B. D. Esry, I. I. Fabrikant, J. H. Macek, and A. R. P. Rau, [J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.]{} [**33**]{}, R93 (2000).
J. M. Hutson and S. Green, MOLSCAT computer program, version 14, distributed by Collaborative Computational Project No. 6 of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, 1994. Some modifications were made to improve the efficiency for ultracold collisions.
J.-M. Launay and M. Le Dourneuf, [Chem. Phys. Lett.]{} [**163**]{}, 178 (1989).
P. Honvault and J.-M. Launay, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**111**]{}, 6665 (1999).
P. Honvault and J.-M. Launay, [J. Chem. Phys. ]{} [**114**]{}, 1057 (2001).
F. J. Aoiz, L. Bañares, J. F. Castillo, M. Brouard, W. Denzer, C. Vallance, P. Honvault, J.-M. Launay, A. J. Dobbyn and P. J. Knowles, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**86**]{}, 1729 (2001).
B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene and J. P. Burke, Jr., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**83**]{}, 1751 (1999).
D.E. Manolopoulos, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**85**]{}, 6425 (1986).
A.M. Arthurs and A. Dalgarno, [Proc. R. Soc.]{} [**A 256**]{}, 540 (1960).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We construct an inflation model on the Randall-Sundrum I (RSI) brane where a bulk scalar field stabilizes the inter-brane separation. We study impact of the bulk scalar field on the inflationary dynamics on the brane. We proceed in two different approaches: in the first approach, the stabilizing field potential is directly appeared in the Friedmann equation and the resulting scenario is effectively a two-field inflation. In the second approach the stabilization mechanism is considered in the context of a warp factor so that there is just one field present that plays the roles of both inflaton and stabilizer. We study constraints imposed on the model parameters from recent observations.\
[**PACS:**]{} 98.80.Cq, 04.50.-h\
[**Key Words:**]{} Braneworld Cosmology, Inflation, Radius Stabilization
---
0 mm 0 mm 0 mm 0 mm 0 mm 165 mm 220 mm 0.65 cm
\
and\
Introduction
============
The idea of braneworld models is an exciting way to solve the problems facing standard cosmology and particle physics. The basic idea is that the standard model matter is confined to a $3$-brane while gravity propagates in the higher dimensional bulk. This means that gravity is fundamentally a higher dimensional interaction and we only see the effective $4D$ theory on the brane. One of the first suggestions in this respect was the model proposed by Arkani-Hamed *et al* \[1\]. In this model the difference between the fundamental scales of gravity and electroweak is due to the existence of large extra dimensions that are accessible only for graviton and possibly non-standard matter. Later, a different setup was proposed by Randall and Sundrum \[2\]. Their model has two Minkowski branes and a single extra dimension. The branes have equal and opposite tensions and we live in the negative tension brane. The hierarchy problem could be solved in this setup by the exponentially changing metric along the extra dimension.
It has been shown firstly by Binetroy *et al* \[3\] that the Randall-Sundrum $2$-brane model in the absence of any source (including a cosmological constant) in the bulk, leads to a phenomenologically unacceptable cosmological evolution. However, when there is a cosmological constant in the bulk, the usual Friedmann equations are recovered at low energy but in this case there is a strict constrain between the energy density of matter on the branes which is undesirable phenomenologically \[4\]. Later, it has been shown that the correct cosmological evolution equations are recovered if one stabilizes the separation between the two branes \[5\]. To do this end, one should introduce a massive scalar field called Radion to stabilize the inter-brane separation. The simplest mechanism for radius stabilization has been proposed by Goldberger and wise (GW) \[6\]. They introduced a bulk scalar field with different vacuum expectation values (VEVs) on the two branes. After the stabilization, there is no constraint on the matter density on the branes. Cosmological dynamics and phenomenology of the model are crucially dependant on the mass and coupling of the Radion field. One could achieve the desired result if the mass of the Radion is of the order of $TeV$ and its couplings to Standard Model (SM) fields is *O*($TeV^{-1}$). It has been shown in reference \[7\] that in the GW mechanism, these conditions are indeed satisfied. Reference \[8\] provides a thorough analysis of the Radion dynamics and RS I cosmology.
One faces the issue of Radion stabilization only in the RS I and ADD solutions. After proposing the 2-brane model, Randall and Sundrum introduced a new scenario \[9\] (RS II), in which the extra dimension is infinite in size, which effectively means moving the negative tension brane of RS I scenario to infinity. There is only a single (positive tension) brane and no Radion is needed; its wave function diverges away from the brane. Because of this simplicity, much of the early works on brane cosmology have focused on the RS II solution (see \[10\] and references therein).
In recent years, cosmologists have shown renewed interest in studying the cosmological implications of the RS I model \[11\]. The reason for this is that one can include the quantum gravity effects more readily in this scenario: Kaluza-Klein excitations of the bulk graviton modes are supposed to be equivalent to bound states of a strongly coupled, nearly conformal field theory residing on the TeV brane \[12\]. At temperatures above the TeV scale, the TeV brane is assumed hidden behind a horizon \[13\] which is formed by a black hole in the bulk \[14\]. In fact, at high temperatures there are two possible scenarios. The first is that the TeV brane simply does not exist at early times; the horizon shields the region where the TeV brane might exist. As the temperature drops and the horizon recedes, it eventually uncloaks the TeV brane, and the true SM degrees of freedom emerge. An alternative possibility with similar physical consequences is that a TeV brane exists at the scale associated with the temperature of the theory. Only when the temperature drops to appropriately low scale will the brane settle at its true minimum, analogously to the behavior of other moduli in the early universe. It has been noted that the emergence of the TeV brane from the horizon may occur around the same time as the electroweak phase transition \[15\]. Ref. \[16\] provided an alternative picture of a first order phase transition which leads to the appearance of the TeV brane at this epoch.
Although standard Big Bang cosmology has been very successful in explaining the evolution of the universe as we see today; but despite all of its successes there exist some problems unsolved in this framework. The most notable of these are the flatness problem, the observed low density of monopoles and the horizon problem \[17,18\]. Theories with inflation (a period in the early universe characterized by an exponential expansion of the scale factor) offer solutions to these problems and in fact are the only ones to do so. Inflation, however, suffers from its own set of problems. Primary amongst these, is the generation of a correct (scalar) potential that would drive inflation \[19\], and equally important the mechanism of a non-contrived exit of the universe from an inflationary phase. This graceful exit problem has been plaguing both cosmologists and string theorists with no simple solution in sight. Extension of the inflation paradigm to braneworld scenarios have provided a variety of new ideas in the spirit of the particle physics and cosmology.
With these preliminaries, in this paper, we investigate the chaotic inflation scenario in the Randall-Sundrum 2-brane (RS I) model. We assume that the size of the extra dimension is stabilized using appropriate Radion potential. The modified Friedmann equations for the branes are used to obtain the evolution of the universe in the inflation era. We adopt two relatively different approaches in which in the first approach, the stabilizing field potential directly appears in the Friedmann equation and the resulting scenario is effectively a two-field inflation. In the second approach, the stabilization mechanism is considered in the context of a warp factor so that there is just one field present that plays the roles of both inflaton and stabilizer. These two approaches are compared and by analyzing the parameter space of the model we investigate possible realization of the graceful exit in this setup. We study constraints imposed on the model parameters from recent observations.
The model
=========
Consider a RS model with two branes located at $y=0$ and $y=1/2$. We suppose that the metric has the form $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=&n^{2}(y,t) dt^2-a^{2}(y,t) (dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)-b^{2}(y,t)
dy^2,
\nonumber \\
&\equiv& \tilde{g}_{AB}(x,y) dx^A dx^B.\end{aligned}$$ where $y$ is the coordinate of the extra dimension and $A,B=0,1,2,3,5$. Components of the Einstein tensor for this metric are \[3\] $$\begin{aligned}
&& G_{00}=3\left[ \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2
+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{ab} -\frac{n^2}{b^2} \left( \frac{a''}{a}
+\left(\frac{a'}{a}\right)^2 -\frac{a'b'}{ab}\right) \right], \nonumber \\
&& G_{ii}=\frac{a^2}{b^2} \left[ \left(\frac{a'}{a}\right)^2+ 2
\frac{a'}{a}\frac{n'}{n} -\frac{b'n'}{bn}-2 \frac{b'a'}{ba}
+2\frac{a''}{a}+\frac{n''}{n}\right]+ \frac{a^2}{n^2}
\left[-\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+2
\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{n}}{n}-2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\right.
\nonumber \\
&& \left.\frac{\dot{b}}{b} \left(
-2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{n}}{n} \right) -\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}
\right],
\nonumber \\
&& G_{05}=3\left[ \frac{n'}{n}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}
+\frac{a'\dot{b}}{ab}-\frac{\dot{a}'}{a}\right],
\nonumber \\
&& G_{55}=3 \left[
\frac{a'}{a}\left(\frac{a'}{a}+\frac{n'}{n}\right) -\frac{b^2}{n^2}
\left(
\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}-\frac{\dot{n}}{n}\right)
+\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $y$ while a dot marks differentiation with respect to $t$, the cosmic time. We assume that there exists a cosmological constant in the bulk so the overall energy-momentum tensor has two parts. One from the bulk cosmological constant of the form $$T_{ab}^{(bulk)}=\tilde{g}_{ab} \Lambda,$$ and the other from the matter on the branes which has the following form $$\begin{aligned}
T_{a}^{b\,\,(brane)}= &&\frac{\delta (y)}{b} {\rm diag}\
\Big(V_*+\rho_*\, ,\, V_*-p_*\,,\, V_*-p_*\,,\, V_*-p_*\, ,\, 0\Big)
+\nonumber \\
&&\frac{\delta (y-\frac{1}{2})} {b} {\rm diag} \ \Big(-V+\rho\, ,\,
-V-p\, ,\, -V-p\, ,\, -V-p\, ,\, 0\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $V_*$ is the (positive) tension (or equivalently the cosmological constant) of the brane located at $y=0$, $\rho_*$ and $p_*$ are the density and pressure of the matter situated on the positive tension brane (with an equation of state of the form $p_*=w_* \rho_*$ ) and $\rho$ and $p$ are the density and pressure of the matter on the negative tension brane (the brane which we live in). Both sets of densities and pressures are measured with respect to $\tilde{g}$. In the absence of any energy-momentum sources on the branes, that is, where $\rho,\,\, p,\,\, \rho_{*},\,\, p_{*}\,\to
0$, one recovers the static Randall-Sundrum solution of the form $$n(y)=a(y)=e^{-|y|m_0 b_0},$$ where the relations between $\Lambda,\, V_*$, $V$ and $m_0$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& V_*=\frac{6m_0}{\kappa^2}= -V, \nonumber \\
&& \Lambda =-\frac{6m^2 _0}{\kappa^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The effective 4D Planck scale is then given by $$(8
\pi G_N)^{-1}= M_{Pl}^2 \equiv \frac{1-\Omega^2_0}{\kappa^2 m_0}
\hbox{,}$$ where $\Omega_{0}$ is the present-day value of the warp factor and is given by $$\Omega_0 \equiv e^{-m_0b_0/2}$$ The warp factor in general is $b$-dependent so we define $$\Omega_{b}\equiv e^{-m_{0}b(t)|y|/2}$$ where we measure it at $y=\frac{1}{2}$, at our brane. When $b=b_0=constant$, then $\Omega_{b}=\Omega_{0}$.
Now we include the Radion in our equations. Without stabilization, the Radion has no mass, so only its potential enters into the action. We assume that the coefficients in the metric (1) have the following forms $$\begin{aligned}
a(y,t)&=&a(t) \Omega(y,b(t)) \left[1+
\delta \bar{a}(y,t) \right] \nonumber \\
n(y,t)&=&\Omega(y,b(t))\left[1+\delta \bar{n}(t,y) \right]
\nonumber \\
b(t,y)&=&b(t) \big[1+ \delta \bar{b}(y,t)\big] .\end{aligned}$$ The modified Friedmann equation for the geometry given by the metric (1) is \[5\] $$\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+ (m_0 b) \frac{\Omega^2_b}{1-\Omega^2_b}
\frac{\dot{a}}{a} \frac{\dot{b}} {b} - \frac{(m_0 b)^2}{4}
\frac{\Omega^2 _b}{1- \Omega^2 _b} \frac{ \dot{b}^2}{b^2}=
\frac{\kappa^2 m_0} {3}\frac{1}{1-\Omega^2_b} \left(\rho_* +\rho
\Omega^4 _b +W_r(b)\right) + \epsilon^2$$ where $\epsilon^2 = O\Big((\delta \bar{a} )^2,\, (\delta \bar{n}
)^2,\, (\delta \bar{b})^2\Big)$ and $W_r(b)$ is the Radion potential. From the above Friedmann equation one can deduce that unless there is a strict constraint between the matter densities on the two branes, the universe evolves in a very unconventional manner which is not supported by present day observations \[3,5\]. Also it is very undesirable that the matter densities on the two branes should obey such a constraints.
In order to avoid the above mentioned problems, we should stabilize the radius. This can be done by assuming that the Radion is massive. An elegant mechanism for Radion stabilization has been proposed by Goldberger and Wise. After the stabilization, the Friedmann equations are \[5\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\dot{\bar{a}}^2}{\bar{a}^2}&=& \frac{8 \pi G_N}{3} \left(
f^{4}(b)( \rho_* + \rho_{vis}) + \frac{1}{4} \frac{3}{8 \pi G_N}
(m_0 b)^2 \left( \frac{\Omega_b}{1-\Omega^2_b}\right)^2
\frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}
+ \overline{W}_r(b) \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{8 \pi G_N}{3} \left( \frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi}^2+
\overline{W}_r(\psi) + f^{4}(b)( \rho_* + \rho_{vis}) \right) \hbox{
,}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\frac{\ddot{\bar{a}}}{\bar{a}}=-4\pi G_{N}\bigg(f^{4}(b)\Big[(
\rho_* + \rho_{vis})+3( p_* +
p_{vis})\Big]+2(\dot{\psi^{2}}-{\overline{W}_r(\psi)}\bigg).$$ Here $\psi$ is the canonically normalized Radion and we performed a conformal transformation of the metric as $$\begin{aligned}
a(t) &=& f(b(\bar{t})) \hbox{ } \bar{a} (\bar{t}) \nonumber \\
d t &=& f(b(\bar{t})) \hbox{ }d \bar{t} \hbox{ , }\end{aligned}$$ where the function $f(b)$ is defined by $$f(b) = \left( \frac{1- \Omega^2 _{0}}{1-\Omega^2_b} \right)^{1/2}
\hbox{.}$$ With the above definitions, the Radion potential in the absence of any source is $$\overline{W}_{r}(b)= f^{4}(b) W_r(b),$$ and the canonically normalized Radion is given by $$m_0 b(t) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{\psi(t)}{\Omega_{0}M_{pl}}
(1-\Omega^2_0) \sim \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\frac{\psi(t)}{\Omega_{0}M_{pl}} \hbox{ .}$$ The Friedmann equations (12) and (13) are derived by neglecting the back-reaction of the Radion mass on the background metric and the wave function of the Radion. However, it has been shown in reference \[8\] that including these considerations will not change the results. It should also be noted that equations (12) and (13) are represented in the Einstein frame so in the low energy limit with a stabilized Radion ($\dot{b}=0$), the universe evolves as in usual cosmology in this frame. With the definition (14), it is obvious that up to an small fluctuation, the evolution of the universe is also the same in the original frame.
The Goldberger-Wise Stabilization Mechanism
===========================================
The model for Radion stabilization which we use here is the one proposed by Goldberger and Wise \[6\]. In their model, a bulk scalar field which also contains two potentials on TeV and Planck branes, plays the role of stabilizer. The whole action for this model is $$S=\int
d^{5}x\sqrt{-\tilde{G}}\bigg(-\frac{1}{2\kappa_{5}^{2}}R-\Lambda+
\tilde{G}^{AB}\delta_{A}\Phi\delta_{B}\Phi-U_{bulk}(\Phi)\bigg)+S_{TeV}+S_{Pl},$$ where the action on the branes are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber S_{Pl}&=&\int \sqrt{-g}d^{4}x\Big(L_{m0}-U_{0}(\Phi)\Big)\\
S_{Tev}&=&\int \sqrt{-g}d^{4}x\Big(L_{m1/2}-U_{1/2}(\Phi)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\tilde{G}_{AB}$ is the 5D metric given by equation (1) and the potentials in the bulk and in the brane are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber U_{bulk}(\Phi)&=&\frac{1}{2}m^{2}_{s}\Phi^{2}\\
U_{i}(\Phi)&=&\lambda_{i}(\Phi^{2}-v^{2}_{i})^{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $i=0,\, \frac{1}{2}$ and $v_{i}$’s have the dimension of $(mass)^{3/2}$ and could be different on the two branes. With this action, Goldberger and Wise find the effective 4D potential for the Radion as $$W_r(b)=4 m_0 e^{-2 m_0 b} \left(v_{1/2}-v_0 e^{-\epsilon m_0 b/2}
\right)^2 \Big(1+ \frac{\epsilon}{4}\Big) - \epsilon m_0 v_{1/2}
e^{-(4+ \epsilon)m_0 b/2} \left( 2 v_{1/2} -v_0 e^{-\epsilon m_0
b/2}\right)$$ where $\epsilon$ is defined by $$\epsilon=\frac{4m^{2}_{s}}{m_{0}}.$$ Substituting from equation (17) for the canonically normalized Radion, we get $$W_r(\psi)=4 m_0 e^{-2 (\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\frac{\psi}{\Omega_{0}M_{pl}})} \left(v_{1/2}-v_0 e^{-\epsilon
(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{\psi}{\Omega_{0}M_{pl}})/2} \right)^2 (1+
\frac{\epsilon}{4} )$$ $$\quad\quad\quad\,\, - \epsilon m_0 v_{1/2} e^{-(4+
\epsilon)(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{\psi}{\Omega_{0}M_{pl}})/2}
\left( 2 v_{1/2} -v_0 e^{-\epsilon (\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\frac{\psi}{\Omega_{0}M_{pl}})/2}\right).$$ Figure $1$ shows the shape of the Golberger-wise stabilization potential in our setup as given by equation (23).
Chaotic inflation in the RS I model
===================================
Now we have the tools to investigate the inflation in the Randall-Sundrum 2-brane scenario. Our starting points are the modified Friedmann equations (12) and (13). We assume that the inflation takes place in the TeV brane so we set $\rho_{*}=0$.
We assume also that there is an inflaton field $\phi$, with a potential $V(\phi)$ on the TeV brane where its energy density and pressure are given as $$\rho=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^{2}+V$$ and $$p=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^{2}-V$$ respectively. To have an inflationary era, there should be a phase of accelerated expansion in the early stages of the universe evolution in which $\ddot{\bar{a}}>0$. From equation (13) this means that $$f^{4}(b)\Big( \rho_{vis}+3
p_{vis}\Big)+2\Big(\dot{\psi^{2}}-{\overline{W}_r(\psi)}\Big)<0$$ Substituting (24) and (25) into (26) we get $$f^{4}(b)\bigg[2(\dot{\phi^{2}}-V)\bigg]+2\bigg(\dot{\psi^{2}}-
{\overline{W}_r(\psi)}\bigg)<0\,,$$ which is the condition for realization of inflation in our setup. The Klein-Gordon equation governing the evolution of the inflaton field is as usual $$\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+V'(\phi)=0.$$ In the standard Friedmann cosmology, the energy condition required for realization of inflation yields $\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi^{2}}<V(\phi)$ which means that the potential energy of the inflaton dominates over its kinetic energy. Imposing the slow-roll approximation *i.e.* $$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi^{2}}\ll V(\phi)$$ and $$\ddot{\phi}\ll 3H\dot{\phi},$$ on our model, the Hubble parameter for a model universe where the only matter is an inflaton field on the TeV brane, is given by equation (12) as $$H^{2}= \frac{8 \pi G_N}{3} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi}^2+
\overline{W}_r(\psi) + f^{4}(b)\Big(
\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^{2}+V(\phi)\Big) \right] \hbox{ .}$$ In the slow-roll approximation this becomes $$H^{2}\simeq \frac{8 \pi G_N}{3} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi}^2+
\overline{W}_r(\psi) + f^{4}(b)\Big(V(\phi)\Big) \right] \hbox{ .}$$ Also from Klein-Gordon equation one finds $$\dot{\phi}\simeq-\frac{V'(\phi)}{3H}.$$ We assume that potential energy of the Radion field dominates its kinetic energy so that the first term on the right hand side of equation (32) can be neglected. Now, the slow-roll parameters are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\varepsilon&\equiv&\frac{M^{2}_{pl}
}{16\pi}\bigg(\frac{W'+f V'}{W+fV}\bigg)^{2}\\
\eta&\equiv&\frac{M^{2}_{pl} }{16\pi}\bigg(\frac{W''+f
V''}{W+fV}\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the argument in each case. We note that these definitions of the slow-roll parameters are very similar to the two-field inflation. So, inflation in our setup is effectively a two-field inflation. In other words, incorporation of the role played by Radion in this inflation scenario turns it to an effective two-field inflation. The slow-roll approximations are valid when $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\varepsilon&\ll& 1\\|\eta|&\ll&1\,.\end{aligned}$$ The inflationary phase ends when $\varepsilon$ and $|\eta|$ grow of order unity. The amount of inflation is described by the number of e-folds which is defined as $$N\equiv\ln(\frac{a_{f}}{a_{i}})=\int^{t_{f}}_{t_{i}}Hdt.$$ Substituting for $H$ from equation (32) we find $$N=\int^{\psi_{f}}_{\psi_{i}}\int^{\phi_{f}}_{\phi_{i}}\bigg[\frac{8
\pi G_N}{3} \left( \frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi}^2+ \overline{W}_r(\psi) +
f^{4}(b)\Big(V(\phi)\Big) \right)\bigg ]^{1/2}d\phi d\psi.$$ It is obvious that the number of e-folds in our setup is larger than the standard case due to incorporation of the Radion potential which is positive as figure $1$ shows. Figures $2$ and $3$ show the graceful exit from the inflationary phase. The condition for graceful exit is $\varepsilon=1$, however it is possible essentially to fulfill the condition $|\eta|=1$ before fulfilling $\varepsilon=1$ and in this case inflation terminates when the condition $|\eta|=1$ is fulfilled.
Perturbations
=============
Density perturbations due to quantum mechanical fluctuations of the inflaton field, have important observational consequences for the present epoch of the universe because, it is believed that these perturbations are the source of large scale structure formation in the universe.\
The fluctuations of the inflaton field are related to the curvature perturbations on comoving hypersurfaces by the following relation $$\emph{R}=\frac{H\delta\phi}{\dot{\phi}}$$ In the slow-roll limit the field fluctuation at the horizon crossing (or Hubble radius) is given by $$\delta\phi=\frac{H}{2\pi}$$ This result is independent of the geometry and holds for a massless scalar field in de Sitter spacetime independently of the gravitational field equations. The amplitude of scalar perturbations is related to the density perturbation by the following relation $$A^{2}_{s}=4\frac{\emph{R}^{2}}{25}$$ In our model, using equations (31),(32) and (38), this gives $$A^{2}_{s}\simeq \frac{2048}{675}\bigg(\frac{\pi
(G_{N})^{3}}{V'^{2}}\bigg)\left( \frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi}^2+
\overline{W}_r(\psi) + f^{4}(b)V(\phi) \right)^{3} \hbox{ ,}$$ which is calculated at the Hubble crossing. One of the important parameters which is useful to constraint the inflationary models with observations is the spectral index, $n_{s}$. In the slow-roll limit, $n_{s}$ is given by $$n_{s}-1\equiv\frac{d\ln A^{2}_{s}}{d\ln k}=-6\varepsilon+2\eta$$ where $k$ is the comoving wavenumber. Recent WMAP five year result \[20\] combined with SDSS and SNIa data shows that $n_{s}\simeq
0.960$. We plot the value of $n_{s}$ versus $\phi$ and $\psi$ fields at the end of inflation in figure $4$. Figure $5$ shows the values of $\phi$ and $\psi$ to match the observed value of $n_{s}$ by WMAP. We use this figure to extract the values of $\phi_{end}$ and $\psi_{end}$ and then using equation (37) we find that the number of e-folds in our model is $N\simeq 65-105$ which is slightly larger than the standard case which is expected as has been discussed after equation (37). It is also obvious from figure $5$ that with suitable value of $\psi$ the value of inflaton field $\phi$ could be below the planck scale thus avoiding the so called $\eta$-problem.
The amplitude of tensorial perturbations at the Hubble crossing is $$A^{2}_{T}=\frac{4}{25\pi}\bigg(\frac{H}{M_{pl}}\bigg)^{4}.$$ In the slow-roll approximation using equations (31) this gives $$A^{2}_{T}\simeq \frac{32 \pi (G_{N})^{2}}{75} \left( \frac{1}{2}
\dot{\psi}^2+ \overline{W}_r(\psi) + f^{4}(b)V(\phi) \right) \hbox{
.}$$ Figures $6$ and $7$ shows the amplitude of scalar and tensorial perturbations for our model. These figures show that our model is favored by the recent observations from combined WMAP5+SDSS+SNIa dataset.
The tensorial spectral index is given by $$n_{T}\equiv \frac{d\ln A^{2}_{T}}{d\ln k}=-2\varepsilon.$$ The relative amplitude of tensorial and scalar spectrums is therefore $$\frac{A^{2}_{T}}{A^{2}_{R}}=0.140625\frac{V'^{2}}{G_{N}}\left(
\frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi}^2+ \overline{W}_r(\psi) + f^{4}(b)(V(\phi))
\right)^{-2} \hbox{ .}$$ Figure $8$ shows the relative amplitude of tensorial and scalar perturbations for our model
An alternative approach
=======================
An alternative representation of the Randall-Sundrum model mentioned in section 2, was presented by Cline and Firouzjahi \[21\]. Using action (18) for a RS I model with radion stabilization, they made a perturbative expansion of the coefficients of the metric as $$n(t,y)=n_{0}(y)+\delta n(t,y)\,\,\,\,\,\,a(t,y)=a_{0}(y)+\delta
a(t,y)$$ $$b(t,y)=b_{0}+\delta
b(t,y)\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\quad,\quad\Phi(t,y)=n_{0}(y)+\delta \Phi(t,y)$$ The Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar field, $\Phi$, for this action is $$\delta_{t}\bigg(\frac{1}{n}ba^{3}\dot{\Phi}\bigg)
-\delta_{y}\bigg(\frac{1}{b}a^{3}n\Phi'\bigg)+ba^{3}n\bigg[U'+U'_{0}\delta(by)+U'_{1/2}\delta(b(y-1/2))\bigg]=0$$ Inserting the metric in the form of (1) in Einstein equations with stress-energy tensor as (4), the solutions in zeroth order in perturbations are $$\Phi_{0}(y)\simeq v_{0}e^{-\epsilon m_{0}b_{0}y/2};\quad\quad
a_{0}(y)\simeq
m_{0}b_{0}y+\frac{\kappa^{2}}{12}v^{2}_{0}\big(e^{-\epsilon
m_{0}b_{0}y/2}-1\big)$$ Where $\epsilon$ and $v _{0}$ are given in section $3$. The Friedmann equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\bigg(\frac{\dot{a}_{0}}{a_{0}}\bigg)^{2}&=&\frac{8\pi
G}{3}\bigg(\rho_{*}+\Omega^{4}\rho\bigg)\\
\bigg(\frac{\dot{a}_{0}}{a_{0}}\bigg)^{2}-\frac{\ddot{a}_{0}}{a_{0}}&=&4\pi
G \bigg(\rho_{*}+p_{*}+\Omega^{4}(\rho+p)\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Here the warp factor, $\Omega$, is defined as $$\Omega\equiv e^{-a_{0}(1/2)}$$ where $a_{0}(y)$ is given by (49). This equation is valid before the stabilization when $b=b_{0}$ but in the inflation era, $b_{0}$ in the equation (49) should be replaced by $b$ which is a function of time, so we have $$\Omega(\Phi)=\exp\Bigg[\frac{8}{m_{0}}\ln\frac{\Phi}{v_{0}}+\frac{\kappa^{2}}{3}v^{2}_{0}\Big(e^{-\epsilon
\frac{1}{m_{0}}\ln\frac{\Phi}{m_{0}}}-1\Big)\Bigg].$$ Now we turn our attention to inflation and we assume again that the only matter existed in the universe is an inflaton field whose energy density and pressure are given by (24) and (25) respectively. We note that the inflaton field plays the role of stabilizer in this setup. Substituting (24) and (49) into Friedmann equation (50), we get $$H^2=\frac{8\pi
G}{3}\Bigg\{\exp\bigg[\frac{8}{m_{0}}\ln\frac{\Phi}{v_{0}}+\frac{\kappa^{2}}{3}v^{2}_{0}\Big(e^{-\epsilon
\frac{1}{m_{0}}\ln\frac{\Phi}{m_{0}}}-1\Big)\bigg]\Big(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\Phi}^{2}+U(\Phi)\Big)\Bigg\}.$$ Choosing $U(\Phi)$ to be $$U(\Phi)=\frac{1}{2}m^{2}_{s}\Phi^{2}$$ and imposing the slow roll conditions *i.e* $$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\Phi^{2}}\ll U(\Phi),$$ the slow-roll parameters are $$\varepsilon=\frac{m^{2}_{pl}}{4\pi}\Bigg(\frac{\Omega'(\Phi)U(\Phi)+\Omega(\Phi)U'(\Phi)}{2\Omega(\Phi)U(\Phi)}\Bigg)^{2}$$ and $$\eta=\frac{m^{2}_{pl}}{4\pi}\frac{\Big[\Omega''(\Phi)U(\Phi)+\Omega(\Phi)U''(\Phi)+2\Omega'(\Phi)U'(\Phi)\Big]
\Omega(\Phi)U(\Phi)+\Big[\Omega'(\Phi)U(\Phi)+\Omega(\Phi)U'(\Phi)\Big]^{2}}{2\Omega(\Phi)U(\Phi)},$$ where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $\Phi$ and $\Omega(\Phi)$ and $U(\Phi)$ are given by equations (52) and (54) respectively. Figures $9a$ and $9b$ show the value of $\varepsilon$ and $\eta$ respectively. It can be seen from these figures that the inflationary phase ends when $\Phi_{f}\simeq (0.11-0.2 ) M_{pl}$ where $\Phi_{f}$ is the value of $\Phi$ at the end of the inflation. These values of $\Phi$ lead to the number of e-folds $N\simeq
62-95$. Also one should note that the value of the $\Phi$-field at the end of the inflation is below the planck scale so the $\eta$-problem \[22\] will not occur in this model. Figure $10$ shows the value of $n_{s}$ in this case. The observed value of $n_{s}$ *i.e* $n_{s}\simeq 0.96$ occurs at $\Phi\simeq 0.16 M_{pl}$ which is consistent with previous result. Figure $11$ shows the tensorial spectral index. For the value of $\Phi\simeq 0.16 M_{pl}$ , we find from this figure that $n_{T}\simeq-0.2$ where lies in the acceptable range supported by observations. There exist a consistency relation between the tensorial spectral index,$n_{T}$ and tensor-to-scalar ratio , $r$ as\[17\] $$n_{T}=-\frac{r}{8}$$ so we find that the tensor-to-scalar ratio in our model is $r=0.16$. The constraint on $r$ given in WMAP5 is $r<0.22$ so we can see that our result is acceptable.
Conclusion
==========
Incorporating an inflationary phase in the Randall-Sundrum 2-brane scenario is a challenging problem because one should consider the issue of inter-brane stabilization. In this paper, we tried to construct a suitable model that matches with existing observational data of the combined WMAP5+SDSS+SNIa dataset. We did this using two different approaches: First we included the stabilization potential and Radion kinetic term directly in the Friedmann equations. The stabilization mechanism that we used is the Goldberger-Wise mechanism in which a bulk scalar field plays the role of the stabilizer. Assuming that inflation takes place in TeV brane, this model is effectively a two-field inflation scenario. One is the usual inflaton field and the other is a new field corresponding to the inter-brane separation. The inflation parameters *i.e* number of e-folds, scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio in this model are consistent with observational data from combined WMAP5+SDSS+SNIa dataset with suitable values of the Radion field $\psi$. Also the value of inflaton field at the end of the inflation, $\phi_{end}$ is below the planck scale and therefore $\eta$ problem will not occur in this setup.
The second approach is based on the assumption that the stabilization field , $\Phi$ , also plays the role of the inflaton field. Using the explicit relation for the warp factor given in reference \[21\], we calculated the inflation parameters in this model. Our results in this case is also consistent with observational data from WMAP5+SDSS+SNIa.\
[**Acknowledgement**]{}\
We are indebted to Professor Hassan Firouzjahi for his invaluable comments on this work.
[21]{} N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{} (1998) 263, \[arXiv:9803315\]; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**436**]{} (1998) 257, \[arXiv:9804398\] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 3370, \[arXiv:9905221\] P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet and D. Langlois, Nucl. Phys. B [**565**]{} (2000) 269, \[arXiv:9905012\]; P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger and D. Langlois, Phys. Lett. B [**477**]{} (2000) 285, \[arXiv:9910219\] Shiromizu, K. Maeda and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 024021, \[arXiv:9910076\]; J. M. Cline, C. Grojean and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4245, \[arXiv:9906523\]; E. E. Flanagan, S. H. Tye and I. Wasserman , \[arXiv:9910498\] C. Cs´aki, M. Graesser, L. Randall and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 045015, \[arXiv:9911406\] W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4922, \[arXiv:9907447\]; W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 107505, \[arXiv:9907218\] W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**475**]{} (2000) 275, \[arXiv:9911457\] C. Csaki, M. L. Graesser and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 0650020, \[arXiv:0008151\] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4690, \[arXiv:9906064\] D. Langlois, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**148**]{} (2003) 181, \[arXiv:0209261\] J. M. Cline, J. Vinet, JHEP [**0202**]{} (2002) 042, \[arXiv:0201041\] S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 084017, \[arXiv:99912001\] N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Porrati and L. J. Randall, JHEP [**0108**]{} (2001) 017, \[arXiv:0012148\] A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B [**608**]{} (2001) 375, \[arXiv:0103214\] P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 051 \[arXiv:0107174\] J. M. Cline and H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 023505, \[arXiv:0005235\] A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, [*Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 2000. R. H. Brandenberger, \[arXiv:0509099\]; J. E. Lidsey [*et al*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{} (1997) 373, \[arXiv:9508078\] A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rep [**231**]{} (1993) 1, \[arXiv:9303019\] E. Kumatsu *et.al*, Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**180**]{} (2009) 330, \[arXiv:0803.0547\] J. M. Cline and H. Firouzjahi, Phys.Lett. B **495** (2000) 271-276, \[arXiv:0008185\] D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rep. **314**, 1 (1999) \[arXiv:9807278\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Kuldeep Singh Gehlot
title: 'Two Parameter Gamma Function and It’s Properties '
---
Government College Jodhpur,\
JNV University Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India-306401.\
Email: [email protected]
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
In this paper we introduce the Two Parameter Gamma Function, Beta Function and Pochhammer Symbol. We named them, as p - k Gamma Function, p - k Beta Function and p - k Pochhammer Symbol and denoted as $ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x), $ $ _{p}B_{k}(x,y) $ and $ _{p}(x)_{n,k} $ respectively. We prove the several identities for $ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x), $ $ _{p}B_{k}(x,y) $ and $ _{p}(x)_{n,k} $ those satisfied by the classical Gamma, Beta and Pochhammer Symbol. Also we provide the integral representation for the $ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x) $ and $ _{p}B_{k}(x,y) $.\
\
**Mathematics Subject Classification :** 33B15.\
\
**Keywords:** Two Parameter Pochhammer Symbol, Two Parameter Gamma Function, Two Parameter Beta Function, Two Parameter Psi Function, p - k Hypergeometric Function.
Introduction
============
The main aim of this paper is to introduce Two Parameter Pochhammer Symbol, Two Parameter Gamma Function and Two Parameter Beta Function. p - k Gamma Function is the deformation of the classical Gamma Function, such that $ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x) \Rightarrow\: _{k}\Gamma_{k}(x) = \Gamma_{k}(x) $ as $ p = k $ and $ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x) \Rightarrow \:_{1}\Gamma_{1}(x)= \Gamma (x) $ as $ p,k\rightarrow 1 $.\
In section 2, we defined Two Parameter Pochhammer Symbol denoted as $ _{p}(x)_{n,k} $, with its convergent conditions. Two Parameter Pochhammer Symbol is the deformation of the classical Pochhammer Symbol, such that $ _{p}(x)_{n,k} \Rightarrow \: _{k}(x)_{n,k} = (x)_{n,k} $ as $ p=k $ and $ _{p}(x)_{n,k} \Rightarrow \: _{1}(x)_{n,1} = (x)_{n} $ as $ p=k=1. $ Also we derived two parameter Pochhammer symbol in terms of the elementary symmetric function, and evaluate it’s derivative identities. It is most natural to relate the two parameter Pochhammer symbol to the two parameter Gamma Function is defined. We evaluate integral representation of two parameter Gamma Function, also represent two parameter Gamma Function into different infinite product forms and so many recurrence relations are evaluated.\
In section 3, we defined two parameter Beta Function and two parameter Psi Function. Also evaluate some recurrence relations and functional relation with classical Beta Function.\
Section 4, deal with the definition of Hypergeometric function with Two Parameter Pochhammer Symbol, known as p-k Hypergeometric function. Also we evaluate the Differential Equation, Functional relation with Classical Hypergeometric function and Integral Representation of p-k Hypergeometric function.\
Throughout this paper Let $ C,R^{+}, Re(),Z^{-} and N $ be the sets of complex numbers, positive real numbers, real part of complex number, negative integer and natural numbers respectively.
p - k Pochhammer Symbol and p - k Gamma Function
=================================================
In this section we introduce p - k Pochhammer Symbol and p - k Gamma Function. We evaluate $ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x) $ in terms of limit, recurrence formulas and infinite products.
Definition {#1.1}
----------
Let $ x\in C ; k,p \in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, n\in N, $ the p - k Pochhammer Symbol (i.e. Two Parameter Pochhammer Symbol), $ _{p}(x)_{n,k} $ is given by $$_{p}(x)_{n,k}=(\frac{xp}{k})(\frac{xp}{k}+p)(\frac{xp}{k}+2p).........(\frac{xp}{k}+(n-1)p).$$ For $ s,n \in N $ with $ 0\leq s\leq n, $ the $ s^{th} $ elementary symmetric function $$e^{n}_{s}(x_{1},x_{2},.....,x_{n})= \sum_{{1\leq i_{1} \leq i_{2} \leq... \leq i_{s} \leq n}} x_{i_{1}}.....x_{i_{s}}$$ on the variables $ x_{1},x_{2},.....,x_{n}.$\
\
**Theorem 2.1** Formula for the p - k Pochhammer Symbol (i.e. Two Parameter Pochhammer Symbol) in terms of the elementary symmetric function is given by $$_{p}(x)_{n,k}=\sum_{s=0}^{n-1}p^{n}e_{s}^{n-1}(1,2,...,(n-1))(\frac{x}{k})^{n-s}.$$ Where $ x\in C ; k,p \in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, n\in N. $\
Proof: The well known identity for elementary symmetric polynomials appear when expand a linear factorization of a monic polynomial $$\prod_{j=1}^{n}(\lambda + X_{j})= \lambda^{n}e_{0}^{n-1}+\lambda^{n-1}e_{1}^{n-1}+.....+\lambda e_{n-1}^{n-1} =\sum_{s=0}^{n-1}e_{s}^{n-1}(1,2,...,(n-1))(\lambda)^{n-s}.$$ Using equation (2.1), we have the desired result.\
\
**Theorem 2.2** The derivative identities for p - k Pochhammer Symbol. $$\frac{\partial}{\partial k}[_{p}(x)_{n,k}]= -\frac{n}{k}\:_{p}(x)_{n,k} + \frac{p}{k}\sum_{s=1}^{n-1}s\:_{p}(x)_{n,k}\: _{p}(x+(s+1)k)_{n-1-s,k}.$$ $$\frac{\partial}{\partial p}[_{p}(x)_{n,k}]= \frac{n}{p}\:_{p}(x)_{n,k}.$$ Where $ x\in C ; k,p \in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, n\in N. $\
Proof: Using the definition (2.1) and logarithmic derivatives, we have the desired result.
Definition {#definition}
----------
For $ x\in C/kZ^{-}; k,p \in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, n\in N, $ the p - k Gamma Function (i.e. Two Parameter Gamma Function), $_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)$ is given by $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)=\frac{1}{k}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{n!p^{n+1}(np)^{\frac{x}{k}}}{_{p}(x)_{n+1,k}}.$$ or $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)=\frac{1}{k}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{n!p^{n+1}(np)^{\frac{x}{k}-1}}{_{p}(x)_{n,k}}.$$ **Theorem 2.3** Given $ x\in C/kZ^{-} ; k,p,s,r \in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, n\in N, $ the following identities holds, $$_{p}(x)_{n,s}= \:_{p}(\frac{kx}{s})_{n,k}.$$ $$_{p}(x)_{n,s}= (\frac{p}{s})^{n} \; _{s}(\frac{kx}{s})_{n,k}.$$ $$_{p}(x)_{n,k}= (\frac{p}{s})^{n}\:_{s}(x)_{n,k}.$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{s}(x)= \frac{k}{s} \; _{p}\Gamma_{k}(\frac{kx}{s}).$$ $$_{r}\Gamma_{s}(x)= \frac{k}{s} \;(\frac{r}{p})^{\frac{x}{s}}\; _{p}\Gamma_{k}(\frac{kx}{s}).$$ $$_{r}\Gamma_{k}(x)= (\frac{r}{p})^{\frac{x}{k}}\; _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x).$$ Proof: Property (2.8), (2.9), (2.10) follows directly from definition (2.1) and the results (2.11), (2.12), (2.13) will follow directly by using equation (2.6).\
\
**Theorem 2.4** Given $ x\in C / kZ^{-}; k,p\in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, $ then the integral representation of p - k Gamma Function is given by $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)=\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-\frac{t^{k}}{p}}t^{x-1}dt.$$ Proof: Consider the right hand side integral and (\[3\], Page 2) Tannery’s Theorem and equation (2.7), we have\
$$\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-\frac{t^{k}}{p}}t^{x-1}dt=\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty}\int^{(np)^{\frac{1}{k}}}_{0}(1-\frac{t^{k}}{np})^{n}\:t^{x-1}dt.$$ Let $ A_{n,i}(x), i = 0,1,...,n, $ be given by $$A_{n,i}(x) = \int^{(np)^{\frac{1}{k}}}_{0}(1-\frac{t^{k}}{np})^{i}\:t^{x-1}dt.$$ Integration by parts we have the following recurrence formula, $$A_{n,i}(x)= \frac{ki}{pxn} A_{n,i-1}(x+k).$$ Also, $$A_{n,0}(x)= \int^{(np)^{\frac{1}{k}}}_{0}t^{x-1}dt=\frac{(np)^{\frac{x}{k}}}{x}.$$ Therefor, $$A_{n,n}(x)= \frac{1}{k} \dfrac{n!p^{n+1}(np)^{\frac{x}{k}-1}}{_{p}(x)_{n,k}(1+\frac{x}{kn})}.$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} A_{n,n}(x) =\frac{1}{k}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{n!p^{n+1}(np)^{\frac{x}{k}-1}}{_{p}(x)_{n,k}}.$$ Which complete the proof.\
\
**Theorem 2.5** Given $ x\in C / kZ^{-}; k,p\in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, $ then we have, $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)=\frac{p^{\frac{x}{k}}}{k}\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}[(1+\frac{1}{n})^{\frac{x}{k}}(1+\frac{x}{nk})^{-1}].$$ Proof: Using equation (2.1) and (2.7), we immediately get the desire result.\
\
**Theorem 2.6** Given $ x\in C / kZ^{-}; k,p\in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, $ then we have, $$\frac{1}{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)}=\frac{x}{kp^{\frac{x}{k}}}\lim _{n\rightarrow\infty}[n^{-\frac{x}{k}}\prod_{r=1}^{n}(1+\frac{x}{rk})].$$ Proof: Using equation (2.1) and (2.7), we immediately get the desire result.\
\
**Theorem 2.7** Given $ x\in C / kZ^{-}; k,p\in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, $ then we have, $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)=a^{\frac{x}{k}}\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-\frac{t^{k}}{p}a}t^{x-1}dt.$$ Proof: Using equation (2.14), we immediately get the desire result.\
\
**Theorem 2.8** Given $ x\in C / kZ^{-}; k,p\in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, $ then we have, $$\frac{1}{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)}=\frac{x}{kp^{\frac{x}{k}}}e^{\frac{x}{k}\gamma}\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}[(1+\frac{x}{nk})e^{-\frac{x}{nk}}].$$ Where$$\gamma = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}[1+\frac{1}{2}+....+\frac{1}{n}-\log n],$$ is Euler’s constant.\
Proof: Using equation (2.16), we immediately get the desire result.\
\
**Theorem 2.9** The relation between p - k Gamma Function, k-Gamma Function and classical Gamma Function is given by, $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)=(\frac{p}{k})^{\frac{x}{k}}\Gamma_{k}(x)= \frac{p^{\frac{x}{k}}}{k}\Gamma(\frac{x}{k}).$$ Where $ x\in C / kZ^{-}; k,p\in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, $\
Proof: Using (2.14) and Proposition 4, page 3 of \[1\], we get the desire result.\
\
**Theorem 2.10** For $ x\in C / kZ^{-}; n,q \in N ;k,p\in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, $ then the relation between p - k Pochhammer Symbol, k-Pochhammer Symbol and classical Pochhammer Symbol is given by, $$_{p}(x)_{n,k}=(\frac{p}{k})^n(x)_{n,k} = (p)^n(\frac{x}{k})_{n}.$$ Also for Generalized p - k Pochhammer Symbol, we have $$_{p}(x)_{nq ,k}=(\frac{p}{k})^{nq} \:(x)_{nq,k} = (p)^{nq} \:(\frac{x}{k})_{nq}=(pq)^{nq}\:\prod_{r=1}^{q}(\dfrac{\frac{x}{k}+r-1}{q})_{n}.$$\
Proof: Using (2.1), (2.19) and Proposition 4, page 3 of \[1\], we get the desire result.\
\
**Theorem 2.11** For $ x\in C/kZ^{-} ; k,p \in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, n\in N. $ The fundamental equations satisfied by p - k Gamma Function, $ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x) $ are, $$_{p}(x)_{n,k}=\frac{ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x+nk)}{ _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)}.$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x+k)=\frac{xp}{k}\: _{p}\Gamma_{k}(x).$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x+nk)= p^{n}(\frac{x}{k})(\frac{x}{k}+1)......(\frac{x}{k}+(n-1))\:_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x).$$ $$\frac{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)}{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x-nk)}=\frac{p^{n}}{k^{n}}(x-k)(x-2k).....(x-nk).$$ $$\frac{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)}{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x-nk)}=(-1)^{n}\:\frac{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(-x+nk+k)}{_{p}\Gamma_{k}(-x+k)}.$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(1)=\frac{p^{\frac{1}{k}}}{k}\Gamma(\frac{1}{k}).$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(k)=\frac{p}{k}.$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(p)=\frac{p^{\frac{p}{k}}}{k}\Gamma(\frac{p}{k}).$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)\:_{p}\Gamma_{k}(-x)=\frac{\pi}{xk}\:\frac{1}{\sin (\frac{\pi x}{k})}.$$ $$_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x)\:_{p}\Gamma_{k}(k-x)=\frac{p}{k^{2}}\:\frac{\pi}{\sin (\frac{\pi x}{k}) }.$$ $$\:\prod_{r=0}^{m-1}\:_{p}\Gamma_{k}(x+\frac{kr}{m})=\frac{p^{\frac{m-1}{2}}}{k^{m-1}}(2 \pi )^{\frac{(m-1)}{2}}m^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{mx}{k}}\:_{p}\Gamma_{k}(mx); m=2,3,4,... \: .$$ Proof: All the results follow directly from using equation (2.1), (2.7) and (2.14).\
\
**Theorem 2.12** For $ x\in C/kZ^{-} ; k,p \in R^{+}-\lbrace 0 \rbrace $ and $ Re(x)>0, n\in N. $ Then the recurrence relations for p - k Pochhammer Symbol are given by, $$n\:_{p}(x)_{n-1,k}=\:_{p}(x)_{n,k}- \:_{p}(x-k)_{n,k}.$$ And $$_{p}(x)_{n+j,k}=\:_{p}(x)_{j,k}\times\:_{p}(x+jk)_{n,k}.$$ Proof: Using equation (2.20) and basic relations $ n(x)_{n-1}=(x)_{n}-(x-1)_{n}, (x)_{n+j}=(x)_{j}(x+j)_{n},$ we get the desired result.
p - k Beta Function and p - k Psi Function
==========================================
In this section, we introduce the p - k Beta Function $ _{p}B_{k}(x,y) $ and p - k Psi Function $ _{p}\psi_{k}(x,y). $ We evaluate explicit formula that relate the $ _{p}B_{k}(x,y) $ and $ _{p}\psi_{k}(x) $ to classical Beta function $ B(x,y) $ and Classical Psi function respectively $ \psi(x). $ Also prove some identities.
Definition {#definition-1}
----------
The p - k Beta Function $ _{p}B_{k}(x,y) $ is given by $$_{p}B_{k}(x,y)=\frac{_{p}\Gamma _{k}(x)\: _{p}\Gamma _{k}(y)}{_{p}\Gamma _{k}(x+y)}; Re(x)>0, Re(y)>0.$$ **Theorem 3.1** The $ _{p}B_{k}(x,y) $ function satisfies the following identities. $$_{p}B_{k}(x,y)=\frac{1}{k} \int_{0}^{1}t^{\frac{x}{k}-1}(1-t)^{\frac{y}{k}-1}dt.$$ $$_{p}B_{k}(x,y)=\frac{1}{k} \int_{0}^{1}\frac{t^{\frac{x}{k}-1}+t^{\frac{y}{k}-1}}{(t+1)^{\frac{x+y}{k}}}dt.$$ $$_{p}B_{k}(x,y)= \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{x-1}(1+t^{k})^{-\frac{x+y}{k}}dt.$$ $$_{p}B_{k}(x,y)=\frac{1}{k}\: B(\frac{x}{k},\frac{y}{k}).$$ Proof: Using the definition (3.1), we have immediately above results.
Definition {#definition-2}
----------
The logarithmic derivative of the p - k Gamma Function is known as p - k Psi Function, $ _{p}\psi_{k}(x).$ $$_{p}\psi_{k}(x)=\frac{d}{dx} \ln [_{p}\Gamma _{k}(x)]=\frac{1}{_{p}\Gamma _{k}(x)}\frac{d}{dx}[_{p}\Gamma _{k}(x)].$$ $$\ln [_{p}\Gamma _{k}(x)]=\int_{1}^{x}\:_{p}\psi_{k}(x)dx.$$ **Theorem 3.2** Some properties of $ _{p}\psi_{k}(x) $ are given by $$_{p}\psi_{k}(x)=\frac{\ln p}{k}+\psi(\frac{x}{k}).$$ $$_{p}\psi_{k}(x)=\frac{\ln p}{k}-\gamma- \frac{k}{x}+ x\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n(x+nk)}.$$ $$_{p}\psi_{k}(x)=\frac{\ln p}{k}-\gamma + (x-k)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+1)(x+nk)}.$$ Where $ \gamma $ is Euler’s Constant and $ \psi(x) $ is Classical Psi Function.\
\
Proof: Using the definition (3.2), we have immediately above results.\
\
**Theorem 3.3** The $ r^{th} $ derivative of p - k Psi Function, $ _{p}\psi_{k}(x)$ yields the result in terms of k-Zeta Function, $ \zeta_{k}(x,r), $ $$\frac{d^{r}}{dx^{r}}[\ln [_{p}\Gamma _{k}(x)]]=\frac{d^{r-1}}{dx^{r-1}}\:_{p}\psi_{k}(x)=(-1)^{r}k(r-1)!\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(x+nk)^{r}}, for \: \:r\geq 2$$ Where k-Zeta Function given by definition 15, page 8 of \[1\]. $$\zeta_{k}(x,r)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(x+nk)^{r}}.$$ Proof: Using the definition (3.2) and differentiate, we get the desired result.
Hypergeometric Function
=======================
In this section we define the Hypergeometric Function using p - k Pochhammer Symbols. Here we are use the notation of \[2\].
Definition {#definition-3}
----------
Given $ x \in C, $ $ a\in C^{r}; k,p \in (R^{+})^{r}; s,t \in (R^{+})^{q}, b=(b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{q})\in C^{q} $ such that $b_{i} \in C/ s_{i}Z^{-}.$ The p-k hypergeometric function $ F(a,p,k;b,t,s;x)$ is given by $$F(a,p,k;b,t,s;x)= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{r}\:_{p_{i}}(a_{i})_{n,k_{i}}}{\prod_{j=1}^{q}\:_{t_{j}}(b_{j})_{n,s_{j}}}\frac{x^{n}}{n!}.$$ By using Ratio Test we can show that the series (4.1) converges for all finite $ x $ if $ r\leq q.$ If $ r > q+1, $ the series diverges and if $ r = q+1, $ it converges for all $ x $ such that $ \vert x \vert < \vert\frac{t_{1}t_{2}.....t_{q}}{p_{1}p_{2}.....p_{r}}\vert. $\
\
**Theorem 4.1** Given $ x \in C, $ $ a\in C^{r}; k,p \in (R^{+})^{r}; s,t \in (R^{+})^{q}, b=(b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{q})\in C^{q} $ such that $b_{i} \in C/ s_{i}Z^{-}.$ Then the Functional relation between p - k Hypergeometric Function and Classical Hypergeometric Function is given by, $$F(a,p,k;b,t,s;x)=F(\frac{a}{k};\frac{b}{s};\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{r}p_{i}}{\prod_{j=1}^{q}t_{j}}x).$$ Proof: Using definition (2.20), we get above result.\
\
**Theorem 4.2** The Differential Equation of p - k Hypergeometric Function is given by $$[\theta \prod_{j=1}^{q}(\theta + \frac{b_{j}}{s_{j}}-1)-Ax\prod_{i=1}^{r}(\theta + \frac{a_{i}}{k_{i}}) ]W=0.$$ Where $ \theta = x\frac{d}{dx}, $ $ A=\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^{r}p_{i}}{\prod_{j=1}^{q}t_{j}} $ and $ W= F(a,p,k;b,t,s;x).$\
For $ r\leq q+1,$ $i=1,2,...,r $ and $ j=1,2,...,q $ when no $ \frac{b_{j}}{s_{j}} $ is a negative integer or zero and no two $ \frac{b_{j}}{s_{j}} $ is differ by an integer or zero.\
Proof: Using Function relation (4.2), we get the desired result.\
\
**Theorem 4.3** For any $ a\in C; k,p > 0 $ and $ \vert x \vert <\frac{1}{p}, $ the following identity holds $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{_{p}(a)_{n,k}\: x^{n}}{n!}= (1-xp)^{-\frac{a}{k}}.$$ Proof: Using (2.20), we get immediately the desired result.\
\
**Theorem 4.4** Given $ x \in C, $ $ a\in C^{r}; k,p \in (R^{+})^{r}; s,t \in (R^{+})^{q}, b=(b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{q})\in C^{q} $ such that $b_{i} \in C/ s_{i}Z^{-}.$ The Integral Representation of p - k Hypergeometric Function is given by, $$F(a,p,k;b,t,s;x)=\prod_{i=1}^{r}\prod_{j=1}^{q}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{b_{j}}{s_{j}})}{\Gamma(\frac{a_{i}}{k_{i}})\Gamma(\frac{b_{j}}{s_{j}}-\frac{a_{i}}{k_{i}})}\int_{0}^{1}t^{\frac{a_{i}}{k_{i}}-1}(1-t)^{\frac{b_{j}}{s_{j}}-\frac{a_{i}}{k_{i}}-1}e^{\frac{p_{i}}{t_{j}}xt}dt.$$ Proof:Using (4.2), we get immediately the desired result.\
References {#1 .unnumbered}
==========
\[1\] Diaz, R. and Pariguan, E. On hypergeometric functions and Pochhammer k-symbol. Divulgaciones Mathematicas, Vol. 15 No. 2 (2007) 179-192.\
\[2\]\[2\] Earl D. Rainville, Special Function, The Macmillan Company, New york,1963.\
\[3\]\[3\] Erdelyi, A., Higher Transcendental Function Vol. 1, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1953.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
[^1]\
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut) Föhringer Ring 6, D-80805 München, Germany\
E-mail:
title: Measurements of the top quark mass with the ATLAS detector
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a top quark[^2] factory. The largest rate of events with top quarks is obtained from production. The decay channels are classified by the decays and are named the [$\ttbar\to\mbox{dilepton}$]{}, [$\ttbar\to\mbox{lepton+jets}$]{} and [$\ttbar\to\mbox{all-jets}$]{} channels.
The mass of the top quark () is a fundamental parameter of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. To obtain from data, two conceptually different approaches are followed. Firstly, as has been done since the discovery of the top quark in 1995, is measured from final state objects by means of template analyses. The templates are obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulated events using different assumed values for the top quark mass parameter in the program. Therefore, measurements of obtained with this method relate to measurements of the input parameter of MC programs, i.e. not to a specific program, since the differences of the programs used, are covered by the systematic uncertainty. Secondly, in recent years also is extracted based on experimental quantities that are corrected for detector effects and compared to perturbative calculations at next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbative QCD, performed in a well-defined renormalisation scheme. Presently, the two attempts are complementary. While results of the first type are more precise, those of the second relate to a more accurate theoretical definition of the top quark mass. The relation between and is a matter of theoretical debate. Once this issue is resolved, analyses leading to the more precise results will be preferred.
The details of the ATLAS [@PERF-2007-01] analyses presented here are given in the respective publications [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-044; @TOPQ-2016-03; @TOPQ-2013-02; @TOPQ-2015-03]. In this short write-up, only the main aspects of the analyses are discussed.
Determination of the top quark pole mass {#sec:mpole}
========================================
Because measurements of are mostly limited by systematic uncertainties related to the hadronic final state, purely leptonic variables have been advertised for measurements of the top quark mass. The extraction [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-044] of is performed in the $\ttbar \to e\mu + X$ channel, using normalised lepton differential cross-sections, $\frac{1}{\sigma_x}\frac{d\sigma_x}{dx}$ for five variables, $x=p_{\mathrm T}^{\ell}, p_{\mathrm T}^{e\mu}, m^{e\mu}, p_{\mathrm
T}^{e}$+$p_{\mathrm T}^{\mu}$ and $E^{e}$+$E^{\mu}$. One example distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_01a\]. Subsequently, the distributions are background subtracted, corrected to stable particle level using Powheg+Pythia6+CT10 as explained in Ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-044], and finally normalised to unity. A clear sensitivity to the top quark mass is observed for all five variables. A comparison to a fixed order prediction at NLO in production and decay is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_01b\], where the bars denote the full data uncertainty. Within the sizeable uncertainties, the fixed order prediction describes the data. The measurements of in Fig. \[fig:fig\_01c\] are obtained from fits to individual differential cross-sections, or to all, including those for $\vert \eta^{\ell}\vert, \vert y^{e\mu}\vert, \Delta\Phi^{e\mu}$. The latter distributions are not sensitive to , but help constrain the PDF and the renormalisation and factorisation scale variation induced uncertainties in . The spread in the individual results of is about 6 . The combined result is: ${\ensuremath{m_{\mathrm{top}}^{\mathrm{pole}}}\xspace}= 173.2 \pm 0.9~(\mathrm{stat.}) \pm 0.8~(\mathrm{syst.}) \pm
1.2~(\mathrm{theo.})~\GeV = 173.2 \pm 1.6$ . The theoretical uncertainty originates from PDF (0.3 ) and scale variations (1.1. ), the latter obtained from variations using either fixed or dynamic (e.g. $E_{\mathrm{T}}/2$) scales. The first NLO extraction of using this method results in an uncertainty of 1.6 , to be compared with the precision of the results presented in the next section.
Measurement of the top quark mass {#sec:monte}
=================================
The results listed in Tab. \[tab:tab\_01\] are obtained in the dilepton channel [@TOPQ-2016-03], the lepton+jets channel [@TOPQ-2013-02] and finally, in the all-jets channel [@TOPQ-2015-03].
Channel () Value Statistics Modelling Background Experimental Total Ref.
------------------ -------- ------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------- -----------------
Dilepton (8 ) 172.99 0.41 $0.35\pm0.09$ $0.08\pm0.01$ $0.64\pm 0.04$ 0.84 [@TOPQ-2016-03]
Lepton+jets (7 ) 172.33 0.75 $0.53\pm0.11$ $0.31\pm0.00$ $0.82\pm 0.08$ 1.27 [@TOPQ-2013-02]
All-jets (8 ) 173.72 0.55 $0.70\pm0.16$ 0.19 $0.71\pm 0.04$ 1.15 [@TOPQ-2015-03]
In general, measurements of receive large uncertainties induced by the jet energy scale (JES) uncertainties, evaluated for all jets and by the relative $b$-to-light-jet energy scale (bJES) uncertainty that only relates to $b$-quark initiated jets. Those uncertainties account for a large fraction of the experimental uncertainties listed in Tab. \[tab:tab\_01\]. Aiming at the most precise value of in the combination of results, and not in individual channels, methods are preferred that reduce the uncertainties, while retaining or even better, reducing the correlations ($\rho$) of the various estimators. This is because in this case large improvements over the most precise result, i.e. the knowledge in without combination, are obtained [@NIS-1401]. In ATLAS, two main paths to mitigate the jet energy scale induced uncertainties in are followed. The first is to use an sensitive observable that is stabilised against JES variations. The second is to use additional information in the data sensitive to global changes in the jet energy scales. This information is then used for protecting the sensitive observable against global shifts, by absorbing them into global jet energy scale factors, named JSF and bJSF.
The analysis in the all-jets channel uses the first path pioneered for the lepton+jets channel in Ref. [@TOPQ-2011-15]. The analysis exploits the ratio of the three-jet mass and the two-jet mass () as sensitive variable, shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_02a\]. Since the JES induced variations in the jet energies at the same time apply to the jets in the numerator and denominator, most of the effects cancel. This cancellation results in a reduced uncertainty in from this source than otherwise would be obtained when directly using the reconstructed top quark mass () for measuring .
The measurement in the lepton+jets channel uses the second path. Together with , shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_02b\], two additional distributions are exploited. These are the reconstructed invariant mass of the $W$-boson and the ratio of transverse momenta of the two $b$-jets and the two light jets assigned to the hadronic $W$-boson decay. The first distribution is sensitive to the JES. The second distribution is sensitive to the bJES, while, as for $R_{3/2}$, the JES dependence mostly cancels in this ratio of transverse momenta. The price to pay is additional contributions to the statistical uncertainty in caused by fitting to more distributions. However, for sufficiently large data samples, this loss in statistical precision is more than compensated for by the strong reduction in the respective systematic uncertainty in , induced by the jet energy scale uncertainty. This situation is realised in Ref. [@TOPQ-2013-02]. Not only does this achieve a smaller total uncertainty () in for this decay channel, it also transforms a significant part of the systematic uncertainty into a statistical uncertainty. This has two positive consequences. Firstly, this statistical component to the uncertainty will naturally be reduced by including more data. Secondly, given that the results in for the various decay channels are uncorrelated with respect to their statistical uncertainties, it also potentially helps in reducing the estimator correlations.
The missing hadronic $W$-boson decay in the dilepton channel prevents the use of the above methods. However, the clean final state in this channel results in high selection efficiency at high signal purity. The low background is barely visible for the distribution of the average invariant mass of the charged-lepton–$b$-jet systems () shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_02c\]. This would result in a very unbalanced composition of statistical and systematic uncertainty, i.e. indicating a non-optimised analysis. Consequently, the large data sample is used to reduce the total uncertainty by trading statistical for systematic precision based on additional phase space restrictions. The result of this optimisation [@TOPQ-2016-03] as a function of the average transverse momentum of the two charged-lepton–$b$-jet systems () is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_02d\]. Compared to the result without this requirement, a reduction of $26\%$ in the uncertainty in is achieved. This requirement removes $74\%$ of the original events, thereby resulting in an $86\%$ increase in the statistical uncertainty, i.e. no gain in resolution is achieved by this phase space restriction. Again, given a significant part of the systematic uncertainty is transformed into a statistical uncertainty, this potentially helps in reducing the estimator correlations.
Combination of measurements {#sec:combi}
===========================
The combination is performed using the best linear unbiased estimate (BLUE) method [@VAL-0301; @NIS-1401] in a implementation described in Ref. [@NIS-1301]. The BLUE method combines measurements based on a linear combination of the inputs. The coefficients (BLUE weights) are determined via the minimisation of the total variance of the combined result. They can be used to construct measures for the importance of a given single measurement in the combination [@NIS-1401]. The measured values of , the list of uncertainty components and the correlations of the estimators for each uncertainty component have to be provided. The first two are given in the respective publications, while the estimator correlations need to be obtained. As developed in Ref. [@TOPQ-2013-02], for the ATLAS combination of measurements of , the correlations are evaluated for each source of systematic uncertainty as displayed in Fig. \[fig:fig\_03a\] for the most precise pair of estimators. Each point corresponds to one subcomponent of the systematic uncertainty in , obtained by varying this pair of measurements for this subcomponents. Using MC simulated events, pseudo-experiments are constructed of the size of the ATLAS data sample and is fitted to those. The point is located at the mean values of the observed shifts in the top quark mass () for both analyses. This location is calculated from the pseudo-experiments. The cross indicates the statistical precisions in the systematic uncertainties as given by the precision of the pseudo-experiments. Uncertainties for which the estimators are correlated are located in the first and third quadrant and are shown as red full points, the anti-correlated cases, located in the remaining two quadrants, are displayed by open blue points. The ATLAS combination is dominated by the two input results shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_03b\]. At the quoted precision, the combination of just this pair achieves the identical total uncertainty as the full combination. Finally, the 2016 combined ATLAS result for the top quark mass is: $\mt=172.84\pm0.34~(\mathrm{stat.})\pm0.61~(\mathrm{syst.})~\GeV=172.84\pm0.70\,\,\GeV$, with a precision of 0.4$\%$. Evaluating statistical uncertainties for each systematic uncertainty in allows for performing stability tests on the combination without ad-hoc assignments of variations in estimator correlations. For each combination, the size of the uncertainty and the correlation are newly evaluated, based on random variations of each systematic uncertainty within its statistical precision. As a result, both the combined value and the corresponding uncertainty are stable to within 0.03 .
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
An extraction of the top quark pole mass at NLO is presented. The result is obtained from normalised differential cross-sections in the [$\ttbar\to\mbox{dilepton}$]{} channel. The uncertainty in the result of: $\mtpole=173.2\pm0.9~(\mathrm{stat.})\pm0.8~(\mathrm{syst.})\pm1.2~(\mathrm{theo.})~\GeV = 173.2 \pm 1.6\,\,\GeV$, is dominated by systematic effects, mainly by scale variations.
In addition, measurements of are discussed, which are based on the template method in the three decay channels, [$\ttbar\to\mbox{dilepton}$]{}, [$\ttbar\to\mbox{lepton+jets}$]{} and [$\ttbar\to\mbox{all-jets}$]{}. The uncertainties in the two most precise results in have been reduced using methods paying attention to the correlations of the estimators, enabling a significant gain in precision in in their combination. The 2016 combined ATLAS result for the top quark mass is: $$\mt=172.84\pm0.34~(\mathrm{stat.})\pm0.61~(\mathrm{syst.})~\GeV=172.84\pm0.70\,\,\GeV,$$ with a precision of 0.4$\%$. The statistical precision in the total uncertainty is 0.03 . \[2\][\#2]{}
[1]{}
, *[The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider]{}*, [*JINST* [**3**]{} (2008) S08003](https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08003).
, *Measurement of lepton differential distributions and the top quark mass in $t\bar{t}$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =
8\;\mbox{TeV}$ with the ATLAS detector*, ATLAS-CONF-2017-044, 2017, \[[[https://cds.cern.ch/record/2273850]{}](https://cds.cern.ch/record/2273850)\].
, *[Measurement of the top quark mass in the $t\bar{t}\rightarrow$ dilepton channel from $\sqrt{s} = 8\;\mbox{TeV}$ ATLAS data]{}*, [*Phys. Lett. B* [**761**]{} (2016) 350](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.042), \[[[1606.02179]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02179)\].
, *[Measurement of the top quark mass in the $t\bar{t}\rightarrow \textrm{ lepton+jets}$ and $t\bar{t}\rightarrow \textrm{
dilepton}$ channels using $\sqrt{s} = 7\;\mbox{TeV}$ ATLAS data]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J. C* [**75**]{} (2015) 330](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3544-0), \[[[1503.05427]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05427)\].
, *[Top-quark mass measurement in the all-hadronic $t\bar{t}$ decay channel at $\sqrt{s} = 8\;\mbox{TeV}$ with the ATLAS detector]{}*, [[1702.07546]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.07546).
, *[On the combination of correlated estimates of a physics observable]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J. C* [**74**]{} (2014) 3004](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3004-2), \[[[1402.4016]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4016)\].
, *[Measurement of the top quark mass with the template method in the $t\bar{t} \rightarrow$ lepton + jets channel using ATLAS data]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J. C* [**72**]{} (2012) 2046](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2046-6), \[[[1203.5755]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5755)\].
, *[Combining correlated measurements of several different quantities]{}*, [*Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A* [**500**]{} (2003) 391]{}.
, *[BLUE: a software package to combine correlated estimates of physics observables within ROOT using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate method]{}*, 2015, \[[[http://blue.hepforge.org]{}](http://blue.hepforge.org)\].
[^1]: On behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration
[^2]: Charge conjugation is implied throughout and natural units are used, $c=\hbar=1$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Large organic molecules and carbon clusters are basic building blocks of life, but their existence in the universe has not been confirmed beyond doubt. A number of unidentified absorption features (arising in the diffuse inter-stellar medium), usually called “Diffuse Inter-stellar Bands (DIBs)”, are hypothesized to be produced by large molecules. Among these, buckminsterfullerene $C_{60}$ has gained much attention as a candidate for DIB absorbers because of its high stability in space. Two DIBs at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9577 Å and 9632 Å have been reported as possible features of $C_{60}^+$. However, it is still not clear how their existence depends on their environment. We obtained high-resolution spectra of three stars in/around the Orion Nebula, to search for any correlations of the DIB strength with carrier’s physical conditions, such as dust-abundance and UV radiation field. We find three DIBs at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9017 Å, 9210 Å, and 9258 Å as additional $C_{60}^+$ feature candidates, which could support this identification. These DIBs have asymmetric profiles similar to the longer wavelength features. However, we also find that the relative strengths of DIBs are close to unity and differ from laboratory measurements, a similar trend as noticed for the 9577/9632 DIBs.'
author:
- 'Toru Misawa, Poshak Gandhi, Akira Hida, Toru Tamagawa, and Tomohiro Yamaguchi'
title: 'Identification of New Near-Infrared DIBs in the Orion Nebula'
---
Introduction
============
The Diffuse Interstellar Bands (hereafter, DIBs) are a series ($\sim$ 300) of broad absorption lines at $\lambda$ = 4000Å to 1.3$\mu$m. Since the first detections [@heg22; @mer34], various molecules, including organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic organic hydrocarbons, fullerenes, carbon chains, and carbon nanotubes), have been proposed as the source of DIBs, because they are all relatively stable within the harsh radiation environment of space. Nonetheless, it has not been confirmed observationally what the [*real*]{} source(s) of DIBs are/is, and this remains one of the most long-standing unsolved questions in Astronomy.
Originally, DIBs were detected in the inter-stellar medium (ISM) toward Galactic stars (e.g., @her95), and then were also detected in the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (e.g., @cox05), in nearby galaxies [@sol05], in starburst galaxies [@hec00], and in high column density absorption systems (i.e., Damped Ly$\alpha$ systems) at redshifts up to $z$ $\sim$ 0.5 [@yor06]. Thus, DIB absorbers are ubiquitous in space.
Among $\sim$300 DIBs, only a few have specific source candidates: e.g., large ionized $C_{60}$ fullerene ($C_{60}^{+}$) at $\lambda$ = 9577 Å and 9632 Å [@foi94], several fullerenes ($C_{80}$, $C_{240}$, $C_{320}$, $C_{540}$) at $\lambda$ = 4430 Å[@igl07], and naphthalene cation ($C_{10}H_{8}^{+}$) at $\lambda$ = 6125 Å, 6489 Å, and 6707 Å [@igl08]. These DIBs have wavelengths that are very close to those measured in laboratory. By running a variety of gas-phase chemical models, @bet96 confirmed that linear hydrocarbons are spontaneously converted into cyclic rings and fullerenes. Among these, the DIBs at $\lambda$ = 9577 Å and 9632 Å are most clearly detected, and have been discussed frequently (e.g., @foi94 [@foi97; @gal00]). However, their identification is still in question, because @foi94 did not report on the other weaker transitions of $C_{60}^{+}$ at $\lambda$ = 9366 Å and 9419 Å, which should exist in conjunction with the two detected DIBs, if their carrier really is $C_{60}^{+}$ [@jen97]. Further observations that would support this identification are required. In this paper, we concentrate on the ISM in the Orion Nebula, and report on the detectability of several DIBs at 9000 Å – 9700 Å, depending on the stellar environments.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
We obtained spectra of three O/B stars in or around the Orion Nebula on 2008 November 14 (UT) with the Subaru telescope and High Dispersion Spectrograph (HDS; @nog02). The positions of our targets are shown in Figure 1. Two stars (HD 37022 and HD 37041) lie in the central region of the nebula. The other star (HD 37150) is located at the edge of the nebula. Because our targeted wavelength region is at $\sim$ 9000 Å – 10000 Å, a number of telluric lines give severe contamination. Therefore, we observed a standard star (HD 37397)[^1] near the nebula to divide out these lines, as described in Section 2.1. Stellar intrinsic features are smoothed out, because HD 37397 is a rapid rotating star with rotational velocity of $v\sin
i$ = 355 [@gle00]. We used a 03 slit width ($R =
120,000$), and adopted 2 pixel binning only along the spatial direction. The red grating, with a central wavelength of 8650 Å, was used to cover the wavelength of 7310 Å and 8560 Å on the blue CCD chip and 8710Å and 10000Å on the red CCD chip. Only the red CCD data was used because the blue CCD photon counts were saturated and deviated from linearity. We reduced the data in a standard manner using the IRAF software[^2]. For wavelength calibration, we used a Th-Ar spectrum. After removing telluric lines by dividing the object spectra by the standard star spectrum (see Sect. 2.1), we directly fitted the continuum with a third-order cubic spline function. To increase signal-to-noise (S/N), every 0.1 Å-wide segments are smoothed and resampled.
Removal of Telluric Lines
-------------------------
Once we extract one-dimensional spectra of three target stars, we need to remove telluric lines by using a standard star spectrum. Because DIBs, whose profiles are usually very broad and shallow, are easily buried in strong telluric lines, a careful removal is necessary.
First, we normalize the standard star spectrum, leaving only telluric features because rotationally broadened stellar lines are fitted out as continuum. Because the object stars are observed under slightly different airmass from that of the standard star, we have to correct telluric lines according to their optical depth, as $$f_{sky}^{corr} = exp\left(\ln(f_{sky})\times\frac{secz({\rm obj})}{secz({\rm ss})}\right),$$
where $f_{sky}$ and $f_{sky}^{corr}$ are raw and corrected normalized spectra of telluric lines, respectively. The sec$z$(obj,ss) is the airmass toward the object or standard star. Here, we assume a plane parallel atmosphere, because sec$z$ toward our targets (including a standard star) are all close to 1 (i.e., close to zenith) and because object/standard stars were all observed close in time to each other. Finally, we obtain telluric free spectra by dividing the spectra of object stars by the airmass-corrected telluric line spectrum.
We observed only one standard star for the telluric line removal, and its spectral type is slightly different from those of the object stars. Nonetheless, the photospheric features from the standard star do not affect the final object spectra significantly, because their line profiles are all broad and shallow and they should be fitted out while continuum fitting. On the other hand, any photospheric features from the object stars will still remain after dividing by the standard star spectrum. We investigate these in detail in Section 4.3.
An observation log is given in Table 1, in which we list target name, coordinate (RA and Dec), apparent visual magnitude, spectral type, total exposure time, signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio per pixel after sampling, averaged sec$z$, degree of reddening, dust extinction in the visual band, effective temperature, and surface gravity. Normalized spectra of our three target stars are presented in Figure 2. We show only five DIB regions, which we discuss below.
Identifications of DIBs
=======================
At first we search for the two DIBs at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9577 Å and 9632 Å (i.e., candidates for $C_{60}^+$ absorption) in the spectra of three target stars. Among these, detections have been reported only toward HD 37022 (e.g., @jen94 [@foi97; @mou99]). We use all absorption features that are detected with $\geq$ 5$\sigma$ level. Both DIBs are detected toward the two stars within the nebula, while no features are detected toward HD 37150, with an equivalent width detection limit of EW = 7.0 mÅ and 5.5 mÅ for DIB 9577 and 9632, respectively. Based on laboratory measurements, @ful93 present wavelengths of 13 vibrational-mode absorption lines of $C_{60}^+$ (in neon matrix) at 8323 Å – 9642 Å (in air), of which 7 are covered by our Subaru spectra. Our identification results for the three target spectra are summarized in Table 2. Following column (1) with ID name, columns (2) and (3) give vacuum wavenumbers and air wavelengths of expected $C_{60}^+$ features, columns (4), (5), (6), and (7) are flux-weighted central wavelengths, EW, wavelength shift from the laboratory measurement, and full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of DIBs toward HD 37022. Columns (8), (9), (10) and (11) are identical to (4) – (7) but toward HD 37041, column (12) shows the 5$\sigma$ detection limit of DIBs toward HD 37150. We did not correct for contamination from the stellar lines when we measure equivalent widths of DIB 9632, because their equivalent widths are no more than 50 mÅ for spectral types of O7 – B3I (@gal00; see further discussion in Section 4.3). All of our targets and the standard star lie in this category. Interestingly, three DIBs are newly identified as possible $C_{60}^+$ lines, and detected only toward stars in the nebula. The equivalent width and the FWHM of each DIB are measured and presented in Table 2, although the latter has much uncertainty. Because of the presence of substructure (see Section 4.2) in the DIB and the contamination with strong telluric lines, it is not straightforward to measure widths. In Figure 2, we shaded the wavelength regions around the five DIBs, over which we carried out the measurements.
All target stars are affected by both the interstellar and the local extinction. The degree of reddening, $E(B-V)$, listed in Table 1 is the difference between the observed $B-V$ color and the expected $B-V$ color, where the expected color is estimated from the predictions of @bes98 by using the effective temperature and surface gravity measurements from @bro94. We also list extinction values from @bro94. The reddening is significant toward HD 37022 in Trapezium, and also toward HD 37041, which has only a small offset of $\sim$2.4$^{\prime}$ ($\sim$0.3 pc) from HD 37022. Both stars lie in highly ionized central region of the Orion Nebula. On the other hand, HD 37150, whose distance from Trapezium is $\sim$20$^{\prime}$ ($\sim$2.5 pc), has small reddening. Thus, our target selection enables us to trace two regions of the Orion Nebula with very different physical conditions.
Discussion
==========
We can draw several inferences on the DIB carriers in the Orion Nebula from our observations; physical condition with regard to their internal structure, and correlation with dust abundance. We have also found additional candidates of $C_{60}^+$ DIBs. We discuss all these below.
Physical Conditions of the DIB Carriers
---------------------------------------
Our targets are distributed at the center or the edge of the Orion Nebula, which enables us to compare the detectability of $C_{60}^+$ DIBs in two extreme physical conditions. The regions toward HD 37022 and HD 37041 are strongly UV-irradiated by the hot Trapezium stars, while the ionization condition toward HD 37150 is probably much lower. Visual extinction is also very different — the former two are severely, and the latter is only slightly, reddened. DIBs are known to have a strong correlation with neutral hydrogen column density (i.e., gas abundance; @wel06) as well as dust extinction (i.e., dust abundance; @her93). Local UV radiation may enhance the 9577/9632 DIBs [@foi97]. We detect these DIBs only toward two stars at the strongly UV-irradiated regions with much amount of dust, which is consistent with past results. This trend can be explained by a “skin effect” — the effective shielding of UV radiation by the inner layers of dust in the nebula, as proposed in @cam97. @cam97 also measured the complete DIB spectrum of HD 37022, and discovered that almost all optical DIBs (except for DIBs at $\lambda$ = 5780 Å and 6284 Å, as shown in @jen94) were very weak or not detected toward this extremely high UV-irradiated region. It is likely that the carriers of these DIBs are dissociated under such high ionizing radiation. On the other hand, 5780/6284 DIBs as well as 9577/9632 DIBs show a clear correlation of their absorption strengths with their local ionization levels, which means these carriers prefer an ionized phase (i.e., $C_{60}^+$ with ionization potential (IP) = 11.3 eV for the 9577/9632 DIBs) to a neutral phase (i.e., $C_{60}$ with IP = 7.6 eV) [@foi97]. Thus, we confirm the 9577/9632 Å DIB carriers have small-scale (i.e., on a few parsec scale) spatial fluctuation in a single cloud (i.e., the Orion Nebula), while @gal00, already noted a Galactic scale fluctuation. We reconfirm that the detection of the 9577/9632 DIB require large amount of dust as well as strong UV radiation.
Internal Substructure in the DIBs
---------------------------------
The 9577/9632 DIBs were previously treated as a single Gaussian profile (e.g., @foi97) and their equivalent widths are also measured using this assumption (e.g., @gal00). However, the DIBs toward the Orion Nebula clearly show asymmetrical profiles with possible multiple components in our high resolution spectra. Actually, this asymmetrical profile can be seen in the past papers, especially for DIB 9632 (e.g., @foi97), although it was not discussed in detail. @ehr96 resolved three optical DIBs at 5797, 6379, and 6613 Å into two or three subcomponents, following the first discovery of substructure by @wes88a [@wes88b]. They conclude that rotational contours probably play a major role in this internal structure, following @dan76, although there could be small contributions from other sources (e.g., instrumental line spread, thermal broadening, gas turbulence, and intramolecular vibration rotation energy transfer).
Here, we would like to suggest an additional contributor to the broadening that we observe; i.e., the existence of discrete absorbers along our sight lines. @ode93 took high resolution spectra of four Trapezium stars (including HD 37022 and HD 37041), and discovered internal substructures with multiple absorption components in and absorption profiles. The typical velocity distributions of these lines are $\sim$30–50 and up to 60 , which is one third of the FWHM ($\sim$130 ) of the 9577/9632 DIBs we observed. If each velocity component seen in and gives rise to the DIB profiles, these would result in a substantial contribution to the DIB broadening. We performed a simple test for this scenario as follows. @foi97 measured the FWHM of the 9577/9632 DIBs toward three stars (including one of our targets, HD 37022), and obtained a slightly larger line width toward HD 37022 (FWHM $\sim$4 Å) as compared to the line widths toward two other stars (FWHM $\sim$2.9 Å). This difference can be reproduced by adding an internal velocity dispersion of $\sim$80 to a DIB cloud toward HD 37022, which is possible because multiple and clouds are distributed within a similar velocity width, $\leq$60 , as described above. Our results suggest that several discrete DIB clouds contribute non-negligibly to the total DIB line width. However, it should be noted that the major source of DIB broadening is likely to be intrinsic to the molecular structure of the carriers, because (i) such an internal structure is seen even if corresponding atomic lines have single Gaussian profiles at the same velocity (e.g., Figure 1 of @gal08), and because (ii) DIBs have similar characteristic profiles toward various sightlines (e.g., Figure 2 of @gal08). Both of these support the idea that the main source of DIB broadening is molecular in origin.
For further investigation of the internal structure of the 9577/9632 DIBs, high quality spectra with higher S/N ratio would be required.
Other Possible $C_{60}^+$ DIBs
------------------------------
Although @foi94 detected two DIBs within 10 Å of the laboratory-measured positions of two $C_{60}^+$ absorption features [@ful93], this identification was questioned by @jen97 because two other $C_{60}^+$ absorption lines at 9366 Å and 9419 Å are not detected simultaneously. Thus, this identification is not yet a matter of consensus. Additional evidence is required for further discussion. Using our Subaru spectra with relatively wide wavelength coverage from 8700 Å to 1 $\mu m$, we attempt to confirm the existence of 7 of 9 $C_{60}^+$ lines (in addition to the 9577/9632 DIBs) from @ful93. Unfortunately, the 9372/9429 Å lines in question (at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9366 and 9419 Å, according to @jen97) are on an echelle order gap or wavelength region that is hopelessly affected by telluric lines. Among the other 5 lines, three at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9258, 9210, and 9017 Å are clearly detected with $\leq$ 10 Å difference from the laboratory measurements, but one at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9154 Å is not seen with $\geq$ 5$\sigma$ level toward HD 37022 and HD 37041 (see Table 2). We cannot search for a line at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 8954 Å because it is on an echelle order gap. No lines are detected toward HD 37150.
In order to rule out the possibility that these five DIBs arise in the stellar photosphere, we synthesized stellar spectra using model atmospheres with the ATLAS9 and SYNTHE codes [@kur05; @sbo05]. We used model parameters such as stellar rotational velocity, effective temperature, and surface gravity that are appropriate to each star (as listed in Table 1) from the literature [@bro94]. The model spectra are overlaid on the observed spectra and the most prominent absorption features are named in Figure 2. Below, we discuss each DIB.
DIB 9633. —
: This is one of the two DIBs that have been proposed to be associated with $C_{60}^+$. Although it is partially blending with line from stellar photosphere, the line center is clearly shifted blueward from the center of the DIB. Moreover, the line is weak compared to the DIB. This is the case especially for type O stars. This was one of the first DIBs discovered in the near-infrared.
DIB 9577. —
: Another DIB whose origin was suggested to be $C_{60}^+$. There are no narrow stellar intrinsic lines within 10 Å of the DIB, although the DIB is positioned at the red wing of a very broad line at $\lambda$ = 9546.0 Å. The detection of this DIB is highly secure.
DIB 9258. —
: We have discovered this DIB, and discuss it here for the first time. Although it is located at the edge of an echelle order, the detection itself is secure because line features toward two different stars (i.e., HD 37022 and HD 37041) are almost identical. Their origin is neither stellar photospheric, nor due to any instrumental data defect. The feature is only seen toward the Trapezium stars, as noted for the two DIBs mentioned above. An absorption feature at $\Delta \lambda$ = $\sim$5 – 10 Å toward HD 37150 is probably caused by the line complex within the stellar photosphere, which is more prominent for type B stars than type O stars (see Figure 2). A mild inclination of the model continua is due to a strong line at $\lambda$ = 9244.4 Å.
DIB 9210. —
: Only this DIB was significantly blending with stellar intrinsic features of at $\lambda$ = 9210.3 Åand 9213.2 Å and at $\lambda$ = 9218.3 Å. However, the flux-weighted centers are shifted slightly redward from the line center of this DIB. The whole range of the observed feature cannot be reproduced only by the stellar photospheric lines, and much of the absorption must originate in a DIB. The equivalent width and line width of this DIB listed in Table 2 are only upper limits. The inclined continuum of the model spectra is due to a strong line at $\lambda$ = 9229.0 Å.
DIB 9017. —
: This is the weakest one among the five DIBs we detected in our spectra. The DIB is detected only toward the Trapezium stars like the other DIBs, which also supports this discovery. A strong line is located at $\lambda$ = 9014.9 Å near the DIB, but it should not affect the DIB because of its broad and smooth line profile (i.e., it will be fitted out during spectrum normalization).
Interestingly, all detected DIBs are blue-shifted from the laboratory measurements by 4–8 Å ($\Delta v$ $\sim$ 150–200 ); this is the same trend as seen in the 9577/9632 DIBs. This blue-shift is not due to any outflow of DIB carriers from the Orion Nebula, because the corresponding and absorption lines are blue-shifted only up to $|\Delta v|$ $<$ 20 in heliocentric velocity, about one order of magnitude smaller than the DIB velocity shift [@ode93]. We suspect this is a systematic trend due to differences in physical conditions between the gas-phase inter stellar medium and the laboratory neon matrix measurement, as found for other molecules like naphthalene (C$_{10}$H$_8$$^+$; @sal92), coronene and ovalene (C$_{24}$H$_{12}$ and C$_{32}$H$_{14}$; @ehr92). This wavelength shift is also estimated to be smaller in the near-infrared band at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 1 $\mu$m ($\Delta k$ $\sim$ 5 – 10 , which is almost same value as our results in Table 2) than that in the optical band ($\sim$ 20 – 50 ; @gal00). The measurement in matrix would also change the relative strengths of absorption lines [@ful93]. This may explain our result that the $C_{60}^+$ lines at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9528, 9210, and 9012 Å, whose strengths are very weak (by a factor of $\sim$ 10 compared to the stronger 9577/9632 lines) in the laboratory measurements [@ful93], are detected with almost same equivalent widths as those of the 9577/9633 DIBs in our spectra. If these DIBs are really arising from the same molecule, their line widths also would be expected to be similar [@mai94]. The FWHMs of the three newly detected DIBs at $\lambda$ $\sim$ 9258, 9210, and 9017 Å are $\geq$3 Å, $\sim$6.5 Å, and $\sim$2.5 Å, respectively, which are scattered around those of the 9577/9632 DIBs, $\sim$4.5 Å. This could be due to contamination of other atomic lines (for DIB 9210) or a failure in detecting weak profile wings (for DIB 9017). More precise measurements for $C_{60}^+$ in laboratory without using neon/argon matrix are desirable.
Correlation of the DIB Strength with Dust Abundance
---------------------------------------------------
From their DIB survey, targeting the Milky Way, the LMC, and the SMC, @wel06 have found a clear correlation between the strength of DIBs and the column density along the line of sight. Following this result, @law08 embarked on a survey of the 5780 DIB in Damped Ly$\alpha$ (DLA) systems (with $\log$() of $\geq$ 20.3 \[\]) at cosmological distances, and discovered one system with two DIBs at $\lambda_{rest}$ of 5705 Å and 5780 Åwith moderate reddening DLA system (E(B$-$V) = 0.23) at $z$ = 0.5 [@yor06]. So far, this is the highest redshift at which DIBs have been detected. This detection would imply that DIB carriers are distributed universally, and their abundance probably has a strong correlation with dust as well as gas abundance. Similar correlations have also been noted for the 9577/9632 DIBs [@gal00], and our results are consistent with these (see Figure 3). Although our measured 9577 DIB strengths lie slightly above from the expected value, this may be because the ratio of total-to-selective extinction, $R_V$ = $A_V / E(B-V)$, is larger toward stars in the Orion Nebula, as shown in Table 1.
The equivalent width ratio of these DIBs should remain unchanged by the absorber’s physical conditions if they all have the same carrier [@mai94]. @ful93 estimated the relative strength of the 9577/9632 DIBs to be $\sim$ 1.5 in a neon matrix, but with an uncertainty over the range of 1.5 to 2.0, depending on production conditions. On the other hand, this ratio is close to 1 in our observation toward two stars in the Orion Nebula (see Figure 3). This is instead consistent with other measurements. @jen97 and @gal00 also found the ratio of close to 1. If it can be confirmed that the gas phase measurement gives a smaller intensity ratio of close to unity in the laboratory, the identification of these DIBs with $C_{60}^+$ would be strengthened.
Summary
=======
We have investigated the detectability of the 9577/9632 DIBs that are candidates of $C_{60}^+$ absorption features. We obtained spectra of two stars in the Orion Nebula and one star at the edge of the nebula. These DIBs are detected only toward the two stars in the nebula.
Furthermore, for the first time, we have detected three other DIBs that could also arise in $C_{60}^+$. The wavelengths of these features matches the laboratory values to within 10 Å. With our high-resolution spectra ($R$ = 120,000), we found internal structures in the DIBs with two or three components. If our sight-lines really trace multiple clouds, those could partially contribute to the line broadening of the DIBs, though the main cause is likely to be relate to molecular transitions. The DIB strength and dust reddening from our data are consistent with correlations seen by previous studies, which means that we are probably observing the same DIB carrier. For further investigation, we need (i) spectra with higher S/N ratio, (ii) precise measurements of $C_{60}^+$ in the laboratory without using matrix, and (iii) spectra taken from the space (e.g., using Hubble Space Telescope) to detect the DIBs without any contamination from the telluric lines.
TM and AH acknowledge support from the Special Postdoctoral Research Program and DRI Research Grant of RIKEN. PG acknowledges support from the Special Foreign Postdoctoral Research Program of RIKEN. TM acknowledges support from the Sumitomo Foundation (070380). We would like to thank the anonymous referee for their valuable comments.
Bessell, M. S., Castelli, F., & Plez, B. 1998, , 333, 231 Bettens, R. P. A., & Herbst, E. 1996, , 468, 686 Brown, A. G. A., de Geus, E. J., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 1994, , 289, 101 Cami, J., Sonnentrucker, P., Ehrenfreund, P., & Foing, B. H. 1997, , 326, 822 Cox, N. L. J., Kaper, L., Foing, B. H., & Ehrenfreund, P. 2005, , 438, 187 Danks, A. C., & Lambert, D. L. 1976, , 174, 571 Ehrenfreund, P., & Foing, B. H. 1996, , 307, L25 Ehrenfreund, P., D’Hendencourt, L., Verstraete, L., Leger, A., Schmidt, W., & Defourneau, D. 1992, , 259, 257 Foing, B. H., & Ehrenfreund, P. 1997, , 319, L59 Foing, B. H., & Ehrenfreund, P. 1994, , 369, 296 Fulara, J., Jakobi, M., & Maier, J. P. 1993, Chemical Physics Letters, 211, 227 Galazutdinov, G. A., LoCurto, G., & Kre[ł]{}owski, J. 2008, , 682, 1076 Galazutdinov, G. A., Kre[ł]{}owski, J., Musaev, F. A., Ehrenfreund, P., & Foing, B. H. 2000, , 317, 750 Glebocki, R., & Stawikowski, A. 2000, Acta Astronomica, 50, 509 Heckman, T. M., & Lehnert, M. D. 2000, , 537, 690 Heger, M. L. 1922, Lick Observatory Bulletin, 10, 141 Herbig, G. H. 1993, , 407, 142 Herbig, G. H. 1995, , 33, 19 Iglesias-Groth, S., Manchado, A., Garc[í]{}a-Hern[á]{}ndez, D. A., Gonz[á]{}lez Hern[á]{}ndez, J. I., & Lambert, D. L. 2008, , 685, L55 Iglesias-Groth, S. 2007, , 661, L167 Jenniskens, P., Mulas, G., Porceddu, I., & Benvenuti, P. 1997, , 327, 337 Jenniskens, P., Ehrenfreund, P., & Foing, B. 1994, , 281, 517 Kurucz, R. L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplement, 8, 14 Lawton, B., Churchill, C. W., York, B. A., Ellison, S. L., Snow, T. P., Johnson, R. A., Ryan, S. G., & Benn, C. R. 2008, , 136, 994 Maier, J. P. 1994, , 370, 423 Merrill, P. W. 1934, , 46, 206 Moutou, C., Kre[ł]{}owski, J., D’Hendecourt, L., & Jamroszczak, J. 1999, , 351, 680 Noguchi, K., Aoki, W., Kawanomoto, S., Ando, H., Honda, S., Izumiura, H., Kambe, E., Okita, K., Sadakane, K., Sato, B., Tajitsu, A., Takada-Hidai, M., Tanaka, W., Watanabe, E., and Yoshida, M., 2002, , 54, 6 O’dell, C. R., Valk, J. H., Wen, Z., & Meyer, D. M. 1993, , 403, 678 Salama, F., & Allamandola, L. J. 1992, , 395, 301 Sbordone, L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplement, 8, 61 Sim[ó]{}n-D[í]{}az, S., Herrero, A., Esteban, C., & Najarro, F. 2006, , 448, 351 Sollerman, J., Cox, N., Mattila, S., Ehrenfreund, P., Kaper, L., Leibundgut, B., & Lundqvist, P. 2005, , 429, 559 Welty, D. E., Federman, S. R., Gredel, R., Thorburn, J. A., & Lambert, D. L. 2006, , 165, 138 Westerlund, B. E., & Krelowski, J. 1988a, , 189, 221 Westerlund, B. E., & Krelowski, J. 1988b, , 203, 134 York, B. A., Ellison, S. L., Lawton, B., Churchill, C. W., Snow, T. P., Johnson, R. A., & Ryan, S. G. 2006, , 647, L29
[cccccccccccc]{} HD 37022 & 05 35 16.5 & -05 23 23 & 5.13 & O6pe & 240 & 200 & 1.129 & 0.33 & 1.74 & 4.64 & 4.80\
HD 37041 & 05 35 22.9 & -05 24 58 & 5.08 & O9.5Vpe & 240 & 211 & 1.137 & 0.21 & 1.12 & 4.50 & 4.18\
HD 37150 & 05 36 15.0 & -05 38 53 & 6.51 & B3Vv & 840 & 139 & 1.185 & 0.03 & 0.05 & 4.31 & 4.30\
HD 37397 & 05 38 13.7 & -01 10 09 & 6.81 & B2V & 840 & & 1.113 & 0.05 & 0.09 & 4.28 & 4.47\
[ccccccccccccccc]{} A & 10368 & 9642.4 & & 9633.2 & 95.7$\pm$2.8 & $-$9.2 & 4.2 & & 9633.0 & 98.2$\pm$3.1 & $-$9.4 & 4.5 & & $<$5.5\
B & 10435 & 9580.5 & & 9577.0 & 103.5$\pm$3.0 & $-$3.5 & 4.4 & & 9577.2 & 131.8$\pm$3.5$^f$ & $-$3.3 & 5.4 & & $<$7.0\
C$^g$ & 10603 & 9428.7 & & ... & ... & ... & ... & & ... & ... & ... & ... & & ...\
D$^h$ & 10667 & 9372.1 & & ... & ... & ... & ... & & ... & ... & ... & ... & & ...\
E$^i$ & 10792 & 9263.6 & & 9258.3 & 88.6$\pm$2.4 & $-$4.7 & $>$3.4 & & 9258.3 & 96.4$\pm$2.5 & $-$5.3 & $>$3.3 & & $<$6.0\
F & 10845 & 9218.3 & & 9209.7 & 129.2$\pm$3.4 & $-$8.6 & 6.6 & & 9209.7 & 121.8$\pm$3.5 & $-$8.6 & 6.5 & & $<$6.5\
G & 10922 & 9153.5 & & ... & $<$5.0 & ... & ... & & ... & $<$4.0 & ... & ... & & $<$7.0\
H & 11082 & 9021.1 & & 9017.0 & 31.0$\pm$1.7 & $-$4.1 & 2.3 & & 9017.8 & 9.7$\pm$2.7$^j$ & $-$3.3 & 2.8 & & $<$5.5\
I$^h$ & 11165 & 8954.1 & & ... & ... & ... & ... & & ... & ... & ... & ... & & ...\
{width="12cm"}
![Spectra of three target stars around the five detected DIBs at $\lambda$ = 9633, 9577, 9258, 9210, and 9017 Å (solid lines). These DIBs are detected toward HD 37022 and HD 37041 with $\geq$ 5$\sigma$ level, except for the DIB 9017 toward HD 37041 whose detection level in $\sim$ 3.6$\sigma$. DIB 9259 is located at the edge of an echelle order. No DIBs are detected toward HD 37150. We also overlay synthesized stellar spectra (dashed lines) using model atmosphere with ATLAS9 and SYNTHE [@kur05; @sbo05]. Model spectra are all compressed vertically by a factor of 4 and their continuum levels are shifted down to 0.96, except for DIB 9017, where the continuum level is 0.99. Strong absorption features in the model spectra are labeled.](f2.eps){width="12cm"}
![Correlation between the equivalent width of DIB 9577 and $E(B-V)$ (top) and between the equivalent width ratio of DIB 9577 to DIB 9632 and $E(B-V)$ (bottom). Open circles are Galactic DIBs from @gal00, and filled circles and a downward arrow are our results toward the Orion Nebula. The laboratory measurement using Ne or Ar matrix is indicated by the shaded region [@ful93]. Our results are consistent with the correlation already seen toward other Galactic stars, but not with the laboratory measurement.](f3.eps){width="15cm"}
[^1]: This is a rapid rotator, located close to the Orion Nebula. Its high rotational velocity ($v\sin i$ $>$ 350 ) and spectral type earlier than B2 [@gle00], are optimal for our purpose.
[^2]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Inspired by Kitaev’s argument that physical error correction is possible in a system of interacting anyons, we demonstrate that such “self-correction” is fairly common in spin systems with classical Hamiltonians that admit the Peierls argument and where errors are modelled by quantum perturbations.
quantum error correction ,physical error correction ,quantum spin systems ,statistical mechanics ,perturbation theory
03.67.-a, 05.30.-d, 05.50.+q
address: |
Center for Photonic Communication and Computing\
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208-3118\
E-mail address: [[email protected]]{}
author:
- Maxim Raginsky
title: |
Almost any quantum spin system\
with short-range interactions\
can support toric codes
---
Introduction
============
Error correction is a key ingredient in any good recipe for quantum information processing (see [@nielchu] for an overview and further references). Many ingenious schemes have been invented to that effect. A particularly interesting approach has been suggested by Kitaev and colleagues in a series of beautiful papers [@kit; @bk; @dklp], namely the possibility of implementing quantum error correction [*on the physical level*]{}.
The idea is quite simple. In [@kit], Kitaev considers a specific Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$ for a quantum spin-1/2 system on a finite lattice $\Lambda \subset \bbz^2$ with periodic boundary conditions (the spins are taken to reside on the bonds of $\Lambda$). For any finite $\Lambda$, the ground state of $H_\Lambda$ is fourfold degenerate; information is stored in the corresponding four-dimensional eigenspace. Addition of a small local perturbation of a certain kind modifies the Hamiltonian to $H_\Lambda(\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon$ is the perturbation strength. The effect of the perturbation is to introduce an energy splitting between the degenerate ground-state levels of the unperturbed Hamiltonian. Kitaev then argues that there exists a constant $\epsilon_0$ so that, at low temperatures and for all ${\left| \epsilon \right|} \le \epsilon_0$, the energy splitting for sufficiently large $\Lambda$ is given by $\exp{(-c\sqrt{N_\Lambda})}$, where $N_\Lambda$ is the number of bonds in $\Lambda$. In other words, in the thermodynamic limit $\Lambda \uparrow \bbz^2$, the ground state is still fourfold degenerate, and any sufficiently weak perturbation is “washed out” by the system itself.
The four-body interactions comprising Kitaev’s Hamiltonian were originally considered by him in Ref. [@kit2] as generators for a family of stabilizer codes [@nielchu], which he termed “toric codes.” The remarkable feature of toric codes is the fact that, despite their apparent nonoptimality (in the sense of [@cs]), they require only local operations for their implementation and can correct any number of errors (by making the lattice large enough). The bulk of Kitaev’s analysis of toric codes was concerned with their properties as “conventional” quantum error-correcting codes [@kl] that require active intervention through frequent measurements and other external processing. The issue of constructing “self-correcting” quantum spin systems on the basis of toric codes has been taken up again only very recently by Dennis, Kitaev, Landahl, and Preskill [@dklp]. Their approach, however, is centered around topological features of toric codes and delves deep into such subjects as nonabelian gauge theory [@dklp; @bgkp].
On the other hand, the very idea of physical error correction is so tantalizing, both practically and conceptually, that one cannot help but wonder: how generic are phenomena of this kind? In this Letter I show that a few results in statistical mechanics of quantum spin systems point towards the conclusion that physical error correction is fairly common in such systems, under quite reasonable conditions. These preliminary findings are, in my opinion, suggestive and interesting enough, and might spur further research into this topic both in the quantum information community and in the statistical mechanics community. A detailed analysis is forthcoming [@rag].
Laying out the ingredients
==========================
First of all, let us agree on the ingredients necessary for analysis of a self-correcting quantum spin system. Let $\Lambda \subset \bbz^\nu$ be a finite lattice. We assume here that $\nu \ge 2$ is an integer. Let ${{\cal H}}_0$ be the $(2S+1)$-dimensional Hilbert space of a single particle of spin $S$. Spins are situated on lattice sites $\ell \in \Lambda$ (in Kitaev’s construction, spins were located on lattice bonds). In order to retain a superficial analogy with stabilizer codes, we will assume that the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$ is [*classical*]{}, i.e., the interactions comprising it generate an abelian subalgebra of the algebra ${{\cal B}}({{\cal H}}_\Lambda)$ of all linear operators on ${{\cal H}}_\Lambda {:=}\bigotimes_{\ell \in \Lambda}{{\cal H}}_\ell$, where ${{\cal H}}_\ell$ is an isomorphic copy of ${{\cal H}}_0$. That is, $$H_\Lambda = \sum_{M \subset \Lambda}\Phi_M,$$ where each $\Phi_M$ is a Hermitian operator on ${{\cal H}}_M {:=}\bigotimes_{\ell \in M}{{\cal H}}_\ell$, and $[\Phi_M,\Phi_N] = 0$. We assume periodic boundary conditions (that is, the lattice $\Lambda$ is drawn on the torus $\bbz^\nu / \bbz$). We let ${\{ {| {\underline{\sg}} \rangle} \}}$ be the orthonormal basis of ${{\cal H}}_\Lambda$ in which $H_\Lambda$ is diagonal; the basis vectors are labelled by classical spin configurations, ${\underline{\sg}} = {\{ \sigma(\ell) \}}_{\ell \in \Lambda}$ with $\sg(\ell) \in {\{ -S,-S+1,\ldots,S-1,S \}}$. We also assume that the smallest eigenvalue of $H_\Lambda$ is equal to zero, and that its geometric multiplicity is $m \ge 2$. We denote the corresponding eigenspace by ${{\cal H}}^g_\Lambda$.
The effect of errors is modelled by introducing an off-diagonal perturbation term to the Hamiltonian: $$H_\Lambda(\epsilon) {:=}H_\Lambda + \epsilon P,$$ where $\epsilon$ is a positive constant and $P$ is a Hermitian operator whose exact form is, for the moment, left unspecified. Addition of the $\epsilon P$ term will perturb the eigenvalues of $H_\Lambda$, resulting in energy splitting between orthogonal ground states of the original (unperturbed) Hamiltonian. Consequently, we define $$\Delta E_\Lambda(\epsilon) {:=}\max_{ {| {\underline{\sg}} \rangle} \in {{\cal H}}^g_\Lambda} {\langle {\underline{\sg}} | H_\Lambda(\epsilon)|{\underline{\sg}} \rangle}.
\label{eq:esplit}$$
The basic idea behind a self-correcting quantum spin system thus boils down to the following. Information is stored in the ground-state eigenspace of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$. The multiplicity $m$ is, obviously, dictated by the desired storage capacity: when $m = 2^k$, our “ground-state memory cell” will hold $k$ qubits. Errors will cause some of the information to leak out into excited states. In order for error correction to take place, the system should be able to recover its ground state from sufficiently weak perturbations at sufficiently low temperature (the fact that we have to work with low temperatures is clear since we deal with the ground state). That is, we hope that there exists a threshold value $\epsilon_0$ such that $$\lim_{\Lambda \uparrow \bbz^\nu} \Delta E_\Lambda(\epsilon)=0,\qquad \epsilon \le \epsilon_0.
\label{eq:esplit_tl}$$ This condition, however, is necessary but not sufficient for error correction. It may happen that the $m$-fold degeneracy of the ground state does not survive in the thermodynamic limit, and we still lose some storage capacity. We therefore require that the ground state of the perturbed Hamiltonian remains $m$-fold degenerate for all $\epsilon \le \epsilon_0$ in the thermodynamic limit. In the next section we elaborate further on these requirements for self-correction and show that they are quite easy to fulfill in a wide variety of quantum spin systems. Before we proceed, we must remark that these are essentially “bare-bones” desiderata; more elaborate performance measures will also be investigated elsewhere [@rag].
Putting it together
===================
The main question is: which restrictions ensue on the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$ and on the perturbation $P$? It turns out that this question can be answered using the same methods that are employed for constructing low-temperature phase diagrams for classical spin systems with quantum perturbations [@kt; @bku; @dff]. Thus the Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$ can be comprised by $n$-spin interactions (for fixed $n$) that satisfy the Peierls condition [@sla]: the energy “cost” of a local perturbation $\omega'$ of a translationally invariant ground state $\omega$ is of the order of the surface area of the region that encloses the part of the lattice on which $\omega$ and $\omega'$ differ. Additionally, the unperturbed Hamiltonian is assumed to have a spectral gap $g > 0$ (i.e., its first nonzero eigenvalue $\ge g$). Admissible perturbations are formed by sums of translates of an arbitrary Hermitian operator $P_0$, whose support (the set of sites on which the action of $P_0$ is nontrivial) is finite and encloses the origin of the lattice. Thus $$P = \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda} P_\ell,$$ where $P_\ell = \gamma(\ell) P_0$ with $\gamma(\ell)$ being the automorphism induced by the translation of the lattice $\Lambda$ that maps the origin $0$ to the site $\ell$ and respects the periodic boundary conditions. Also, both the unperturbed and the perturbed Hamiltonians are assumed to be invariant under unitary transformations induced by a symmetry group acting transitively on the set ${\{ {| {\underline{\sg}} \rangle} \}} \cap {{\cal H}}^g_\Lambda$.
Assuming these conditions are satisfied, we invoke the following theorem [@kt]: there exists a constant $\epsilon_0$ such that, for all $\epsilon \le \epsilon_0$, the perturbed spin system has $m$ translationally invariant ground states in the thermodynamic limit. Furthermore, if the $m$ translationally invariant ground states of the unperturbed Hamiltonian are invariant under some additional symmetries, these invariance properties carry over to the ground states of the perturbed system. The threshold value $\epsilon_0$ of the parameter $\epsilon$ is determined by developing a low-temperature expansion [@gin; @kt] of the perturbed partition function using a modified Lie-Trotter product formula, $${{\rm tr}\, e^{-\beta H_\Lambda(\epsilon)}} = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} {{\rm tr}\, \left \{ \left[ \left(\idty - \frac{\epsilon P}{N} \right) e^{-(1/N)H_\Lambda} \right]^{N\beta} \right\} }.$$ The trace is expanded in the basis ${\{ {| {\underline{\sg}} \rangle} \}}$, thus allowing for combinatorial analysis on a “space-time” grid, where the space axis is labelled by lattice sites $\ell$ and the time axis is labelled by values $0,(1/N)\beta,(2/N)\beta,\ldots,\beta$. The perturbation theory is controlled by a suitable coarse-graining of the time axis, which then allows to determine the threshold value $\epsilon_0$ that will render the contributions of the perturbation terms $P_\ell$ sufficiently small. (See [@gin; @kt] for details; we only remark here that translation invariance requirements can be lifted, the perturbation theory still goes through [@kt].) Similar space-time analysis of the error rate has been described heuristically by Dennis et al. [@dklp].
Another important issue is the following: while the infinite-volume ground state of the perturbed system retains the degeneracy of the original (unperturbed) ground state, the degeneracy may be lost in the case of finite lattice size. This phenomenon is referred to as “obscured symmetry breaking” [@kt2], whereby low-lying eigenstates of the finite-system Hamiltonian converge to additional ground states in the thermodynamic limit. In this case we will have, for any finite $\Lambda$, $$\Delta E_\Lambda(\epsilon) > 0.$$ It is therefore important to obtain an estimate of the convergence rate in (\[eq:esplit\_tl\]); namely, given some $\delta > 0$, find $N_0$ such that $$\Delta E_\Lambda(\epsilon) < \delta,\qquad {\left| \Lambda \right|} \ge N_0.$$ Knowing the convergence rate allows us to appraise the resources needed to implement error correction with the desired accuracy $\delta$. In this respect, an estimate of the form $$\Delta E_\Lambda(\epsilon) = e^{-c {\left| \Lambda \right|}},\qquad \epsilon \le \epsilon_0,
\label{eq:expcon}$$ where the constant $c$ depends on $\epsilon$, would be ideal — an exponential gain in error-correction accuracy could then be achieved with polynomial resources. This exponential convergence rate is, in fact, one of the most attractive features of Kitaev’s construction in Ref. [@kit].
On the other hand, the rate at which $\Delta E_\Lambda(\epsilon)$ converges to zero is determined by the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda$, the perturbation $P$, and the perturbation strength $\epsilon$. It is therefore important to know what we can expect in a generic setting. Obviously, the exponential behavior, as in Eq. (\[eq:expcon\]), is optimal, but it may as well turn out that the particular implementation (e.g., with a different Hamiltonian) does not allow for it. We can, however, hope for a slower (but still quite decent) convergence rate. According to a theorem of Horsch and von der Linden [@hl], certain quantum spin systems possess low-lying eigenstates of the finite-lattice Hamiltonian with $$\Delta E_\Lambda(\epsilon) = c/{\left| \Lambda \right|}.$$ The conditions for this to hold are the following. There has to exist an [*order observable*]{} $O_\Lambda$ of the form $$O_\Lambda = \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda} O_\ell,$$ where each $O_\ell$ is a Hermitian operator such that $[O_\ell,
O_{\ell '}] = 0$. Furthermore, for any interaction term $\Phi_{M
\subset \Lambda}$ in the perturbed Hamiltonian $H_\Lambda(\epsilon)$ (these also include the perturbation terms), we will have $[\Phi_M,O_\ell]
= 0$ unless $\ell \in M$. The operators $\Phi_M$ and $O_\ell$ are required to be uniformly bounded (in $M$ and $\ell$ respectively), and the cardinality of the support set $M$ must not exceed some fixed constant $C$ (the latter condition has also to be fulfilled for the perturbation theory described above to converge). Finally, if ${| \varphi \rangle}$ is an eigenstate of $H_\Lambda(\epsilon)$, then we must have ${\langle \varphi | O_\Lambda | \varphi \rangle} = 0$, but ${\langle \varphi | O^2_\Lambda | \varphi \rangle} \ge \zeta {\left| \Lambda \right|}^2$ (here the constant $\zeta$ depends on $O_\ell$). The latter conditions are taken as manifestations of "obscured symmetry breaking” [@kt2]. Examples of systems for which the Horsch-von der Linden theorem holds include [@kt2] the Ising model in the transverse magnetic field or the Heisenberg antiferromagnet with a Néel order.
Conclusion
==========
Where does it all take us? It appears, from the discussion in the previous section, that any quantum spin system, whose Hamiltonian is formed by mutually commuting $n$-body interactions that satisfy the Peierls condition, can recover from sufficiently weak quantum (i.e., off-diagonal) perturbations at low temperatures. The admissible perturbations can be either finite-range [@kt], or exponentially decaying [@bku]. Under these (quite general) conditions, it follows from rigorous perturbation theory for quantum spin systems that there exists a critical perturbation strength $\epsilon_0$, such that for all $\epsilon < \epsilon_0$ the degeneracy and symmetry properties of the ground state of the original (unperturbed) system survive in the thermodynamic limit. Furthermore, even if ground-state degeneracy is removed by perturbation of the finite-size system, the effect of the error (perturbation) is effectively “washed out” in the thermodynamic limit, as the low-lying excited states of the perturbed system converge to additional ground states.
However, the systems we have considered in this Letter are assumed to have classical Hamiltonians and discrete symmetries. What about truly quantum Hamiltonians and continuous symmetry (e.g., the quantum Heisenberg model)? The situation here is not so easy. For instance, it is apparent from our discussion that, in order to be self-correcting, the perturbed system must exhibit an order-disorder transition as the parameter $\epsilon$ is tuned: in the “ordered phase,” error correction is possible; in the “disordered phase,” occurrence of errors results in irrevocable loss of information. (This has already been noted by Dennis et al. [@dklp].) Since we require the ground state of the perturbed Hamiltonian to exhibit the same degeneracy as the corresponding state of the unperturbed Hamiltonian, it makes sense to talk about spontaneously broken symmetry in the ordered phase (i.e., when $\epsilon < \epsilon_0$). However, according to the so-called Goldstone theorem [@lfw], symmetry cannot be broken in a system with continuous symmetry and a gap. It would certainly be worthwile to explore physical error correction in systems with continuous symmetries as well, but the models in which it can work will not be as easy to find.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author has benefitted from a few discussions with V. Moroz. This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Office through MURI grant DAAD19-00-1-0177.
[99]{}
M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), ch. 10.
A. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons” (preprint [quant-ph/9707021]{}).
S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary” (preprint [quant-ph/9811052]{}).
E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, “Topological quantum memory” (preprint [quant-ph/0110143]{}).
A. Kitaev, Russian Math. Surveys [**52**]{}, 1191 (1997).
A.L. Calderbank and P.W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 1098 (1996).
E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A [**55**]{}, 900 (1997).
D. Beckman, D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, “Measurability of Wilson loop operators” (preprint [hep-th/0110205]{}).
M. Raginsky, in preparation.
T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, Commun. Math. Phys. [**147**]{}, 431 (1992).
C. Borgs, R. Koteck' y, and D. Ueltschi, Commun. Math. Phys. [**181**]{}, 409 (1996). N. Datta. R. Fern' andez, and J. Fröhlich, J. Stat. Phys. [**84**]{}, 455 (1996).
J. Slawny, in [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, vol. 11, ed. by C. Domb and J.L. Lebowitz (Academic Press, 1987), p. 143.
J. Ginibre, Commun. Math. Phys. [**14**]{}, 205 (1969).
T. Koma and H. Tasaki, J. Stat. Phys. [**76**]{}, 745 (1994).
P. Horsch and W. von der Linden, Z. Phys. B [**72**]{}, 181 (1988).
L. Landau, J. Fernando-Perez, and W. F. Wreszinski, J. Stat. Phys. [**26**]{}, 755 (1981).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an approach for identifying picturesque highlights from large amounts of egocentric video data. Given a set of egocentric videos captured over the course of a vacation, our method analyzes the videos and looks for images that have good picturesque and artistic properties. We introduce novel techniques to automatically determine aesthetic features such as composition, symmetry and color vibrancy in egocentric videos and rank the video frames based on their photographic qualities to generate highlights. Our approach also uses contextual information such as GPS, when available, to assess the relative importance of each geographic location where the vacation videos were shot. Furthermore, we specifically leverage the properties of egocentric videos to improve our highlight detection. We demonstrate results on a new egocentric vacation dataset which includes 26.5 hours of videos taken over a 14 day vacation that spans many famous tourist destinations and also provide results from a user-study to access our results.'
author:
- |
Vinay Bettadapura$^{*}$\
`[email protected]`
- |
Daniel Castro$^{*}$\
`[email protected]`
- |
Irfan Essa\
`[email protected]`
- |
[Georgia Institute of Technology]{}\
[These authors contributed equally to this work]{}\
<http://www.cc.gatech.edu/cpl/projects/egocentrichighlights/>
bibliography:
- 'egocentric.bib'
title: Discovering Picturesque Highlights from Egocentric Vacation Videos
---
Introduction
============
Photography is commonplace during vacations. People enjoy capturing the best views at picturesque locations to mark their visit but the act of taking a photograph may sometimes take away from experiencing the moment. With the proliferation of wearable cameras, this paradigm is shifting. A person can now wear an egocentric camera that is continuously recording their experience and enjoy their vacation without having to worry about missing out on capturing the best picturesque scenes at their current location. However, this paradigm results in “too much data" which is tedious and time-consuming to manually review. There is a clear need for summarization and generation of highlights for egocentric vacation videos.
The new generation of egocentric wearable cameras (i.e. GoPros, Google Glass, etc) are compact, pervasive, and easy to use. These cameras contain additional sensors such as GPS, gyros, accelerometers and magnetometers. Because of this, it is possible to obtain large amounts of long-running egocentric videos with the associated contextual meta-data in real life situations. We seek to extract a series of aesthetic highlights from these egocentric videos in order to provide a brief visual summary of a users’ experience.
![\[fig:block-diagram\]Our method generates picturesque summaries and vacation highlights from a large dataset of egocentric vacation videos.](pipeline){width="1\columnwidth"}
Research in the area of egocentric video summarization has mainly focused on life-logging [@gemmell2004acm; @doherty2008civr] and activities of daily living [@fathi2011iccv; @pirsiavash2012cvpr; @ut2012cvpr]. Egocentric vacation videos are fundamentally different from egocentric daily-living videos. In such unstructured “in-the-wild" environments, no assumptions can be made about the scene or the objects and activities in the scene. Current state-of-the-art egocentric summarization techniques leverage cues such as people in the scene, position of the hands, objects that are being manipulated and the frequency of object occurrences [@fathi2011iccv; @ut2012cvpr; @fathi2011cvpr; @ren2010cvpr; @ren2009cvpr; @pirsiavash2012cvpr]. These cues that aid summarization in such specific scenarios are not directly applicable to vacation videos where one is roaming around in the world. Popular tourist destinations may be crowded with many unknown people in the environment and contain “in-the-wild" objects for which building pre-trained object detectors is non-trivial. This, coupled with the wide range of vacation destinations and outdoor and indoor activities, makes joint modeling of activities, actions, and objects an extremely challenging task.
A common theme that exists since the invention of photography is the desire to capture and store picturesque and aesthetically pleasing images and videos. With this observation, we propose to transform the problem of egocentric vacation summarization to a problem of finding the most picturesque scenes within a video volume followed by the generation of summary clips and highlight photo albums. An overview of our system is shown in Figure \[fig:block-diagram\]. Given a large set of egocentric videos, we show that meta-data such as GPS (when available) can be used in an initial filtering step to remove parts of the videos that are shot at “unimportant" locations. Inspired by research on exploring high-level semantic photography features in images [@luo2008eccv; @gooch2001artistic; @liu2010cgf; @fang2014mm; @luo2011iccv; @yan2013cvpr], we develop novel algorithms to analyze the composition, symmetry and color vibrancy within shot boundaries. We also present a technique that leverages egocentric context to extract images with a horizontal horizon by accounting for the head tilt of the user.
To evaluate our approach, we built a comprehensive dataset that contains 26.5 hours of 1080p HD egocentric video at 30 fps recorded from a head-mounted Contour cam over a 14 day period while driving more than 6,500 kilometers from the east coast to the west coast of the United States. Egocentric videos were captured at geographically diverse tourist locations such as beaches, swamps, canyons, caverns, national parks and at several popular tourist attractions.
**Contributions:** This paper makes several contributions aimed at automated summarization of video: (1) We introduce a novel concept of extracting highlight images using photograph quality measures to summarize egocentric vacation videos, which are inherently unstructured. We use a series of methods to find aesthetic pictures, from a large number of video frames, and use location and other meta data to support selection of highlight images. (2) We present a novel approach that accounts for the head tilt of the user and picks the best frame among a set of candidate frames. (3) We present a comprehensive dataset that includes 26.5 hours of video captured over 14 days. (4) We perform a large-scale user-study with 200 evaluators; and (5) We show that our method generalizes to non-egocentric datasets by evaluating on two state-of-the-art photo collections with 500 user-generated and 1000 expert photographs respectively.
Related Work
============
We review previous work in video summarization, egocentric analysis and image quality analysis, as these works provide the motivations and foundations for our work.
**Video Summarization:** Research in video summarization identifies key frames in video shots using optical flow to summarize a single complex shot [@wolf1996icassp]. Other techniques used low level image analysis and parsing to segment and abstract a video source [@zhang1997pr] and used a “well-distributed" hierarchy of key frame sequences for summarization [@liu2002eccv]. These methods are aimed at the summarization of specific videos from a stable viewpoint and are not directly applicable to long-term egocentric video.
In recent years, summarization efforts have started focussing on leveraging objects and activities within the scene. Features such as “informative poses" [@caspi2006vc] and “object of interest", based on labels provided by the user for a small number of frames [@liu2010pami], have helped in activity visualization, video summarization, and generating video synopsis from web-cam videos [@pritch2007iccv].
Other summarization techniques include visualizing short clips in a single image using a schematic storyboard format [@goldman2006tog] and visualizing tour videos on a map-based storyboard that allows users to navigate through the video [@pongnumkul2008uist]. Non-chronological synopsis has also been explored, where several actions that originally occurred at different times are simultaneously shown together [@rav2006cvpr] and all the essential activities of the original video are showcased together [@pritch2008pami]. While practical, these methods do not scale to the problem we are adressing of extended videos over days of actvities.
**Egocentric Video Analysis:** Research on egocentric video analysis has mostly focused on activity recognition and activities of daily living. Activities and objects have been thoroughly leveraged to develop egocentric systems that can understand daily-living activities. Activities, actions and objects are jointly modeled and object-hand interactions are assessed [@fathi2011iccv; @pirsiavash2012cvpr] and people and objects are discovered by developing region cues such as nearness to hands, gaze and frequency of occurrences [@ut2012cvpr]. Other approaches include learning object models from egocentric videos of household objects [@fathi2011cvpr], and identifying objects being manipulated by hands [@ren2010cvpr; @ren2009cvpr]. The use of objects has also been extended to develop a story-driven summarization approach. Sub-events are detected in the video and linked based on the relationships between objects and how objects contribute to the progression of the events [@ut2013cvpr].
Contrary to these approaches, summarization of egocentric vacation videos simply cannot rely on objects, object-hand interactions, or a fixed category of activities. Vacation videos are vastly different with respect to each other, with no fixed set of activities or objects that can be commonly found across all such videos. Furthermore, in contrast to previous approaches, a vacation summary or highlight must include images and video clips where the hand is not visible and the focus is on the picturesque environment.
Other approaches include detecting and recognizing social interactions using faces and attention [@fathi2012cvpr], activity classification from egocentric and multi-modal data [@spriggs2009cvpr], detecting novelties when a sequence cannot be registered to previously stored sequences captured while doing the same activity [@aghazadeh2011cvpr], discovering egocentric action categories from sports videos for video indexing and retrieval [@kitani2011cvpr], and visualizing summaries as hyperlapse videos [@kopf2014tog].
Another popular area of research and perhaps more relevant is of “life logging." Egocentric cameras such as SenseCam [@gemmell2004acm] allow a user to capture continuous time series images over long periods of time. Keyframe selection based on image quality metrics such as contrast, sharpness, noise, etc [@doherty2008civr] allow for quick summarization in such time-lapse imagery. In our scenario, we have a much larger dataset spanning several days and since we are dealing with vacation videos, we go a step further than image metrics and look at higher level artistic features such as composition, symmetry and color vibrancy.
**Image Quality Analysis:** An interesting area of research in image quality analysis is trying to learn and predict how memorable an image is. Approaches include training a predictor on global image features to predict how memorable an image will be [@isola2011cvpr] and feature selection to determine attributes that characterize the memorability of an image [@isola2011nips]. The aforementioned research shows that images containing faces are the most memorable. However, focusing on faces in egocentric vacation videos causes an unique problem. Since an egocentric camera is always recording, we end up with a huge number of face detections in most of the frames in crowded tourist attractions like Disneyland and Seaworld. To include faces in our vacation summaries, we will have to go beyond face detection and do face recognition and social network analysis on the user to recognize only the faces that the user actually cares about.
The other approach for vacation highlights is to look at the image aesthetics. These include high-level semantic features based on photography techniques [@luo2008eccv], finding good composition for graphics image of a 3D object [@gooch2001artistic] and cropping and retargeting based on an evaluation of the composition of the image like the rule-of-thirds, diagonal dominance and visual balance [@liu2010cgf]. We took inspiration from such approaches and developed novel algorithms to detect composition, symmetry and color vibrancy for egocentric videos.
Methodology
===========
Figure \[fig:block-diagram\] gives an overview of our summarization approach. Let us look at each component in detail.
Leveraging GPS Data
-------------------
Our pipeline is initiated by leveraging an understanding of the locations the user has traveled throughout their vacation. The GPS data in our dataset is recorded every 0.5 seconds where it is available, for a total of 111,170 points. In order to obtain locations of interest from the data we aggregate the GPS data by assessing the distance of a new point $p_{n}$ relative to the original point $p_{1}$ that the node was created with using the haversine formula which computes the distance between two GPS locations. When the distance is greater than a constant distance $d_{\mathit{max}}$ (defined as 10 km for our dataset) scaled by the speed $s_{p_{n}}$ at which the person was traveling at point $p_{n}$, we create a new node using the new point as the starting location. Lastly, we define a constant $d_{\mathit{min}}$ as the minimum distance that the new GPS point would have to be in order to break off into a new node in order to prevent creating multiple nodes at a single sightseeing location. In summary, a new node is created when $haversine(p_{1}, p_{n}) > s_{p_{n}} * d_{\mathit{max}} + d_{\mathit{min}}$. This formulation aggregates locations in which the user was traveling at a low speed (walking or standing) into one node and those in which the user was traveling at a high speed (driving) into equidistant nodes on the route of travel. The aggregation yields approximately 1,200 GPS nodes in our dataset.
In order to further filter these GPS nodes, we perform a search of businesses / monuments in the vicinity (through the use of Yelp’s API) in order to assess the importance of each node using the wisdom of the crowd. The score for each GPS node, $N_{\mathit{score}}$, is given by $N_{\mathit{score}} = \frac{\sum_{l=1}^{L} R_{l} * r_{l}}{L}$, where $L$ is the number of places returned by the Yelp API in the vicinity of the GPS node $N$, $R_{l}$ is the number of reviews written for each location, and $r_{l}$ is the average rating of each location. This score can then be used as a threshold to disregard nodes with negligible scores and obtain a subset of nodes that represent “important" points of interest in the dataset.
Egocentric Shot Boundary Detection
----------------------------------
Egocentric videos are continuous and pose a challenge in detecting the shot boundaries. In an egocentric video, the scene changes gradually as the person moves around in the environment. We introduce a novel GIST [@GIST] based technique that looks at the scene appearance over a window in time. Given $N$ frames $I=<f_{1},f_{2},\ldots,f_{N}>$, each frame $f_{i}$ is assigned an appearance score $\gamma_{i}$ by aggregating the GIST distance scores of all the frames within a window on size $W$ centered at $i$.
$$\gamma_{i}=\frac{\sum_{p=i-\left\lfloor W/2\right\rfloor }^{i+\left\lceil W/2\right\rceil -2}\sum_{q=p+1}^{i+\left\lceil W/2\right\rceil -1}G(f_{p}).G(f_{q})}{[W*(W-1)]/2}$$
where $G(f)$ is the normalized GIST descriptor vector for frame $f_{i}$. The score calculation is done over a window to assess the appearances of all the frames with respect to each other within that window. This makes it robust against any outliers within the scene. Since $\gamma_{i}$ is the average of dot-products, its value is between 0 and 1. If consecutive frames belong to the same shot, then their $\gamma$-values will be close to 1. To assign frames to shots, we iterate over $i$ from 1 to $N$ and assign a new shot number to $f_{i}$ whenever $\gamma_{i}$ falls below a threshold $\beta$ (for our experiments, we set $\beta$ = 0.9).
Composition {#subsec:composition}
-----------
![\[fig:composition-segmentation\] The left frame shows a highlight detected by our approach. The right frame illustrates the rule-of-thirds grid, overlayed on a visualization of the output of the segmentation algorithm for this particular frame.](segmentation_example){width="1\columnwidth"}
Composition is one of the characteristics considered when assessing the aesthetics of a photograph [@obrador2010role]. Guided by this idea we model composition with a metric that represents the traits of what distinguishes a good composition from a bad composition. The formulation is weighted by a mixture of the average color of specific segments in an image and its distance to an ideal **rule-of-thirds** composition (see Figure \[fig:composition-segmentation\]). Our overall results rely on this metric to obtain the highlights of a video clip (see Figure \[fig:sample-each\] for examples).
**Video Segmentation:** The initial step in assessing a video frame is to decompose the frame into cohesive superpixels. In order to obtain these superpixels, we use the public implementation of the hierarchical video segmentation algorithm introduced by Grundmann et. al. [@grundmann2010efficient]. We scale the composition score by the number of segments that are produced at a high-level hierarchy (80% for our dataset) with the intuition that a low number of segments at a high-level hierarchy parameterizes the simplicity of a scene. An added benefit of this parameterization is that a high level of segments can be indicative of errors in the segmentation due to the violation of color constancy which is the underlying assumption of optical flow in the hierarchical segmentation algorithm. This implicitly gets rid of blurry frames. By properly weighting the composition score with the number of segments produced at a higher hierarchy level, we are able to distinguish the visual quality of individual frames in the video.
**Weighting Metric:** The overall goal for our composition metric is to obtain a representative score for each frame. First we assess the average color of each segment in the LAB colorspace. We categorize the average color into one of 12 color bins based on their distance, which determines their importance as introduced by Obrador et al. [@obrador2010role]. A segment with diverse colors is therefore weighted more heavily than a darker, less vibrant segment. Once we obtain a weight for each segment, we determine the best rule-of-thirds point for the entire frame. This is obtained by computing the score for each of the four points, and simply selecting the maximum.
**Segmentation-Based Composition Metric:** Given $M$ segments for frame $f_{i}$, our metric can be succinctly summarized as the average of the score of each individual segment. The score of each segment is given by the product of its size $s_{j}$ and the weight of its average color $w(c_{j})$, scaled by the distance $d_{j}$ to the rule-of-thirds point that best fits the current frame. So, for frame $f_{i}$, the composition score $S_{\mathit{comp}}^{i}$ is given by:
$$S_{\mathit{comp}}^{i}=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{M} \frac{s_{j} * w(c_{j})}{d_{j}}}{M}$$
Symmetry
--------
Ethologists have shown that preferences to symmetry may appear in response to biological signals, or in situations where there is no obvious signaling context, such as exploratory behavior and human aesthetic response to patterns [@enquist1994nature]. Thus, symmetry is the second key factor in our assessment of aesthetics. To detect symmetry in images, we detect local features using SIFT [@lowe2004ijcv], select $k$ descriptors and look for self similarity matches along both the horizontal and vertical axes. When a set of best matching pairs are found, such that the area covered by the matching points is maximized, we declare that a maximal-symmetry has been found in the image. For frame $f_{i}$, the percentage of the frame area that the detected symmetry covers is the symmetry score $S_{\mathit{sym}}^{i}$.
Color Vibrancy
--------------
![\[fig:color\_vibrancy\]This visualization demonstrates the difference between a dark frame and a vibrant frame in order to illustrate the importance of vibrancy.](color_vibrancy){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:head-tilt\]Image on left shows a frame with low score on head tilt detection whereas the image on the right has a high score.](head_tilt){width="1\columnwidth"}
The vibrancy of a frame is helpful in determining whether or not a given shot is picturesque. We propose a simple metric based on the color weights discussed in Section \[subsec:composition\] to determine vibrancy. This metric is obtained by quantizing the colors of a single frame into twelve discrete bins and scaling them based on the average distance from the center of the bin. This distance represents the density of the color space for each bin which is best appreciated by the visualization in Figure \[fig:color\_vibrancy\]. The vibrancy score for frame $f_{i}$ is given by:
$$S_{\mathit{vib}}^{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{n_{b}} \frac{w(c_{j}) * b_{\mathit{size}}}{b_{\mathit{dist}}}$$
where $n_{b}$ is the number of color bins (12 in our case), $w(c_{j})$ is the color weight, $b_{\mathit{size}}$ is the bin size (number of pixels in the bin) and $b_{\mathit{dist}}$ is the average distance of all the pixels to the actual bin color.
Accounting For Head Tilt
------------------------
Traditional approaches on detecting aesthetics and photographic quality in images take standard photographs as input. However, when dealing with egocentric video, we also have to account for the fact that there is a lot of head motion involved. Even if we get high scores on composition, symmetry, and vibrancy, there is still a possibility that the head was tilted when that frame was captured. This diminishes the aesthetic appeal of the image.
While the problem of horizon detection has been studied in the context of determining vanishing points, determining image orientations and even using sensor data on phones and wearable devices [@wang2012ubicomp], it still remains a challenging problem. However, in the context of egocentric videos, we approach this by looking at a time window around the frame being considered. The key insight is that while a person may tilt and move his head at any given point in time, the head remains straight *on average*. With this, we propose a novel and simple solution to detect head tilt in egocentric videos. We look at a window of size $W$ around the frame $f_{i}$ and average all the frames in that window. If $f_{i}$ is similar to average frame, then the head tilt is deemed to be minimal. For comparing $f_{i}$ to the average image, we use the SSIM metric [@hore2010image] as the score $S_{\mathit{head}}^{i}$ for frame $f_{i}$. Figure \[fig:head-tilt\] shows two sample frames with low and high scores.
Scoring and Ranking
-------------------
We proposed four different metrics (composition, symmetry, vibrancy, head tilt) for assessing aesthetic qualities in egocentric videos. Composition and symmetry are the foundation of our pipeline, and vibrancy and head tilt are metrics for fine-tuning our result for a picturesque output. The final score for frame $f_{i}$ is given by:
$$S_{\mathit{final}}^{i}=S_{\mathit{vib}}^{i}*(\lambda_{1}*S_{\mathit{comp}}^{i}+\lambda_{2}*S_{\mathit{sym}}^{i})$$
Our scoring algorithm assesses all of the frames based on a vibrancy weighted sum of composition and symmetry (empirically determined as ideal: $\lambda_{1} = 0.8$, $\lambda_{2} = 0.2$). This enables us to obtain the best shots for a particular video. Once we have obtained $S_{\mathit{final}}^{i}$, we look within its shot boundary to find the best $S_{\mathit{head}}^{i}$ that depicts a well composed frame.
Egocentric Vacation Dataset
===========================
To build a comprehensive dataset for our evaluation, we drove from the east coast to the west coast of the United States over a 14 day period with a head-mounted Contour cam and collected egocentric vacation videos along with contextual meta-data such as the GPS, speed and elevation. Figure \[fig:dataset-map\] shows a heatmap of the locations where data was captured. Hotter regions indicate availability of more data.
The dataset has over 26.5 hours of 1080p HD egocentric video (over 2.8 million frames) at 30 fps. Egocentric videos were captured at geographically diverse locations such as beaches, swamps, canyons, national parks and popular tourist locations such as the NASA Space Center, Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam, Seaworld, Disneyland, and Universal Studios. Figure \[fig:dataset-images\] shows a few sample frames from the dataset. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive egocentric dataset that includes both HD videos at a wide range of locations along with a rich source of contextual meta-data.
![\[fig:dataset-map\]A heatmap showing the egocentric data collected while driving from the east coast to the west coast of the United States over a period of 14 days. Hotter regions on the map indicate the availability of larger amounts of video data.](dataset_map){width="1\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:dataset-images\]Sample frames showing the diversity of our egocentric vacation dataset. The dataset includes over 26.5 hours of HD egocentric video at 30 fps.](dataset_images){width="1\columnwidth"}
{width="100.00000%"}
Evaluation
==========
We performed tests on the individual components of our pipeline in order to assess the output of each individual metric. Figure \[fig:sample-each\] shows three sample images that received high scores in composition alone and three sample images that received high scores in symmetry alone (both computed independent of other metrics). Based on this evaluation, which gave us an insight into the importance of combining frame composition and symmetry, we set $\lambda_1=0.8$ and $\lambda_2=0.2$. Figure \[fig:sample-all\] depicts 10 sample images that were highly ranked in the final output album of 100 frames. In order to evaluate our results, which are inherently subjective, we conduct A/B testing on two baselines with a notable set of subjects on Amazon Mechanical Turk.
![\[fig:sample-each\]Top row shows 3 samples frames that were ranked high in composition alone and the bottom row shows 3 sample frames that were ranked high in symmetry alone.](good_composition_symmetry){width="1\columnwidth"}
Study 1 - Geographically Uniform Baseline
-----------------------------------------
![\[fig:results\_baseline\_1\]This figure demonstrates the agreement percentage for the top k images of our pipeline. For instance, for the top 50% images, we have an agreement percentage of 86.67%. This represents the number of users in our study that believed that our images were more picturesque than the baseline.](results_baseline_1){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
Our first user study consists of 100 images divided over 10 Human Intelligence Tasks (HIT) for 200 users (10 image pairs per HIT). To get good quality, we required participants to have an approval rating of 95% and a minimum of 1000 approved HITs. The HITs took an average time of 1 minute and 6 seconds to complete and the workers were all rewarded \$0.06 per HIT. Due to the subjective nature of the assessment, we opted to approve and pay all of our workers within the hour.
**Baseline:** For this baseline we select $x$ images that are equally distributed across the GPS data of the entire dataset. This was performed by uniformly sampling the GPS data and selecting the corresponding video for that point. After selecting the appropriate video we select the closest frame in time to the GPS data point. We were motivated to explore this baseline due to the nature of the dataset (data was collected from the East to the West coast of the United States). The main benefit of this baseline is that it properly represents the locations throughout the dataset and is not biased by the varying distribution of videos that can be seen in the heatmaps in Figure \[fig:dataset-map\].
**Experiment Setup:** The experiment had a very straightforward setup. The title of the HIT informed the user of their task, “Compare two images, click on the best one.". The user was presented with 10 pairs of images for each task. Above each pair of images, the user was presented with detailed instructions, “Of these two (2) images, click which one you think is better to include in a vacation album.". The left / right images and the order of the image pairs were randomized for every individual HIT in order to remove bias. Upon completion the user was able to submit the HIT and perform the next set of 10 image comparisons. Every image the user saw within a single HIT and the user study was unique and therefore not repeated across HITs. The image pair was always the same, so users were consistently comparing the same pair (albeit with random left / right placement). Turkers were incredibly pleased with the experiment and we received extensive positive feedback on the HITs.
**Results:** Figure \[fig:results\_baseline\_1\] demonstrates the agreement percentage of the user study from the top five images to the top 100, with a step size of 5. For our top 50 photo album, we obtain an agreement percentage from 200 turkers of 86.67%. However, for the top 5-30 photos, we obtain an agreement of greater than 90%. We do note the inverse correlation between album size and agreement which is due to the increasing prevalence of frames taken from inside the vehicle while driving and the general subjectiveness of vacation album assessment.
Study 2 - Chronologically Uniform Baseline
-------------------------------------------
![\[fig:results\_baseline\_2\]This figure demonstrates the average agreement percentage among 50 master turkers for our top k frames. For instance, for our top 50 frames, we obtain an agreement percentage of 68.68%.](results_baseline_2){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
Our second user study consists of 100 images divided over 10 HITs (10 per HIT) for 50 Master users (Turkers with demonstrated accuracy). These HITs took an average time of 57 seconds to complete and the workers were all rewarded \$0.10 per HIT.
![\[fig:comparison\]Three sample highlights from the Egocentric Social Interaction dataset [@fathi2012cvpr]](comparison){width="1\columnwidth"}
**Baseline:** In this user study we developed a more challenging baseline in which we do not assume an advantage by using of GPS data. Our pipeline and the chronological uniform baseline are both given clips after the GPS data has parsed out the “unimportant" locations. The baseline uniformly samples in time across the entire subset of videos and selects those frames for comparison. We do note that the distribution of data is heavily weighted on important regions of the dataset where a lot of data was collected, which adds to the bias of location interest and the challenging nature of this baseline.
**Experimental Setup:** The protocol for the chronologically uniform baseline was identical. Due to the difficult baseline, we increase the overall requirements for Mechanical Turk workers and allowed only “Masters" to work on our HITs. We decreased our sample size to 50 Masters due to the difficulty of obtaining turkers with Masters certification. The title and instructions from the previous user study were kept identical along with the randomization of the two images within a pair, and the 10 pairs within a HIT.
**Results:** For the top 50 images, we obtain an agreement percentage of 68.67% (See Figure \[fig:results\_baseline\_2\]). We once again note the high level of agreement for the top 5 images, 97.7% agree the images belong in a vacation photo album. These results reinforce our pipeline as a viable approach to determining quality frames from a massive dataset of video. We also note the decrease in accuracy beyond 50 images, in which the agreement percentage between turkers reaches 51.42% for all the top 100 images. We believe this is due to the difficulty of the baseline, and the hard constraint on the number of quality frames in interesting locations that are properly aligned and unoccluded.
![\[fig:assessment\]Left: 95% agreement between turkers that they would include this picture in their vacation album. Top Right: 62% agreement. Bottom Right: 8% agreement.](single_assessment){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Assessing Turker Agreement
--------------------------
In Figure \[fig:assessment\], we can see three output images that had varying levels of agreement percentages between turkers. The left image with 95% agreement between Turkers is a true-positive, which is a good representation of a vacation image. The top-right and bottom-right images are two sample false positives that were deemed to be highlights by our system. These received 62% and 8% agreement respectively. We observe false positives when the users’ hand breaches the rule of thirds’ region (like the top-right image), thereby firing erroneous high scores in composition. Also, random bright colored objects (like the red bag in front of the greenish-blue water in the bottom-right image) resulted in high scores on color vibrancy.
Generalization on Other Datasets
--------------------------------
**Egocentric Approaches:** Comparing our approach to other egocentric approaches is challenging due to the applicability of other approaches to our dataset. State-of-the-art techniques on egocentric videos such as [@ut2012cvpr; @ut2013cvpr] focus on activities of daily living and rely on detecting commonly occurring objects, while approaches such as [@fathi2011iccv; @fathi2011cvpr] rely on detecting hands and their relative position to the objects within the scene. In contrast, we have in-the-wild vacation videos without any predefined or commonly occurring object classes. Other approaches, such as [@gygli2014eccv], perform superframe segmentation on the entire video corpus which does not scale to 26.5 hours of egocentric videos. Further, [@fathi2012cvpr] uses 8 egocentric video feeds to understand social interactions which is distinct from our dataset and research goal. However, we are keen to note that the Social Interactions dataset collected at Disneyland by [@fathi2012cvpr] was the closest dataset we could find to resemble a vacation dataset due to its location. We ran our pipeline on this dataset, and our results can be seen in Figure \[fig:comparison\]. The results are representative of vibrant, well-composed, symmetric shots which reinforce the robustness of our pipeline. We do note that these results are obtained without GPS preprocessing which was not available / applicable to that dataset.
![\[fig:improvement\]Left: Percentage of images with an increase in the final score for both the Human-Crop dataset [@fang2014mm] and Expert-Crop dataset [@luo2011iccv; @yan2013cvpr]. Right: Percentage of images in the Human-Crop dataset with an increase in the final score as a function of the composition and symmetry weights.](improvements_4){width="1\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:improved\_symetry\]Two examples of the original images and the images cropped by expert photographers. Note the improvement in the overall symmetry of the image.](improved_symmetry){width="1\columnwidth"}
**Photo Collections:** In order to analyze the external validity of our approach on non-egocentric datasets, we tested our methodology on two state-of-the-art photo collection datasets. The first dataset [@fang2014mm] consists of 500 user-generated photographs. Each image was manually cropped by 10 Master users on Amazon Mechanical Turk. We label this dataset the “Human-Crop dataset". The second dataset [@luo2011iccv; @yan2013cvpr] consists of 1000 photographs taken by amateur photographers. In this case, each image was manually cropped by three expert photographers (graduate students in art whose primary medium is photography). We label this dataset the “Expert-Crop dataset". Both datasets have aesthetically pleasing photographs spanning a variety of image categories, including architecture, landscapes, animals, humans, plants and man-made objects.
To assess our metrics effectiveness we ran our pipeline (with $\lambda_1=0.8$ and $\lambda_2=0.2$) on both the original uncropped images and the cropped images provided by the human labelers. Since the cropped images are supposed to represent an aesthetic improvement, our hypothesis was that we should see an increase in our scoring metrics for the cropped images relative to the original shot. For each image in the dataset, we compare the scores of each of the cropped variants (where the crops are provided by the labelers) to the scores of the original image. The scores for that image are considered an improvement only if we see an increase in a majority of its cropped variants. Figure \[fig:improvement\] (left) shows the percentage of images that saw an improvement in each of the four scores: composition, vibrancy, symmetry and the overall final score. We can see that the final score was improved for 80.74% of the images in the Human-Crop dataset and for 63.28% of the images in the Expert-Crop dataset.
We are keen to highlight that the traditional photography pipeline begins with the preparation and composition of the shot in appropriate lighting and finishes with post-processing the captured light using state-of-the-art software. Hence, the cropping of the photograph is a sliver of the many tasks undertaken by a photographer. This is directly reflected in the fact that we do not see a large increase in the composition and vibrancy scores for the images as those metrics are somewhat irrespective of applying a crop window within a shot that has already been taken. The task of cropping the photographs has its most direct effect in making the images more symmetrical. This is reflected in the large increase in our symmetry scores. Two examples of this can be seen in Figure \[fig:improved\_symetry\]. To test this hypothesis further, we ran an experiment on the Human-Crop dataset where we varied the composition weight $\lambda_1$ between 0 and 1 and set the symmetry score $\lambda_2=1-\lambda_1$. From Figure \[fig:improvement\] (right), we can see that the percentage of images that saw an increase in the final score increases as $\lambda_1$ (the composition weight) decreases and $\lambda_2$ (the symmetry weight) increases. Also note that we see a larger improvement in our scores for the Human-Crop dataset when compared to the Expert-Crop dataset. This behavior is representative of the fact that the Expert-Crop dataset has professional photographs that are already very well-composed (and cropping provides only minor improvements) when compared to the Human-Crop dataset that has user-generated photographs where there is more scope for improvement with the use of a simple crop.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we presented an approach that identifies picturesque highlights from egocentric vacation videos. We introduce a novel pipeline that considers composition, symmetry and color vibrancy as scoring metrics for determining what is picturesque. We reinforce these metrics by accounting for head tilt using a novel technique to bypass the difficulties of horizon detection. We further demonstrate the benefits of meta-data in our pipeline by utilizing GPS data to minimize computation and better understand the places of travel in the vacation dataset. We exhibit promising results from two user studies and the generalizability of our pipeline by running experiments on two other state-of-the-art photo collection datasets.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper deals with complex structures on Lie algebras $\ct_{\pi} \hh=\hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$, where $\pi$ is either the adjoint or the coadjoint representation. The main topic is the existence question of complex structures on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$ for $\hh$ a three dimensional real Lie algebra. First it was proposed the study of complex structures $J$ satisfying the constrain $J\hh=V$. Whenever $\pi$ is the adjoint representation this kind of complex structures are associated to non singular derivations of $\hh$. This fact derives different kind of applications. Finally an approach to the pseudo Kähler geometry was done.'
address:
- 'R. Campoamor-Stursberg: IMI y FCM, Universidad Complutense de Madrid'
- 'G. Ovando: CONICET y ECEN-FCEIA, Universidad Nacional de Rosario'
author:
- 'Rutwig Campoamor-Stursberg'
- 'Gabriela P. Ovando'
date: '17/2/2009'
title: complex structures on tangent and cotangent Lie algebras of dimension six
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
While the existence of complex structures on reductive Lie algebras of even dimension was solved in different steps (starting with [@Sm] and [@Wa]), the solvable case remains an open problem. For dimensions up to four, complex structures were studied in [@Sa1; @SJ; @O]; in dimension six the classification and induced complex geometry has been considered in the nilpotent case in [@CFGU1; @CFGU2; @CFU; @FPS; @GR; @Mg; @Sl; @Ug]. Since those works are mainly done on the basis of a case by case study, one of the principal obstructions in classifying complex (and more general) structures on solvable Lie groups of dimensions equal or greater than six relies in the high number of isomorphism classes. This implies that different criteria have to be developed in order to describe any kind of geometry on Lie groups. One of these is the notion of generalized complex structure, introduced by Hitchin in [@Hi] and treated by various authors (see for instance [@ABDF; @CG; @G] and references therein). On the other hand, in order to study the complex geometry, special types of complex structures were considered, the so called abelian [@BDM] and nilpotent [@CFGU1; @CFGU2], specific for nilpotent Lie algebras, and which have been shown to be of considerable interest, in particular in combination with other compatible geometric structures.
The aim of this work is the study of complex structures on tangent and cotangent Lie algebras, that is Lie algebras which are semidirect products $\ct_{\pi} \hh= \hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$, for $\dim
V=\hh$, originally for $\pi$ the adjoint or the coadjoint representation. We focus in the following existence questions:
i\) complex structures satisfying the condition $J\hh=V$,
ii\) complex structures on $\ct \hh$ and $\ct^*\hh$ where $\hh$ is a three dimensional real Lie algebra,
iii\) symplectic structures which are compatible for a complex structure in ii), therefore inducing pseudo Kähler geometries.
Complex structures appearing in i) are called [*totally real*]{}. They have become objects of importance in the construction of weak mirror pairs (see for instance [@CLP] and references therein).
Complex and symplectic geometry are extremal special cases of generalized complex geometry. Once a Lie algebra $\hh$ was fixed, the corresponding underlying geometric structure arises either as a complex structure on $\hh$ or as a totally real complex structure on $\ct^*\hh$, which is Hermitian for the canonical metric on $\ct^*\hh$.
For the adjoint representation we prove that a totally real complex structure corresponds to a non singular derivation of $\hh$. Therefore the existence of such a totally real complex structure on $\ct \hh$ imposes the condition on $\hh$ to be nilpotent (Theorem (\[le22\])). In dimension three only $\ct \hh_1$, where $\hh_1$ denotes the Heisenberg Lie algebra of dimension three, posseses a totally real complex structure. As application one proves the existence of a generalized complex structure of symplectic type on some kind of nilpotent Lie algebras $\hh$ and the existence of lagrangian symplectic structures on $\ct^*\hh$.
For the coadjoint representation, we give the general form of totally real complex structures $J$ on $\ct^*\hh$, proving the existence when $\hh$ is one of the following three dimensional Lie algebras: the Heisenberg Lie algebra, the Lie algebra of the group of rigid motions of the Minkowski 2-space $\rr_{3,-1}$, the Lie algebra of the group of rigid motions of the Euclidean 2-space $\rr_{3,0}'$ and the one dimensional trivial central extension of the Lie algebra of the group of affine motions, usually denoted as $\aff(\RR)$.
In addition to the Lie algebras obtained in i) the six dimensional tangent Lie algebras admitting complex structures correspond to a Lie algebra $\hh$ which is either simple: $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$, $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ or solvable and isomorphic to $\RR \times \aff(\RR)$. In the cotangent case we add $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$, $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ $\rr_{3,1}$ and $\rr_{3,\eta}'$ for $\eta >0$.
Concerning iii) we study the geometry that derives from the Kähler pairs. The only Lie algebras carrying such a structure are: the tangent and the cotangent of the Heisenberg Lie algebra and the tangent of $\RR\times \aff(\RR)$. The study in the nilpotent case says that there are flat and non flat pseudo Kähler metrics, result which extends those in [@CFU]. Again in this case totally real complex structures provide examples for Kähler pairs. The second author expresses her gratitude to the hospitality of the Departmento de Geometría y Topología of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, where part of this work was written.
Generalities on Complex structures
==================================
An [*almost complex*]{} structure on a Lie algebra $\ggo$ is an endomorphism $J:\ggo \to \ggo$ satisfying $J^2=-{\rm I}$, where ${\rm I}$ is the identity map.
Let $\ggo^{\CC}=\ggo \otimes \CC$ denote the complexification of $\ggo$ whose elements have the form $v \otimes c$, with $v \in
\ggo,\quad c\in \CC$. An almost complex structure $J$ on $\ggo$ can be extended to a complex linear endomorphism of $\ggo^{\CC}$ that we also denote by $J$, by setting $J(v \otimes c)=Jv \otimes
c$.
As usual, we identify $v\in \ggo$, with $v \otimes 1 \in
\ggo^{\CC}$, and hence any element in $\ggo^{\CC}$ can be written as $x+iy$ where $x, y \in \ggo$. With this identification, the eigenspace corresponding to the imaginary eigenvalue $i$ of $J$ is the subspace $\mm$ of $\ggo^{\CC}$ given by $$\mm =\{ x - i Jx \, : \, x \in \ggo\}.$$ If we denote by $\sigma$ the conjugation map on $\ggo^{\CC}$, that is, $\sigma(x+iy)= x-iy$, the eigenspace corresponding to $-i$ is $\sigma \mm$, and we obtain the direct sum of vector spaces $$\label{des}
\ggo = \mm \oplus \sigma \mm.$$ Conversely any decomposition of type (\[des\]) induces an almost complex structure on $\ggo$. In fact if $x\in \ggo \subseteq \ggo^{\CC}$ and $x$ can be written uniquely as $x=u + v\in \mm \oplus \sigma \mm$ define an endomorphism $J$ by $J x =i u -i v$. Since $\sigma \circ J = J \circ \sigma$, the map $J$ gives rise to an almost complex structure on $\ggo$.
The integrability condition of an almost complex structure $J$ is expressed in terms of the Nijenhuis tensor $N_J$ $$\label{NJ}
N_J(x,y)=[Jx,Jy]-[x,y] - J[Jx,y] - J[x,Jy], \qquad\mbox{ for all }
x,y \in \ggo.$$
It is straightforward to verify that $N_J(Jx,Jy)=-N_J(x,y)$ for any $x,y\in \ggo$. Hence, if $\ggo= \uu \oplus J \uu$ is a direct sum as vector subspaces, then $N_J\equiv 0$ if and only if $N_J(u,v)=0=N_J(u,Jv)$ for all $u,v \in \uu$.
An almost complex structure $J$ on $\ggo$ is called [*integrable*]{} if $N_J\equiv 0$. In this case $J$ is called a [*complex structure*]{} on $\ggo$. Equivalently, $J$ is integrable if and only if $\mm$ (and hence $\sigma \mm$) satisfying (\[des\]) is a complex subalgebra of $\ggo^{\CC}$.
Special types of almost complex structures are determined by those endomorphisms $J :\ggo \to \ggo$ satisfying $J^2 = -{\rm I}$ and one of the following conditions for any $x, y\in \ggo$: $$\mbox{c1)}\,\,J[x,y]= [x,Jy] \qquad \qquad
\mbox{c2)}\,\,[Jx,Jy]= [x,y].$$ In any case they are integrable. Complex structures of type c1) determine a structure of complex Lie algebra on $\ggo$, they are sometimes called [*bi-invariant*]{}. The subalgebra corresponding to the eigenvalue $\pm i$ is actually an ideal of $\ggo^{\CC}$. Structures of type c2) are called [*abelian*]{}, and the corresponding eigenspaces for the eigenvalues $\pm i$ are complex abelian subalgebras of $\ggo^{\CC}$. It should be remarked that not any Lie algebra admitting a complex structure can be endowed with an abelian complex structure, as shows the following example.
\[exa1\] Let $\hh_1$ be the Heisenberg Lie algebra of dimension three and let $\ct^*\hh_1$ denote the cotangent Lie algebra of $\hh_1$. This is spanned by the vectors $e_1, e_2, e_3,
e_4, e_5, e_6$ with the non trivial Lie bracket relations $$[e_1,e_2]=e_3, \quad [e_1, e_6]=-e_5,\quad [e_2, e_6]=e_4.$$ Assume $J:\ct^*\hh_1 \to \ct^*\hh_1$ is an endomorphism satisfying $[Jx,Jy]=[x,y]$ or, in equivalent form, $[Jx,y]=-[x,Jy]$ for all $x,y \in \ggo$. If $y$ belongs to the center of $\ct^*\hh_1$, by c2) one has that $Jy\in \zz(\ct^*\hh_1)$, thus $J$ restricts to the center $\zz(\ct^*\hh_1)$, and therefore $J$ cannot be almost complex since the dimension of $\zz(\ct^*\hh_1)$ is odd. To see that $\ct^*\hh_1$ admits a complex structure see (\[coth1\]).
As proved in the previous example, if $\ggo$ carries an abelian complex structure, then the center of $\ggo$ must be $J$-invariant and therefore even dimensional. Another necessary condition to have abelian complex structures is that $\ggo$ is 2-step solvable, which means that the commutator subalgebra $C(\ggo)$ is abelian (see [@P] for instance). For the sake of completeness we include here a proof.
Let $\ggo$ be a Lie algebra with a decomposition as direct sum of vector subspaces $\ggo={\mathfrak{a} }\oplus \bb$, where ${\mathfrak{a} }$ and $\bb$ are abelian subalgebras. Denote $[a,b']=a^*+b''$ and $[a',b]=a''+b^*$, with $a, a', a'', a^*\in {\mathfrak{a} }$ and $b,b', b'', b^*\in \bb$. One has $$\begin{array}{rcl}
[[a,b], [a',b']] & = & [[[a,b], a'], b']-[[[a,b],b'],a']\\
& = & -[[[b,a'],a],b']+ [[[b',a],b],a']\\
& = & [[b^*,a],b'] -[[a^*,b],a']\\
& = & -[[a,b'], b^*]+ [[b,a'], a^*]\\
& = & -[a^*, b^*] -[b^*,a^*]=0,
\end{array}$$
which proves that the Lie bracket on $C(\ggo)$ is trivial.
Let $\ggo$ be a Lie algebra and let $J$ be a fixed almost complex structure on $\ggo$. For any $l\geq 0$ we define the set ${\mathfrak{a} }_l(J)$ inductively as: $${\mathfrak{a} }_0(J)=\{0\}, \qquad {\mathfrak{a} }_l(J)=\{ X
\in \ggo,\, /\, [X, \ggo] \subset {\mathfrak{a} }_{l-1} \mbox{ and } [JX,
\ggo] \subset {\mathfrak{a} }_{l-1}\} \quad l \geq 1.$$ It is easy to verify that $${\mathfrak{a} }_0(J) \quad \subseteq \quad {\mathfrak{a} }_1(J) \quad \subseteq \quad {\mathfrak{a} }_2(J) \quad \subseteq \quad \hdots$$
For a fixed $X\in {\mathfrak{a} }_{i+1}(J)$ we have that $[X,Y]\in
{\mathfrak{a} }_{i}(J)\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }_{i+1}(J)$ for all $Y\in \ggo$, and clearly $[J[X,Y],Z]\in {\mathfrak{a} }_i(J) \subset {\mathfrak{a} }_{i+1}(J)$ for all $Y,Z\in
\ggo$. Therefore ${\mathfrak{a} }_i(J)$ is a $J$-invariant ideal of $\ggo$ for any $i\geq 0$.
The almost complex structure $J$ is called [*nilpotent*]{} if there exists a $t$ such that ${\mathfrak{a} }_t(J) =\ggo$. This implies that $\ggo$ must be nilpotent. For a nilpotent almost complex structure $J$ on a $s$-step nilpotent Lie algebra of even dimension we shall say that it is $r$-step nilpotent if $r$ is the first nonnegative integer such that ${\mathfrak{a} }_r(J)=\ggo$; this satisfies the inequality $s\leq r \leq n$ [@CFGU2]. In the following sections examples are given that show that these bounds are actually reached (see (\[coth1\]) and (\[tah1\])). Notice that if $J$ is a nilpotent almost complex structure on a nilpotent Lie algebra $\ggo$, then any term of the ascending series of $\ggo$ admits a two dimensional $J$-invariant subspace. Clearly, if $J$ is integrable, the condition of being nilpotent is stronger than asking the corresponding $\mm$ for $J$ to be nilpotent.
Notice $a_1(J)\subseteq \zz(\ggo)$. If $J$ is abelian then the equality holds $a_1(J)=\zz(\ggo)$.
The canonical complex structure of a nilpotent complex Lie algebra is nilpotent (see (\[cn\])).
An equivalence relation is defined among Lie algebras with complex structures. Lie algebras with complex structures $(\ggo_1,J_1)$ and $(\ggo_2,J_2)$ are called [*holomorphically equivalent*]{} if there exists an isomorphism of Lie algebras $\alpha:\ggo_1 \to \ggo_2$ such that $J_2 \circ \alpha = \alpha \circ J_1$. In particular when $\ggo_1=\ggo_2$ we simply say that $J_1$ and $J_2$ are [*equivalent*]{} and a classification of complex structures can be done.
\[le\] Let $\ggo$ be an even dimensional real Lie algebra.
i\) The class of an abelian complex structure, if non-empty, consists only of abelian complex structures.
ii\) Let $J, J'$ be complex structures on $\ggo$ such that $J'=\sigma J \sigma^{-1}$. Then $\sigma {\mathfrak{a} }_l(J)={\mathfrak{a} }_l(J')$ for any $l\geq 0$.
In particular the class of a nilpotent complex structure on a given nilpotent Lie algebra consists only of nilpotent complex structures, all of them being nilpotent of the same type.
iii\) The class of a bi-invariant complex structure has only bi-invariant complex structures.
i\) Let $J$ an abelian complex structure on $\ggo$. If $J'=\sigma J \sigma^{-1}$, the result follows using that $\sigma$ is an automorphism and $J$ is abelian.
ii\) For $i=0$ it is clear that $\sigma {\mathfrak{a} }_0(J)={\mathfrak{a} }_0(J')$. Assume that $\sigma {\mathfrak{a} }_l(J) ={\mathfrak{a} }_l(J')$ for all $l\leq i$. Let $X\in {\mathfrak{a} }_{i+1}(J)$. It follows at once that the following identity is satisfied $$[\sigma X, \ggo]=[\sigma X, \sigma \ggo]=\sigma [X, \ggo] \in \sigma {\mathfrak{a} }_i(J) ={\mathfrak{a} }_i(J').$$ On the other hand, $$[J'\sigma X, \ggo]=[\sigma J X, \ggo]=\sigma [J X, \ggo]\in \sigma {\mathfrak{a} }_i(J) ={\mathfrak{a} }_i(J').$$ Therefore $\sigma {\mathfrak{a} }_{i+1}(J) \subset {\mathfrak{a} }_{i+1}(J')$. A similar argument, interchanging the roles of $J$ and $J'$, proves that $\sigma {\mathfrak{a} }_i(J)={\mathfrak{a} }_i(J')$.
iii\) follows by direct application of the definitions.
From the definitions above it is not immediately clear which is the relationship between nilpotent complex structures and complex structures whose corresponding $i$-eigenspace $\mm$ is nilpotent. In (\[tah1\]) we show that the tangent Lie algebra of the Heisenberg Lie algebra $\hh_1$ carries only 2-step nilpotent complex structures, some of them being abelian, and others having $\pm i$-eigenspaces which are 2-step nilpotent subalgebras.
Totally real complex structures on tangent and cotangent Lie algebras
=====================================================================
The aim of this section is the study of totally real complex structures on tangent and cotangent Lie algebras, that is complex structures $J$ on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$ such that $J\hh=V$.
We briefly recall the construction. Let $\hh$ denote a real Lie algebra and let $(\pi,V)$ be a finite dimensional representation of $\hh$. By endowing $V$ with the trivial Lie bracket, consider the semidirect product of $\hh$ and $V$ relative to $\pi$, $\ct_{\pi} \hh:= \hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$, where the Lie bracket is: $$[(x,v), (x', v')]=([x,x'], \pi(x) v' - \pi(x') v)\qquad x,x'\in \hh, v,v'\in V.$$
In this work we focus on the the adjoint and the coadjoint representations. In both cases $V$ is a real vector space with the same dimension as that of $\hh$. The adjoint representation $\ad: \hh \to \mathfrak{gl}(\hh)$ is given by $\ad(x) y = [x,y]$, and it defines the [*tangent*]{} Lie algebra that we denote with $\ct \hh$.
For the coadjoint representation $\ad^*:\hh \to \mathfrak{gl}(\hh^*)$, that is $V=\hh^*$, and $$\label{coad}
\ad(x)^* \varphi (y) = - \varphi \circ \ad(x) y \qquad \mbox{ for } x, y
\in \hh, \, \varphi \in \hh^*;$$ we call the resulting Lie algebra [*cotangent Lie algebra*]{} and we denote it as $\ct^*\hh$.
A question concerning complex structures when we look at the algebraic structure of the Lie algebra $\ct_{\pi} \hh=\hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$ is whether there exists an almost complex structure $J$ such that $J \hh=V$. Such a $J$ induces a linear isomorphism $j:\hh \to V$, and conversely any such $j:\hh \to V$ determines an almost complex structure on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$ such that $J\hh=V$, by means of $$\label{j}
J(x,v)=(-j^{-1} v, j x) \qquad x\in \hh, v\in V, \,j: \hh \to V.$$
It follows that both $\hh$ and $V$ are totally real with respect to $J$. We adopt the next terminology, following [@CLP].
Let $\ct_{\pi} \hh:=\hh\ltimes_{\pi} V$ be the semidirect product of a Lie algebra $\hh$ with the real vector space $V$ such that $\dim V=\dim \hh$ and let $J$ denote an (almost) complex structure on $\ct_{\pi}\hh$. If $J\hh=V$ we say that $J$ is a [*totally real*]{} (almost) complex structure on $\ggo$.
Assume $(\pi, V)$ denotes a finite dimensional representation of $\hh$ and let $J$ be a totally real almost complex structure on $\ct_{\pi} \hh= \hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$ like in (\[j\]). In this case, the integrability condition for $J$ reduces to $$\label{e12}
0 = [x,y] - j^{-1} \pi(x) j y + j^{-1} \pi(y) j x\qquad \mbox{ for all } x, y\in \hh.$$
Fix a Lie algebra $\hh$, recall that the representations $(V, \pi)$ and $(V',\pi')$ are called [*equivalent*]{} if there is a linear isomorphism $T:V \to V'$ such that $T^{-1} \pi'(x) T = \pi(x)$ for all $x\in \hh$.
Actually for any $\psi\in Aut(\hh)$, the map $\varphi:\ct_{\pi} \hh \to \ct_{\pi'} \hh$ given by $\varphi=\psi+T$ is a Lie algebra isomorphism. In fact for all $x,y\in \hh$, $u,v\in V$ $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi[x+u, y+v] & = & \varphi([x,y]+\pi(x) v - \pi(y)u)\\
& = & \psi [x,y]+ T\pi(x) v - T\pi(y)u\\
& = & [\psi x, \psi y] + \pi'(x) T v - \pi'(y) Tu\\
& = & [\varphi(x+u), \varphi(y+v)]
\end{array}$$ And therefore if $J$ denote a complex structure on $\ct_{\pi}\hh$ then $J':=\varphi \circ J \circ \varphi^{-1}$ denotes a complex structure on $\ct_{\pi'} \hh$ making of $(\ct_{\pi} \hh, J)$ and $(\ct_{\pi'} \hh, J')$ a pair of holomorphically equivalent Lie algebras.
In particular if $J$ is a totally real complex structure on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$, then $(\ct_{\pi}\hh, J)$ is holomorphically equivalent to $(\ct_{\pi'}\hh, \tilde{J})$ where $\tilde{J}_{|{_\hh}}:\hh \to V'$ is $\tilde{J}=T \circ J_{|_{\hh}}$ and extended as in (\[j\]). The proof of the following result follows by using these relations and the integrability condition (\[e12\]).
\[ceq\] Let $(V, \pi)$ and $(V', \pi')$ be equivalent representations of a Lie algebra $\hh$ such that $\dim V = \dim V'=\dim \hh$. Complex structures on $\ct_{\pi}\hh$ are in one to one correspondence with complex structures on $\ct_{\pi'} \hh$.
In particular, totally real complex structures on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$ are homomorphically equivalent to totally real complex structures on $\ct_{\pi'} \hh$.
A first consequence of (\[e12\]) concerns abelian complex structures.
\[ca\] Let $\hh$ be a Lie algebra and let $V$ denote the underlying vector space of $\hh$. Let $\ct_{\pi} \hh:=\hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$ denote the semidirect product and let $J$ be an abelian totally real complex structure on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$. Then $\hh$ is abelian and $\pi$ and $J$ are related by $\pi(x) Jy = \pi(y) Jx$ for all $x,y\in \hh$.
The converse of the previous corollary is true. Let $\hh$ denote an abelian Lie algebra and let $\pi$ be a representation of $\hh$ into $\hh$. Then if $j:\hh\to \hh$ is a non singular map such that $\pi(x)jy =\pi(y) jx$ for all $x,y\in \hh$, then the almost complex structure on $\hh \ltimes_{\pi} \hh$ given as in (\[j\]) is integrable and totally real with respect to $\hh$. See the final section for an explicit example.
Consider $\RR^n$ with the canonical basis $\{e_1, e_2, \hdots, e_n\}$ and let $A$ be a non singular $n\times n$ real matrix. Let $C_A$ denote the centralizer of $A$ in $gl(n,\RR)$ that is, the set of $n\times n$ matrices $B$ such that $BA=AB$. Let $B_1, B_2, \hdots ,B_n$ be $n$ matrices in $C_A$ such that they are pairwise in involution, $B_i B_j = B_j B_i$ for all $i,j$. Take $\pi$ the representation of $\RR^n$ which extends linearly the mapping $e_i \to B_i$ (notice that this could be trivial depending on $A$). The map $j$ represented by $A$ amounts to a totally real abelian complex structure on $\ct_{\pi} \RR^n$.
When $\pi$ is the adjoint representation, the solutions of (\[e12\]) have an algebraic interpretation as it will be seen next. Recall first that a [*derivation*]{} of a Lie algebra $\hh$ is a linear map $d:\hh \to \hh$ such that $$d[x,y]=[dx, y] + [x,dy]\qquad \qquad \mbox{ for all } x,y \in \hh.$$
Jacobson proved that if a Lie algebra $\hh$ admits a non singular derivation then it must be nilpotent [@Ja].
\[le22\] Let $\ct \hh$ denote the tangent Lie algebra of $\hh$. The set of totally real complex structures on $\ct \hh$ is in one to one correspondence with the set of non singular derivations of $\hh$. If one (and therefore both) of these sets is non empty, then $\hh$ is nilpotent.
Let $\ad$ denote the adjoint representation of $\hh$. The integrability condition (\[e12\]) becomes $$0 = j[x,y] - \ad(x) jy + \ad(y) jx \qquad \mbox{ for all } x,y \in \hh.$$ This shows, via identifications, that the complex structure $J$ determined by $j$ (\[j\]) corresponds to a non singular derivation of $\hh$. The proof is completed after the application of the result of Jacobson.
\[derh1\] Let $\hh_1$ denote the Heisenberg Lie algebra of dimension three (see \[lie3\]). By Lemma (\[le22\]) if $J$ is a totally real complex structure on $\ct \hh_1$, then it corresponds to a non singular derivation of $\hh_1$. Any non singular derivation of $\hh_1$ has a matrix representation in the basis of (\[lie3\]) given by: $$\left( \begin{matrix} A & 0 \\ * & tr(A) \end{matrix}
\right),\qquad \mbox{ with } A\in GL(2,\RR)\quad \mbox{ and } tr(A)\neq 0$$ where $tr$ denotes the trace of the matrix $A$.
More generally any non singular derivation $d$ of the Heisenberg Lie algebra $\hh_n$ of dimension $2n+1$, has a matrix representation as above with $A\in GL(2n, \RR)$ and $tr(A)\neq 0$. This induces a totally real complex structure $J$ on the tangent Lie algebra $\ct \hh_n$.
Totally real complex structures on six dimensional cotangent Lie algebras
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now proceed to analyze the existence of totally real complex structures on six dimensional cotangent Lie algebras $\ct^*\hh$. To this extend, recall the classification of three dimensional Lie algebras as given e.g. in [@GOV] or [@Mi].
\[lie3\] Let $\hh$ be a real Lie algebra of dimension three spanned by $e_1,e_2,e_3$. Then it is isomorphic to one and only one in the following list: $$\begin{array}{rll}
\hh_1 & [e_1,e_2]=e_3 \\
\rr_{3} & [e_1,e_2]=e_2,\, [e_1,e_3]= e_2 + e_3 \\
\rr_{3,\lambda} & [e_1,e_2]=e_2,\, [e_1,e_3]= \lambda e_3 & |\lambda| \leq 1 \\
\rr_{3,\eta}' & [e_1,e_2]=\eta e_2- e_3,\, [e_1,e_3]= e_2 + \eta e_3 & \eta \geq 0\\
\mathfrak{sl}(2) & [e_1,e_2]=e_3,\, [e_3,e_1]= 2e_1,\, [e_3,e_2]= -2e_2\\
\mathfrak{so}(3) & [e_1,e_2]=e_3,\, [e_3,e_1]= e_2,\, [e_3,e_2]= -e_1
\end{array}$$
A Lie algebra $\ggo$ which satisfies $tr(\ad(x))=0$ for all $x\in
\ggo$ is called unimodular. Among the Lie algebras above, the unimodular ones are: $\hh_1$, $\rr_{3,-1}$ and $\rr_{3,0}'$. The Lie algebra $\hh_1$ is known as the Heisenberg Lie algebra, while $\rr_{3,-1}$ is the Lie algebra of the group of rigid motions of the Minkowski 2-space and $\rr_{3,0}'$ corresponds to the Lie algebra of the group of rigid motions of the Euclidean 2-space. The Lie algebra $\rr_{3,0}$ denotes the central extension of the Lie algebra of the group of affine motions in $\RR$, usually denoted as $\aff(\RR)$.
\[trct\] Let $\ct^*\hh=\hh \ltimes \hh^*$ be a cotangent Lie algebra of a three dimensional Lie algebra $\hh$. Then totally real complex structures on $\ct^{\ast}\hh$ exist whenever $\hh$ is either unimodular or isomorphic to $\RR \times \aff(\RR)$. In those cases the map $j:\hh \to \hh^*$ admits a matrix representation as follows $$\ct^* \hh_1\quad \left( \begin{matrix} a_{41} & a_{42} & a_{43}
\\ a_{51} & a_{52} & a_{53} \\ -a_{43} & -a_{53} & 0 \end{matrix}
\right); \qquad \ct^*\rr_{3,-1} \quad \left( \begin{matrix} a_{41}
& a_{42} & a_{43} \\ -a_{42} & 0 & a_{53} \\ -a_{43} & -a_{53} & 0 \end{matrix} \right);$$ $$\ct^*\rr_{3,0} \quad \left( \begin{matrix} a_{41} & a_{42} & a_{43}
\\ -a_{42} & 0 & 0 \\ a_{61} & 0 & a_{63} \end{matrix} \right); \qquad
\ct^*\rr_{3,0}' \quad \left( \begin{matrix} a_{41} & a_{42} &
a_{43} \\ -a_{42} & 0 & a_{53} \\ -a_{43} & -a_{53} & 0
\end{matrix} \right);$$ where the matrix should be non singular.
The proof follows by direct computation of (\[e12\]) taking $\pi$ as the coadjoint representation. In the cases not listed above, the maps $j$ solving (\[e12\]) are singular, hence they cannot induce a complex structure on $\ct^* \hh$.
Let $\sg$ denote a semisimple Lie algebra. Since the Killing form is non degenerate this induces an ad-invariant metric on $\sg$. Therefore the adjoint and coadjoint representation are equivalent. By (\[ceq\]) the existence of totally real complex structures on $\ct^*\sg$ reduces to the existence of totally real complex structures on $\ct \sg$ and this cannot admit a totally real complex structure by (\[le22\]). Observe that in dimension three the simple Lie algebras are $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ and $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ (see (\[lie3\])).
complex structures on tangent and cotangent Lie algebras of dimension six
=========================================================================
Examples of six dimensional real Lie algebras with complex structures arise from three dimensional complex Lie algebras. In fact let $\tilde{\ggo}$ denote a three dimensional complex Lie algebra, then the underlying real Lie algebra $\ggo:=\tilde{\ggo}_{\RR}$, is naturally equipped with a bi-invariant complex structure induced by the multiplication by $i$ on $\tilde{\ggo}$. In this way this complex structure on $\ggo$ is bi-invariant.
\[cn\] Let $\ggo$ denote a six dimensional two-step nilpotent Lie algebra equipped with bi-invariant complex structure $J$. We shall see that $\ggo$ is isomorphic to the real Lie algebra underlying $\hh_1\otimes \CC$, the complexification of the Heisenberg Lie algebra of dimension three.
Since $J \circ \ad(x) = \ad(x) \circ J$ for any $x\in \ggo$, we obtain the inclusions $J\zz(\ggo)\subseteq \zz(\ggo)$ and $J C(\ggo)\subset C(\ggo)$. Furthermore, there is a central ideal $\vv \subseteq \zz(\ggo)$ such that $$\zz(\ggo)=C(\ggo) \times \vv \qquad \mbox{ direct sum of $J$-invariant Lie algebras.}$$
A way to produce such a $\vv$ is the following. Take $\la \,, \, \ra$ an inner product on $\zz(\ggo)$ which is Hermitian for $J$ and let $\vv =C(\ggo)^{\perp}$.
Thus $\ggo=\vv \times \nn$ where $\nn$ is a two-step nilpotent Lie algebra such that $C(\ggo)=C(\nn)=\zz(\nn)$ and $\nn$ is equipped with a bi-invariant complex structure $J$, induced from that one on $\ggo$. Now if $\vv$ is non empty then it may be two or four dimensional. If it is two dimensional, then $\nn$ is four dimensional and is equipped with a bi-invariant complex structure, therefore it must be abelian (in dimension four a solvable Lie algebra endowed with a bi-invariant complex structure is either abelian or isomorphic to $\aff(\CC)$, see [@O2] for instance). A similar reasoning applies when $\vv$ has dimension four, and therefore $\zz(\ggo)=C(\ggo)$.
Now let $z\in \zz(\ggo)= C(\ggo)$. Then there exist $x, y\in \ggo$ such that $[x,y]=z$. The set $\{x, y, z\}$ is linearly independent and the set $\{x,y,z, Jx, Jy, Jz\}$ is a basis of $\ggo$. Due to the bi-invariance condition on $J$ one has the following Lie bracket relations $$[x,y]=z\quad [Jx,y]=Jz\quad [x,Jy]=Jz\quad [Jx,Jy]=-z$$ moreover $[x,Jx]= 0 =[y,Jy]$, and therefore the Lie algebra $\ggo$ is isomorphic to the real Lie algebra of dimension six underlying $\hh_1 \otimes \CC$.
In the previous section we gave examples of complex structures in tangent and cotangent Lie algebras of dimension six. Now we shall study the existence problem of complex structures on any tangent or cotangent Lie algebra corresponding to a three dimensional real Lie algebra as in (\[lie3\]). Some considerations about abelian and nilpotent complex structures are also be given.
[**The simple case**]{}. Among the Lie algebras listed in (\[lie3\]) the simple ones are $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ and $\mathfrak{so}(3)$. Since the Killing form is non degenerate in both cases, the adjoint and the coadjoint representations are equivalent. After (\[ceq\]) for a semisimple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{s}$, the existence of complex structures on $\ct \mathfrak{s}$ determines one on $\ct^*\mathfrak{s}$ and viceversa. Recall that complex structures on compact semisimple and more generally on reductive Lie algebras were extended studied (see for instance [@Sm][@Wa] [@Sa1] [@Sa2] [@SD]). We perform below a construction of a complex structure on $\ct \mathfrak{sl}(2)$ and $\ct \mathfrak{so}(3)$. Explicitly the Lie brackets are given by: $$\begin{array}{llll}
\ct \mathfrak{sl}(2) & [e_1,e_2]=e_3 & [e_3,e_1]= 2e_1 & [e_3,e_2]= -2e_2\\
& [e_1,e_5]=e_6 & [e_1,e_6]= -2e_4 & [e_2,e_4]= -e_6\\
& [e_2,e_6]=2e_5 & [e_3,e_4]= 2e_4 & [e_3,e_5]= -2e_5\\
\ct \mathfrak{so}(3) & [e_1,e_2]=e_3 & [e_3,e_1]= e_2 & [e_3,e_2]= -e_1\\
& [e_1,e_5]=-e_6 & [e_1,e_6]= e_5 & [e_2,e_4]= -e_6\\
& [e_2,e_6]=e_4 & [e_3,e_4]= -e_5 & [e_3,e_5]= e_4
\end{array}$$ In any case an almost complex structure $J$ can be defined by $$J e_3= e_6\qquad Je_2=e_1 \qquad Je_4= e_5.$$ By calculating $N_J$ one verifies that $J$ is integrable. Hence
[*The tangent Lie algebras $\ct \mathfrak{so}(3)$ and $\ct \mathfrak{sl}(2)$ (and therefore $\ct^*\mathfrak{so}(3)$ and $\ct^* \mathfrak{sl}(2)$) carry complex structures*]{}
[**The solvable case.**]{} Suppose that $\ggo$ is a six dimensional tangent $\ct \hh$ or cotangent Lie algebra $\ct^* \hh$ being $\hh$ a solvable real Lie algebra of dimension three. It admits a complex structure if and only if $\ggo^{\CC}$ decomposes as a direct sum of vector subspaces $\ggo^{\CC}=\mm
\oplus \sigma \mm$, where $\mm$ (resp. $\sigma \mm$) is a complex subalgebra. Without lost of generality assume that $\mm$ is spanned by vectors $U, V, W$ as follows: $$\label{uv} U= e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3 + a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 + a_6 e_6
\quad V= b_2 e_2 + b_3 e_3 + b_4 e_4 + b_5 e_5 + b_6 e_6,$$ $$W= c_2 e_2 + c_3 e_3 + c_4 e_4 + c_5 e_5 + c_6 e_6, \quad a_i, b_j, c_k\in \CC, \forall i, j, k=2, \hdots 6.$$ Let ${\mathfrak{a} }:=span\{V,W\}$. We claim that ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is a ideal in $\mm$. In fact, according to the Lie brackets in $\ggo$ (see (\[ta3\]) and (\[cot3\]) below), one verifies that $U\notin C(\ggo)$, hence for any $x,y\in \mm$, $[x,y]\in C(\mm) \subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }$. Thus $\mm =\CC U \ltimes {\mathfrak{a} }$, being ${\mathfrak{a} }$ a ideal of $\mm$ of dimension two and therefore isomorphic either to i) $\CC^2$ or to ii) $\aff(\RR)$, the two dimensional complex Lie algebra spanned by vector $X, Y$ with $[X,Y]=Y$. We may assume in the last situation that $V,W$ satisfy the Lie bracket relation $[V,W]=W$.
In case $\mm=\CC U \ltimes \CC^2$, the action of $U$ on ${\mathfrak{a} }$ admits a basis whose matrix is one of the following ones $$\label{typ1}
\begin{array}{ll}{\mbox{(1)}\quad \left( \begin{matrix}
\nu & 0\\ 0 & \mu \end{matrix} \right),\qquad \nu,\, \mu \in
\CC};& {\qquad \qquad \qquad \mbox{(2)} \quad \left( \begin{matrix}
\nu & 1\\ 0 & \nu \end{matrix} \right),\qquad \nu \in \CC}.\\
\end{array}$$
In case $\mm = \CC U \ltimes \aff(\RR)$ the action of $U$ on ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is a derivation of $\aff(\RR)$ thus over the basis $\{V,W\}$ we have a matrix $$\label{typ2}
\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & 0\\ a & b \end{matrix} \right)
\qquad \qquad a, b\in \CC$$
By making use of this we shall derive the existence or non existence of complex structures on any tangent or cotangent Lie algebra corresponding to a three dimensional solvable real Lie algebra.
Complex structures on six dimensional tangent Lie algebras
----------------------------------------------------------
If $H$ denotes a Lie group, its tangent bundle $T H$ is identified with $H\times \hh$, which inherits a natural Lie group structure as the semidirect product under the adjoint representation. Its Lie algebra, the tangent Lie algebra $\ct \hh$, is the semidirect product via the adjoint representation $\hh \ltimes_{\ad} V$, where $V$ is the underying vector space to $\hh$ equipped with the trivial Lie bracket.
\[ta3\] Let $\hh$ be a solvable real Lie algebra of dimension three and let $\ct \hh$ denote the tangent Lie algebra spanned by $e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4, e_5, e_6$. Then the non zero Lie brackets are presented in the following list: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\ct \hh_1: & [e_1,e_2]=e_3, \, [e_1, e_5]=e_6, [e_2, e_4]= -e_6\\
\ct \rr_{3}: & [e_1,e_2]=e_2,\, [e_1,e_3]= e_2 + e_3,\, \\
& [e_1, e_5]= e_5,\, [e_1, e_6]=e_5 + e_6,\, [e_2, e_4]=-e_5,\, [e_3, e_4]=-e_5-e_6 \\
\ct \rr_{3,\lambda}: & [e_1,e_2]=e_2,\, [e_1,e_3]= \lambda e_3 \\
|\lambda| \leq 1& [e_1, e_5]= e_5,\, [e_1, e_6]=\lambda e_6,\, [e_2, e_4]=-e_5,
\, [e_3,e_4]=-\lambda e_6\\ \ct \rr_{3,\eta}': & [e_1,e_2]=\eta
e_2- e_3,\, [e_1,e_3]= e_2 + \eta e_3,
[e_1, e_5]= \eta e_5-e_6,\, \\
\eta \geq 0 & [e_1, e_6]= e_5+\eta e_6,\, [e_2,e_4]=-\eta e_5+e_6,\, [e_3, e_4]= -e_5-\eta e_6\\
\end{array}$$
\[teot\] Let $\hh$ denote a three dimensional Lie algebra, then $\ct \hh$ admits a complex structure if and only if $\hh$ is either isomorphic to $\hh_1$ or $\RR \times \aff(\RR)$.
The proof can be derived from the next paragraphs.
If $\mm$ is a complex subalgebra of $\ct \hh$ being $\hh$ a three dimensional solvable real Lie algebra such that $\ct \hh^{\CC}=\mm \oplus \sigma \mm$ then $\mm \simeq \CC \ltimes \CC^2$.
According to the previous paragraphs it should hold $\mm\simeq \CC
\ltimes \CC^2$ or $\mm \simeq \CC \ltimes \aff(\RR)$. We shall prove that the last situation is not possible. In fact, from the Lie brackets above (\[ta3\]) we see that $[V,W]\in span\{e_5, e_6\}$ so that $c_2=0=c_3=c_4$. But by computing one has $[V,W]=0$ implying $W=0$ and therefore no complex structure can be derived from this situation.
With the previous Lemma it follows to analyze next the existence of complex structures attached to complex Lie subalgebras $\mm$ such that $\mm \simeq \CC \ltimes \CC^ 2$.
We already know that the tangent Lie algebra of the three dimensional Heisenberg Lie algebra $\ct \hh_1$, admits complex structures, moreover totally real ones. Recall that any totally real complex structure on $\ct \hh_1$ corresponds to a non singular derivation of $\hh_1$ (\[derh1\]). No one of these complex structures is abelian. However $\ct \hh_1$ can be equipped with abelian complex structures as we show below.
Let $\mm$ be a complex subalgebra of $\ct \hh_1$ spanned by vectors $U,V,W$ as in (\[uv\]). The subspace ${\mathfrak{a} }=span\{V,W\}$ is a ideal of $\mm$ and $\mm = \CC U \ltimes {\mathfrak{a} }$. Since $\ct \hh_1$ is nilpotent, ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is abelian and the action of $U$ on ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is of type (\[typ1\]) and moreover case 1) holds for $\mu=\nu=0$ while case 2) holds for $\nu =0$. Case 1) gives rise to abelian complex structures, while case 2) corresponds to non abelian ones.
Computing the Lie brackets $[V,W]$, $[U,V]$ and $[U,W]$, and imposing these brackets to be zero, we get $$U = e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3 +a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 + a_6 e_6,$$ $$V= b_3 e_3 + b_4 e_4 -a_2 b_4 e_5 + b_6 e_6,\qquad W= c_3 e_3+ c_4 e_4 - a_2 c_4 e_5 + c_6 e_6.$$ If the set $\{U,V,W, \sigma U, \sigma V, \sigma W\}$ spans a basis of $(\ct
\hh_1)^{\CC}$, the tangent algebra $\ct \hh_1$ carries an abelian complex structure $J$. For instance the linear homomorphism $J$ given by $$\label{h1abe}
J e_1 = e_2 \qquad J e_6 = e_3 \qquad J e_4 = e_5,$$ and such that $J^2=-{\rm I}$ defines a abelian complex structure on $\ct \hh_1$. After [@Mg] there is only one class among abelian complex structures.
Any abelian complex structure is 2-step nilpotent. In fact, since $J$ is abelian ${\mathfrak{a} }_1(J)=\zz(\ct \hh_1)$ and clearly the condition $C(\ct \hh_1) = \zz(\ct \hh_1)$ shows that ${\mathfrak{a} }_2(J)=\ct \hh_1$.
On the other hand the following set of vectors on $\ct \hh_1^{\CC}$ is a basis of the complex subalgebra $\mm$ corresponding to a totally real complex structure on $\ct \hh_1$: $$e_1 - i (a e_4 + b e_5 + e e_6); \quad e_2 -i (c e_4 + d e_5+ f e_6), \quad e_3 - i (a+d) e_6$$ with $a, b, c, d, e, f\in\RR$, $a+d\neq 0$ and $ad-bc \neq 0$. They induce non abelian complex structures, and furthermore there are more non abelian complex structures than the totally real ones. Let $\mm$ be a complex subalgebra of $(\ct \hh_1)^{\CC}$ spanned by $U,V,W$ as in (\[uv\]). Requiring that $[U,V]=0=[V,W]$ and $[U,W]=V$ we deduce that any complex subalgebra $\mm$ of $(\ct
\hh_1)^{\CC}$ spanned by $$U = e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3 +a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 + a_6 e_6,$$ $$V= c_2 e_3+ (c_5 - a_2 c_4 + a_4 c_2)e_6 \qquad W= c_2 e_2 + c_3 e_3 + c_4 e_4 + c_5 e_5 + c_6 e_6,\qquad$$ and such that $U,V, W, \sigma U, \sigma V, \sigma W$ is a basis of $(\ct
\hh_1)^{\CC}$, induces a non abelian complex structure on $\ct \hh_1$. The class of non abelian complex structures $J$ is 2-step nilpotent. Actually the vector $X:= W +\sigma W$ belongs to the center of $\ct \hh_1$ and also $JX\in \zz(\ct \hh_1)$. Since ${\mathfrak{a} }_1(J)=span\{X,JX\}=\zz(\ct
\hh_1)$ and $C(\ct \hh_1)=\zz(\ct \hh_1)$, we conclude that ${\mathfrak{a} }_2(J)=\ct \hh_1$.
After [@Mg] in the set of non abelian complex structures, one has the following non equivalent complex structures (the extension is such that $J^2=-{\rm I}$): $$\label{h1tr}
J_s e_1= e_4\qquad J_s e_2 = -s e_4+e_5 \qquad J_s e_3= 2e_6\qquad s=0,1,$$ which are totally real, and next $$\label{h1ntr}
J_{\nu} e_1= e_2 + (1-\nu) e_4+\frac{1-\nu}\nu e_5\quad J e_2=-\nu e_1 + (1-\nu) e_4\quad J_\nu e_3=e_6\quad \nu \in \RR-\{0\}$$ which are neither abelian nor totally real.
\[tah1\] The tangent Lie algebra $\ct \hh_1$ admits abelian and nonabelian complex structures, which are in every case 2-step nilpotent.
The Lie algebra $\ct \hh_1$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal G_{6,1}$ in [@Mg] and to $\mathfrak h_4$ in [@CFU].
Next we show a family of tangent Lie algebras which cannot be equipped with a complex structure.
\[noct\] The Lie algebras $\ct \rr_3$ and $\ct \rr_{3, \eta}'$ $\eta \geq 0$ do not admit complex structures.
We shall give the complete proof for the tangent Lie algebra $\ct \rr_3$. The proof for $\ct \rr_{3, \eta}'$ can be achieved with a similar reasonning.
Assume that $\mm$ is a complex subalgebra of $\ct \rr_3^{\CC}$ corresponding to a complex structure of $\ct \rr_3$. Let $U, V, W\in \mm$ be linearly independent vectors as in (\[uv\]) such that $\mm= \CC U \ltimes {\mathfrak{a} }$ with ${\mathfrak{a} }=span\{V,W\}$.
Let $\mm$ be a complex subalgebra of $\ct \rr_3^{\CC}$ spanned by vectors $U,V, W$ as in (\[uv\]) and assume that ${\mathfrak{a} }=span\{V,W\}$ is abelian. The Lie bracket relations on $\mm$ are: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
[V,W] & = & (b_4 c_2 - b_2 c_4 + b_4 c_3 - b_3 c_4) e_5 + (b_4 c_3 - b_3 c_4) e_6, \\
\, [U,V] & = & (b_2 + b_3) e_2 + b_3 e_3 + (b_5 + b_6+a_4 b_2 - a_2 b_4 + a_4 b_3 - a_3 b_4) e_5 + \\
& & + (b_6+a_4 b_3 - a_3 b_4) e_6,\\
\, [U,W] & = & (c_2 + c_3) e_2 + c_3 e_3 + (c_5 + c_6+a_4 c_2 - a_2 c_4 + a_4 c_3 - a_3 c_4) e_5 + \\
& & + (c_6+a_4 c_3 - a_3 c_4) e_6.
\end{array}$$ Assume $[V,W]=0$, $[U,V]=\nu V$ and $[U,W]= \mu W$.
We see that $\nu b_4=0$ implies either $\nu=0$ or $b_4=0$.
If $\nu=0$, from $[U,V]=0$ one has $b_2=0=b_3$ and $V$ has the form $V=b_4 (e_4 + a_2 e_5 + a_3 e_6)$.
We also have $\mu c_4 = 0$. If $\mu=0$ then $c_2 =0=c_3$ and so $U,V, \sigma V \sigma W\in span\{e_4, e_5, e_6\}$; therefore this set is not linearly independent. Hence $\mu \neq 0$ and $c_4=0$. But from $[V,W]=0$ it must hold $b_4 c_3=0=b_4 c_2$ and since $b_4\neq 0$ one has $c_2 = 0=c_3$ but then $V, W, \sigma V \sigma W\in span\{e_4, e_5, e_6\}$ which gives no basis of $\ct \rr_3^{\CC}$.
From this contradiction we get that $\nu\neq 0$ and so $b_4=0$.
From $[V,W]=0$ it may hold $b_2 c_4=0=c_4b_3$. If $c_4\neq 0$ then $b_2=0=b_3$. Moreover if $\nu\neq 1$ then $b_5=0=b_6$ which derives in the contradiction $V=0$. Therefore $\nu=1$ implies $b_6=0$ and so $V\in span\{e_5\}$ which does not allow a basis of $\ct \rr_3^{\CC}$. Hence $c_4=0$. If $\nu\neq 1$ then $b_2=0=b_3=b_5=b_6$ thus $V=0$ is a contradiction. Now $\nu=1$ implies $b_3=0$ and $b_6=a_4b_2$ so that $V\in span\{e_2, e_5, e_6\}$.
From $[U,W]=\mu W$ we have that if $\mu\neq 1$ then $c_2=0=c_3$ and in this way $V, W, \sigma V, \sigma W\in span\{e_2, e_5,
e_6\}$ which cannot build a basis of $\ct \rr_3^{\CC}$. Thus $\mu=1$ and so $c_3=0$, and therefore the set $V, W, \sigma V, \sigma
W\in span\{e_2, e_5, e_6\}$ does not induce a basis of $\ct \rr_3^ {\CC}$, implying the non existence of a complex subalgebra $\mm$ in this case.
Assume now $\mm=span\{U,V,W\}$ is a complex subalgebra such that $\ct \rr_3^{\CC}=\mm \oplus \sigma \mm$ and $[V,W]=0$ $[U,V]=\nu V$ $[U,W]=V+\nu W$ for some $\nu \in \CC$.
If $\nu\neq 1$ it follows that $b_2=0=b_3$ which also implies $c_2=0=c_3$. Therefore $V,W, \sigma V, \sigma W\in span\{e_4,e_5,e_6\}$ and we have no complex structure.
Hence $\nu=1$. Thus $b_3=0=b_4=c_4$ and $c_3=b_2$. From $[U,V]=V$ one gets $b_6+a_4b_2=0$ and from $[U,V]=V+W$ one has $b_6-a_4 b_2=0$; therefore $b_6=0=a_4 b_2$. Since $a_4\neq 0$ then $b_2=0$ but this implies $V=b_5 e_5$ and so $V, \sigma V$ are not linearly independent. Hence no complex structure arise in this case.
The following statements are equivalent:
i\) $\ct \rr_{3,\lambda}$ can be endowed with a complex structure;
ii\) $\ct \rr_{3, \lambda}$ carries an abelian complex structure;
iii\) $\lambda=0$.
One proves i) $\Longrightarrow$ iii) $\Longrightarrow$ ii) $\Longrightarrow$ i). It is easy to see ii) $\Longrightarrow$ iii).
We will give a general line for the proof.
Let $\mm$ denote a complex subalgebra of $\ct \rr_{3,\lambda}^{\CC}$ spanned by vectors $U,V, W$ as in (\[uv\]), with $[V,W]=0$.
The Lie brackets follow $$\begin{array}{rcl}
[V,W] & = & (b_4 c_2 - b_2 c_4) e_5 + \lambda (b_4 c_3 - b_3 c_4)e_6 \\
\,[U,V] & = & b_2 e_2 + \lambda b_3 e_3 + b_5 e_5 + \lambda b_6 e_6 +(a_4 b_2-a_2b_4) e_5
+ \lambda (a_4 b_3-a_3b_4) e_6\\
\,[U,W] & = & c_2 e_2 + \lambda c_3 e_3 + c_5 e_5 + \lambda c_6 e_6+ (a_4 c_2-a_2 c_4)
e_5 + \lambda (a_4c-3-a-3c_4) e_6
\end{array}$$
If the action of $U$ on $span\{V,W\}$ is of type (1) in (\[typ1\]), by solving the corresponding system, one gets a basis of $(\ct
\rr_{3, \lambda})^{\CC}$ only if $\lambda =0$, with the additional constraints $\nu=0=\mu$. Explicitly, the vectors adopt the form $$U=e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3+ a_4 e_4+ a_5 e_5 + a_6 e_6,$$ $$\label{uvwa}
V= b_3 e_3 + b_4 e_4 - a_2 b_4 e_5+ b_6 e_6, \qquad W= c_3 e_3 + c_4 e_4 - a_2 c_4 e_5+ c_6 e_6$$ whenever $U,V,W, \sigma U, \sigma V, \sigma W$ is a basis of $(\ct
\rr_{3,0})^{\CC}$. It follows at once that the induced complex structure on $\ct \rr_{3,0}$ is abelian.
If the action of $U$ on $span\{V,W\}\simeq \CC^2$ is of type (2) in (\[typ1\]), then we cannot find a complex structure for any value of $\lambda$. This argument shows i) $\Longrightarrow$ iii).
For ii) $\Longrightarrow$ iii) one works out the equations deriving from $[V, W]=0=[U,V]=[U,W]$ to obtain that a solution exists only for $\lambda=0$. In this case, one gets the vectors $U,V,W$ above (\[uvwa\]). For instance the following $J$ gives rise to a abelian complex structure on $\ct \rr_{3,0}$: $$\label{abaffr}
J e_1 = e_2 \qquad J e_3 = -e_6 \qquad J e_4 = e_5.$$ To prove iii) $\Longrightarrow$ ii) one must solve the equation $[V,W]=0$, $[U,V]=\nu
V$ and $[U,W]=\mu W$ for $\lambda =0$. It is possible to see that the only way to get solutions is for $\nu=\mu=0$, finishing the proof.
Complex structures on cotangent Lie algebras of dimension six
-------------------------------------------------------------
Recall the Lie group counterpart of the cotangent Lie algebra. The zero section in the cotangent bundle $T^*H$ of a Lie group $H$, can be identified with $H$, as well as the fibre over $(e,0)$ with $\hh^*$. As a Lie group, the cotangent bundle of $H$ is the semidirect product of $H$ with $\hh^*$ via the coadjoint representation. The tangent space of $T^*H$ at the identity is naturally identified with the [*cotangent*]{} Lie algebra $\ct^*\hh:= \hh \ltimes_{\coad} \hh^*$, the semidirect product of $\hh$ and its dual $\hh^*$ via the coadjoint action.
\[cot3\] Let $\hh$ be a solvable real Lie algebra of dimension three and let $\ct^* \hh$ denote the cotangent Lie algebra spanned by $e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4, e_5, e_6$. The non zero Lie brackets are listed below: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\ct^*\hh_1: & [e_1,e_2]=e_3, \, [e_1, e_6]=-e_5, [e_2, e_6]=e_4\\
\ct^*\rr_{3}: & [e_1,e_2]=e_2,\, [e_1,e_3]= e_2 + e_3,\, \\
& [e_1, e_5]= -e_5 -e_6,\, [e_1, e_6]=-e_6,\, [e_2, e_5]=e_4,\, [e_3, e_5]=e_4,\, [e_3,e_6]=e_4 \\
\ct^*\rr_{3,\lambda}: & [e_1,e_2]=e_2,\, [e_1,e_3]= \lambda e_3 \\
|\lambda| \leq 1& [e_1, e_5]= -e_5,\, [e_1, e_6]=-\lambda e_6,\, [e_2, e_5]=e_4,
\, [e_3,e_6]=\lambda e_4\\
\ct^* \rr_{3,\eta}': & [e_1,e_2]=\eta e_2- e_3,\, [e_1,e_3]= e_2 + \eta e_3,
[e_1, e_5]= -\eta e_5-e_6,\, \\
\eta \geq 0 & [e_1, e_6]= e_5-\eta e_6,\, [e_2,e_5]=\eta e_4,\, [e_2,e_6]= -e_4,
\, [e_3, e_5]= e_4,\, [e_3,e_6]=\eta e_4\\
\end{array}$$
\[teoct\] Let $\hh$ denote a three dimensional solvable real Lie algebra, if $\ct^*\hh$ admits a complex structure then $\hh$ is isomorphic to one of the following Lie algebras: $\hh_1$, $\RR \times \aff(\RR)$, $\rr_{3,1}$, $\rr_{3,-1}$, $\rr_{3, \eta}'$ for any $\eta \geq 0$.
The following propositions gives the proof of the theorem above.
Let $\hh$ denote a solvable real Lie algebra of dimension three. If $\mm$ is a complex subalgebra of $\ct^*\hh$ such that there exist $V,W\in \mm$ satisfying $[V,W]=W$ then $W=0$.
Assume $\mm$ is a complex subalgebra of $\ct^*\hh$ with $V,W\in \mm$ satisfying $[V,W]=W$. From the Lie bracket relations in (\[cot3\]) one has $W= c_4
e_4$ which implies $W=0$.
Let $\hh$ denote a solvable real Lie algebra of dimension three. If $(\ct^*\hh)^{\CC}$ splits as a direct sum $(\ct^*\hh)^{\CC}=\mm \oplus \sigma \mm$, where $\mm$ is a complex subalgebra and $\sigma$ is the conjugation with respect to $\ct^*\hh$, then $\mm\simeq \CC \ltimes \CC^2$.
For the existence problem of complex structures it remains the study of complex subalgebras $\mm$ such that $\mm
\simeq \CC\ltimes \CC^ 2$, we do below.
\[coth1\] Every complex structure on the Lie algebra $\ct^*\hh_1$ is three step nilpotent.
In (\[exa1\]) we proved that $\ct^*\hh_1$ cannot admit an abelian complex structure. For the sake of completeness we shall see first that $\ct^*\hh_1$ has a complex structure. Since $\ct^*\hh_1$ is nilpotent, if it admits a complex structure, then the corresponding complex subalgebra $\mm$ must be nilpotent, hence $\mm =span\{U,V,W\}$ with $[V,W]=0$, the action of $U$ of type (2) in (\[typ1\]) so that $[U,V]=0$ and $[U,W]=V$ . Explicitly
- $[V,W]=0$ implies $b_2 c_6 - b_6 c_2=0,$
- $[U,V]=0$ and $[U,W]=V$ imply the following systems of equations: $$\begin{array}{rclrcl}
b_2 & = & 0, & -c_6 & = & b_5,\\
a_2 b_6 - a_6 b_2 & = & 0, & c_2 & = & b_3,\\
a_2 c_6 - a_6 c_2 & = & b_4, &\quad b_6 & = & 0.
\end{array}$$
Since these systems have solutions, complex subalgebras of $(\ct^*\hh_1)^{\CC}$ spanned by $U,V,W$ of the form $$U=e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3 + a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 +a_6 e_6,$$ $$\, V = c_2 e_3 + (a_2 c_6 - a_6 c_2) e_4 - c_6 e_5, \qquad W= c_2 e_2 + c_3 e_3 + c_4 e_4 + c_5 e_5 + c_6 e_6$$ induce complex structures if and only if the vectors $U,V,W, \sigma{U},
\sigma{V}, \sigma{W}$ span a basis of $(\ct^*\hh_1)^{\CC}$.
After [@Mg] there is only one class of complex structures, therefore anyone is equivalent to the complex structure $J$ given by $$\label{h1cs} J e_1 = e_4 \qquad J e_2 = e_6 \qquad Je_5 = e_3.$$
For this complex structure, notice that ${\mathfrak{a} }_0(J)=\{0\}$, ${\mathfrak{a} }_1(J)=span\{e_3, e_5\}$, ${\mathfrak{a} }_2(J)=span\{e_1, e_3, e_4, e_5\}$, ${\mathfrak{a} }_3(J)=\ggo$. Hence from lemma (\[le\]) we conclude that any complex structure on $\ct^*
\hh_1$ is nilpotent.
However notice that there are complex structures which are not totally real, for instance the next one $$\label{h1notr}
Je_1=e_2-e_4 \qquad J e_2 =e_6 \qquad Je_5= e_3+ e_4.$$
This Lie algebra is isomorphic to $\mathcal G_{6,3}$ in [@Mg] and to $\mathfrak h_7$ in [@CFU].
The Lie algebra $\ct^*\rr_3$ cannot be endowed with a complex structure.
Assume $\mm$ is a complex subalgebra of $(\ct^*\rr_3)^{\CC}$ spanned by vectors $U,V,W$ as in (\[uv\]) and such that $[V,W]=0$. Assume $U$ acts on ${\mathfrak{a} }= span\{V,W\}$.
Case 1). We assume the action of $U$ on is of type (1) in (\[typ1\]), then if $[U,V]= \nu V$ and $[U,W]= \mu W$ we have that $U= e_1 + a_2 e_2+a_3e_3+a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 +a_6
e_6$, $V= b_2 e_2 + b_4 e_4+ b_6 e_6$, $W= c_2 e_2 + c_4 e_4+ c_6
e_6$. It is not difficult to verify that $U,V,W, \sigma{U},
\sigma{V}, \sigma{W}$ cannot be a basis of $(\ct^*\rr_3)^{\CC}$.
Case 2) Suppose that the action of $U$ on ${\mathfrak{a} }= span\{V,W\}$ is of type (2). From the constraint $[U,V]= \nu V$ and $[U,W]=
V + \nu W$, we get that there is no possibility of choosing $\{U,V,W, \sigma
U, \sigma V, \sigma W\}$ as a linearly independent set in $(\ct^*
\rr_3)^{\CC}$, hence there is no complex structure associated to such $\mm$.
If the Lie algebra $\ct^*\rr_{3, \lambda}$ admits a complex structure then $\lambda =0, 1, -1$.
Let $\mm$ be a complex subalgebra of $(\ct^*\rr_{3,\lambda})^{\CC}$ spanned by the vectors $U,V,W$ as in (\[uv\]) and such that $[V,W]=0$. The following constraint must be satisfied: $$b_2 c_5 - b_5 c_2 + (b_3 c_6 - b_6 c_3) \lambda=0.$$
The Lie brackets on $\ct^*\rr_{3, \lambda}$ follow $$\begin{array}{rcl}
[U,V] & = & b_2 e_2 +\lambda b_3 e_3 + [a_2 b_5-a_5 b_2+\lambda(a_3
b_6-a_6 b_3)] e_4 - b_5 e_5 - \lambda b_6 e_6\\
\, [U,W] & = & c_2 e_2 +\lambda c_3 e_3 + [a_2 c_5 -a_5 c_2 +\lambda(a_3 c_6 -a_6 c_3)]e_4 -c_5
e_5-\lambda c_6 e_6\\
\, [V,W] & = & [b_2 c_5 - b_5 c_2 +\lambda(b_3 c_6- b_6 c_3)] e_4
\end{array}$$
Case 1) Assume the action of $U$ on ${\mathfrak{a} }= span\{V,W\}$ is of type (1) in (\[typ1\]). The conditions $[U,V]= \nu V$ and $[U,W]=\mu W$ shows that a subalgebra $\mm$ exists if $\lambda\in\left\{0,1,-1\right\}$. Moreover, such an $\mm$ is spanned by $U,V,W$ as given in the following table:
$$\begin{array}{|c|l|} \hline
& \quad U = e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3 + a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 + a_6 e_6,\\ \quad \lambda=0 \quad
& \quad V =b_3 e_3 + b_4 e_4 + b_6 e_6, \, W=-a_2 c_5 e_4 + c_5 e_5 \quad \mbox{ or } \quad \\
& \quad U, \, V \,\mbox{as above and }\, W=c_2 e_2 -a_5 c_2 e_4 \\ \hline
& \quad U = e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3 + a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 + a_6 e_6,\, \\
& \quad V =b_2 e_2 +b_3 e_3 - (a_5 b_2 + a_6 b_3) e_4, \, \\ \lambda=1 & \quad W=-\frac{c_5}{b_3}
(a_2 b_3-a_3b_2)+ c_5 e_5 - \frac{b_2c_5}{b_3} e_6\quad \mbox{ with }\quad b_3 \neq 0 \quad \mbox{ or } \\
& \quad U \quad \mbox{as above and }\, \\ & \quad V= -(a_2 b_5 + a_3 b_6) e_4 + b_5 e_5 + b_6 e_6,\,\\
& \quad W=c_2 e_2 -\frac{b_5 c_2}{b_6} e_3 -\frac{c_2}{b_6}(a_5 b_6 -a_6 b_5)\quad \mbox{ with }
\quad b_6 \neq 0 \\ \hline
& \quad U = e_1 + a_2 e_2 + a_3 e_3 + a_4 e_4 + a_5 e_5 + a_6 e_6,\, \\ & \quad V
=-\frac{c_3b_6}{c_5} e_2 -\frac{b_6}{c_5} (a_5 c_3 - a_6 c_5) e_4 + b_6 e_6 \, \\ \lambda=-1 &
\quad W=c_3 e_3 -(a_2 c_5+a_6c_3) \quad \mbox{ with }\quad c_5 \neq 0 \quad \mbox{ or } \\
& \quad U \quad \mbox{as above and }\, \\ & \quad V= b_3 e_3 -(a_2 b_5 + a_6 b_3) e_4 + b_5 e_5,\,\\
& \quad W=c_2 e_2 -\frac{c_2}{b_3}(a_3 b_5 -a_5 b_3)e_4-\frac{b_5 c_2}{b_3}e_6
\quad \mbox{ with } \quad b_3 \neq 0 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$
In all cases, $U,V, W, \sigma U, \sigma V, \sigma W$ turn out to be a basis of $(\ct^* \rr_{3,\lambda})^{\CC}$. We also observe that none of these complex structure is abelian.
For instance, the linear map on $\ct^*\rr_{3,0}$ given by $$\label{cl0tr}
Je_1=e_5\qquad Je_2=-e_4 \qquad Je_3=e_6$$ and such that $J^2=-{\rm I}$ defines a totally real complex structure on the cotangent Lie algebra $\ct^*\rr_{3,0}$, while the $J$ taken as $$\label{cl0notr}
Je_1=e_2\qquad Je_4=e_5 \qquad Je_3=e_6$$ gives rise to a complex structure which is not totally real.
For $\lambda=-1$ the linear homomorphism such that $J^2=-{\rm I}$ given by $$\label{cl-1tr}
Je_1=e_4 \qquad Je_2=e_6 \qquad Je_3=-e_5$$ gives a totally real complex structure on $\ct^*\rr_{3,-1}$. While the $J$ satisfying $J^2=-{\rm I}$ and $$\label{cl-1notr}
Je_3=-(e_1+e_6)\qquad Je_5=e_3-e_4 \qquad Je_6=-(e_2+e_4)$$ induces a non totally real complex structure on $\ct^*\rr_{3,-1}$.
Now for $\lambda=1$ no complex structure on $\ct^*\rr_{3,1}$ is totally real. For instance $$\label{cl1}
Je_1=e_4\qquad Je_2=e_3 \qquad Je_5=e_6$$ is a complex structure on $\ct^*\rr_{3,1}$.
The Lie algebra $\ct^*\rr_{3, \eta}'$ carries a complex structure for any $\eta \geq 0$.
The linear isomorphisms $J$ such that $J^2=-{\rm I}$ given by $$\label{cseta}
J e_1 = \pm e_4 \qquad Je_2 = e_3\qquad J e_5=e_6$$ define complex structures on $\ct^*\rr_{3, \eta}'$ for any $\eta\geq 0$.
Notice that on $\ct^*\rr_{3,0}'$ one has totally real complex structures (\[trct\]), for instance $$\label{csetatr}
J e_1 = \pm e_4 \qquad Je_2 = e_6\qquad J e_3=-e_5.$$
Complex structures and related geometric structures
===================================================
In these paragraphs we relate complex structures to some geometric structures. We are mainly interested on hermitian structures, symplectic and Kähler structures.
On Hermitian complex structures.
--------------------------------
A [*metric*]{} on a Lie algebra $\ggo$ is a non degenerate symmetric bilinear map, $\la \, , \, \ra:\ggo \times \ggo \to \RR$. It is called [*ad-invariant*]{} if $$\la [x,y],z\ra + \la y, [x,z]\ra=0 \qquad \qquad \mbox{for all }x,y \in \ggo.$$
\[mecot\] The canonical metric on a cotangent Lie algebra $\ct^*\hh$ is defined by $$\la (x,\varphi), (x', \varphi')\ra=\varphi'(x)+\varphi(x')\qquad \mbox{ for all }x,x'\in \hh,\, \varphi, \varphi'\in\hh^*.$$ It is neutral and ad-invariant.
A subspace $\ww \subseteq (\ggo, \la \,,\,\ra)$ is called [*isotropic*]{} if $\la x, y\ra=0$ for all $x,y \in \ww$, that is, if $\ww \subseteq \ww^{\perp}$, where $$\ww^{\perp}=\{ y\in \ggo \, \mbox{ such that }\, \la x,y \ra =0 \mbox{ for all } x\in \ww\},$$ furthermore $\ww$ is called [*totally isotropic*]{} whenever $\ww = \ww^{\perp}$.
On $\ct^*\hh$ equipped with its canonical metric, both subspaces $\hh$ and $\hh^*$ are totally isotropic.
Let $(\ggo, \la \, , \, \ra)$ denote a real Lie algebra equipped with a metric. An (almost) complex structure $J$ on $\ggo$ is called [*Hermitian*]{} if $$\label{her}
\la Jx, Jy\ra = \la x, y\ra \qquad \quad \mbox{ for all } x,y\in \ggo.$$
If the metric is positive definite a Hermitian complex structure is also called a orthogonal complex structure.
Notice that if $J$ is Hermitian, then $\la x, Jx\ra=0$ for all $x\in \ggo$. The non degeneracity property of $\la \, , \, \ra$ says that there is $y\in \ggo$ such that $\la x, y\ra \neq 0$. Therefore the subspace $\ww= span\{x, Jx, y, Jy\} \subseteq \ggo$ is non degenerate and $J$-invariant. Furthermore $$\ggo=\ww \oplus \ww^{\perp}$$ is a orthogonal direct sum of $J$-invariant non degenerate subspaces of $\ggo$. A similar argument can be done in the proof of the following lemma.
Let $\ggo$ denote a real Lie algebra endowed with a metric $\la \, ,\, \ra$ and let $J$ be an almost complex structure on $\ggo$. Assume $\vv$ is a totally real and totally isotropic subspace on $\ggo$, then
i\) $\ggo$ admits a decomposition into a direct sum of totally real and totally isotropic vector subspaces $$\ggo=\vv \oplus J\vv;$$
ii\) $\ggo$ splits into a orthogonal direct sum $$\ggo= \ww_1 \oplus \ww_2 \oplus \hdots \oplus \ww_n$$ of $J$-invariant non degenerate subspaces $\ww_1, \hdots, \ww_n$, where $\dim \ww_i\equiv 0$ (mod 4).
Let $\hh$ denote a real Lie algebra, and let $\la\,,\,\ra$ denote a metric on $\ct_{\pi}\hh$ for which $\hh$ is totally isotropic and assume $J$ is a totally real almost complex structure on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$. Then the dimension of $\hh$ is even.
A generalized complex structure on a Lie algebra $\hh$ is a Hermitian complex structure on $(\ct^*\hh, \la \, , \, \ra)$ where $\la \,,\,\ra$ denotes the canonical metric on $\ct^*\hh$.
A Hermitian complex structure $J$ on $\ct^*\hh$ which leaves $\hh$ invariant is called a generalized complex structure of [*complex type*]{} and it corresponds to a complex structure on $\hh$. A Hermitian complex structure $J$ on $\ct^*\hh$ which is totally real, that is $J \hh=\hh^*$, is said a generalized complex structure of [*symplectic type*]{}. It corresponds to a symplectic structure on $\hh$.
Assume $\hh$ is a Lie algebra which is equipped with an ad-invariant metric $(\,,\,)$. In this case it can easily be shown that the adjoint and the coadjoint representations are equivalent. In fact if $\ell:\hh \to \hh^{\ast}$ is the linear isomorphism given by $x \to \ell(x)$ such that $\ell(x)y=(x, y)$, it is straighforward to verify that $\ell^{-1} \coad(x) \ell = \ad(x)$ for all $x\in \hh$.
Results (\[ceq\]) and (\[le22\]) of previous sections imply that totally real complex structures $J$ on $\ct^*\hh$ correspond to non singular derivations of $\hh$. Explicitly, a non singular derivation $d$ on $\hh$ induces the map $\ell \circ d: \hh \to \hh^*$ giving rise to a complex structure on $\ct^*\hh$.
Consider now the canonical neutral metric $\la \, , \,\ra$ on $\ct^{\ast}\hh$ defined by $$\la (x, \ell_y),(x', \ell_{y'})\ra=(x, y') + (x', y).$$ Since $\hh$ and $\hh^*$ are isotropic subspaces for $\la \,, \, \ra$, a complex structure $J$ such that $J\hh=\hh^*$ is Hermitian if and only if $$\la y, Jx\ra =-\la x, J y \ra\qquad \quad \mbox{ for } x,y\in \hh.$$ Now, since $J$ is associated to a non singular map $j:\hh \to \hh^*$, the latter corresponding to a non singular derivation $d$ of $\hh$, we have the linear isomorphism $j:\hh \to \hh^{\ast}$ equals $$\label{jj}
j =\ell \circ d,$$ thus both (\[her\]) and (\[jj\]) imply $$(x, d y) = - (dx, y) \qquad \mbox{ for all } x,y \in \hh$$ this means that the Hermitian complex structures on $\ct^* \hh$, such that $J\hh=\hh^*$ correspond to non singular skew symmetric derivations of $(\hh, (\, , \,))$.
The previous explanations and [@Ja] derive the following.
Let $\hh$ denote an even dimensional Lie algebra endowed with an ad-invariant metric $(\,,\,)$. The following statements are equivalent
i\) $\hh$ admits a generalized complex structure of symplectic type;
ii\) $\hh$ admits a symplectic structure;
iii\) $\hh$ admits a non singular derivation which is skew symmetric for $( \,, \,)$.
Furthermore if any of these structures exists then $\hh$ is nilpotent.
Complex structures and symplectic structures
--------------------------------------------
A [*symplectic structure*]{} on a even dimensional Lie algebra $\ggo$ is a 2-form $\omega \in
\Lambda^2(\ggo^{\ast})$ such that $\omega$ has maximal rank, i.e., $\bigwedge^{\frac{1}{2}\dim \ggo}\omega\neq 0$ and it is closed: $$\label{close}
\omega([x,y], z)+\omega([y,z],x)+\omega(z,[x,y])=0 \qquad\mbox{for all } x,y, z\in \ggo.$$
Let ($\ct_{\pi} \hh=\hh \ltimes V, \omega)$ denote a semidirect product equipped with a symplectic structure. Following [@CLP] we say that $\ct_{\pi} \hh$ is [*lagrangian*]{}, if both $\hh$ and $V$ are lagrangian subspaces relative to $\omega$. We also say that $\omega$ is [*lagrangian symplectic*]{}.
Let $\ct_{\pi} \hh$ denote a generalized tangent Lie algebra, then its dual Lie algebra is the semidirect product $\ct_{\pi^*} \hh := \hh \ltimes_{\pi^*} V^*$, where $\pi^*$ is the dual representation $$(\pi^*(x)a)(u) := -a(\pi(x)(u)) \qquad \qquad x\in \hh, a\in V^*, u\in V.$$ Note that the cotangent Lie algebra $\ct^*\hh$ is the dual of the tangent Lie algebra $\ct\hh$.
Suppose $\ct_{\pi} \hh= \hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$ is a Lie algebra equipped with a totally real complex structure $J$ (that is $J\hh=V$). This enables us to define on $\ct_{\pi^*} \hh:= \hh \ltimes_{\pi^*}V^*$ a two-form $\omega_J$ by $$\omega_J(x + u, y + v) := v(Jx) - u(Jy),\qquad \quad
\mbox{where $x, y$ are in $\hh$ and $u, v$ are in ($J\hh=V)^*$}.$$ Then $\omega_J$ is non-degenerate and symplectic since $J$ is integrable (see [@BD] or [@CLP] for instance). Furthermore the converse is also true, lagrangian symplectic structures on $\ct_{\pi} \hh$ give rise to totally real complex structures on $\ct_{\pi^*} \hh$. Therefore
Totally real complex structures on $\ct_{\pi} \hh=\hh \ltimes_{\pi} V$ are in correspondence to lagrangian symplectic structures on $\ct_{\pi^*} \hh$.
i\) Let $\ct^*\hh$ denote a cotangent Lie algebra. If it admits a lagrangian symplectic structure then $\hh$ is nilpotent.
ii\) The tangent Lie algebra $\ct \hh$ admits a lagrangian symplectic structure for any $\hh$ isomorphic to $\hh_1$, $\rr_{3,-1}$, $\rr_{3,0}'$ or $\RR\times \aff(\RR)$.
If $\ggo$ is a Lie algebra which carries a symplectic structure and a complex structure, one searches for a compatible pair $(\omega, J)$, called a Kähler structure, $$\label{kp}
\omega(Jx,Jy)=\omega(x,y) \qquad \qquad \mbox{ for all } x,y \in \ggo.$$
Let $\psi\in Aut(\ggo)$ denote a automorphism of $\ggo$, since $\wedge^n \psi^* \omega=\psi^*\wedge^n\omega$ and $\psi^*d\omega=d(\psi^*\omega)$, one has that the existence of a compatible symplectic for a fixed complex structure $J$ is equivalent to the existence of a compatible symplectic structure for every complex structure in the orbit of $J$ under the action of $Aut(\ggo)$.
In fact if $J$ is compatible with $\omega$ and $J'=\psi^{-1}J\psi$ then $\omega'=\psi^*\omega$ is compatible with $J'$: $$\omega'(J'x,J'y)=\omega'(\psi^{-1}J\psi x, \psi^{-1}J\psi y)=\omega(J\psi x, J \psi
y)=\omega(\psi x, \psi y)=\omega'(x,y).$$
\[ek\] Let $\omega$ denote a two form on $\ggo$ which is compatible with the complex structure $J$. Let $\psi\in Aut(\ggo)$ be a automorphism such that $J'=\psi^{-1}J\psi$, then $\psi^*\omega$ is compatible with $J'$.
A [*Kähler Lie algebra*]{} is a triple $(\ggo,J,
\omega)$ consisting of a Lie algebra equipped with a Kähler structure. The Kähler pair $(J, \omega)$ origines a Hermitian structure on $\ggo$ by defining a metric $g$ as $$\label{km}
g(x,y)=\omega(Jx,y) \qquad \qquad \mbox{ for all } x,y \in \ggo.$$
This kind of Hermitian structures satisfies the parallel condition $$\nabla J\equiv 0$$ where $\nabla$ denotes the Levi Civita connection for $g$. The pair $(J,g)$ is called a [*pseudo-Kähler metric*]{} on $\ggo$.
A Lie algebra $\hh$ equipped with an ad-invariant metric $\la \, , \, \ra$ cannot carry a complex structure $J$ which is Hermitian and parallel with respect to the Levi Civita connection of $\la \, ,\, \ra$ (see [@ABO]). However $\hh$ can admit a pseudo Kähler metric if one relaxes the assumption on the metric to be ad-invariant (see (\[psch1\])).
It is our aim to investigate the existence of pseudo Kähler metrics on the Lie algebras $\ct \hh$ and $\ct^*\hh$ where $\hh$ denotes a three dimensional real Lie algebra.
We denote by $e^{ij\hdots}$ the exterior product $e^i\wedge e^j \wedge \hdots$, being $e^1, \hdots, e^6$ the dual basis of $e_1, \hdots ,e_6$.
The following Lie algebras do not carry a symplectic structure:
i\) $\ct^*\rr_{3, \lambda}$ for any $\lambda$.
ii\) $\ct^*\rr_{3,\eta}'$ for any $\eta\geq 0$.
The proof follows along the following lines. Let $\alpha_{ij} \in \RR$ be arbitrary constants and define the generic 2-form on $\ct^*\hh$ $$\label{2f}
\theta=\sum_{i<j} \alpha_{ij} e^{ij} \qquad \qquad i=1,\hdots, 5.$$
If one requires $\theta$ to be closed, the condition $d\theta=0$ generates a system depending on the parameters $\alpha_{ij}$.
We examplify here one case. The Maurer-Cartan equations on $\ct^*\rr_{3,\lambda}$ are given by $$\begin{array}{rclrclrcl}
de^1 & = & 0 & de^2 & = & e^{12} & de^3 & = & \lambda e^{13}\\
de^4 & = & e^{25}+\lambda e^{36} & de^5 & = & -e^{15} & de^6 & = & -\lambda e^{16}
\end{array}$$ By the expansion of this expression making use of $de^{ij}=de^i \wedge
e^j-e^i\wedge de^j$ one gets conditions on the parameters $\alpha_{ij}$. For instance in the case of the Lie algebras considered in i), one obtains that $\alpha_{1j}=0$ for all $j=1, \hdots
,6$, therefore a closed 2-form $\theta$ belongs to $\Lambda^2 \vv^*$ being $\vv=span\{e_1,
\hdots, e_5\}$, in this implies that $\theta$ cannot be symplectic.
A similar reasonning applies on $\ct^*\rr_{3,\eta}'$.
On $\ct \hh_1$ if a two form $\theta$ as in (\[2f\]) is closed, the constrains may satisfy $$\label{cc1}
0=\alpha_{36}=\alpha_{46}=\alpha_{56}\qquad 0=\alpha_{34}+\alpha_{16}=
\alpha_{35}+\alpha_{26}.$$ The compatibility condition with the abelian complex structure $J$ given by $Je_1=e_2$ $Je_3=-e_6$ $Je_4=e_5$ (\[h1abe\]) implies $$\label{cc2}
\alpha_{34}=\alpha_{56}\qquad \alpha_{35}=-\alpha_{46}.$$ Now (\[cc1\]) and (\[cc2\]) amounts to $\alpha_{i6}=0$ for i=1,2,3,4,5, therefore a closed two form cannot be symplectic. According to results in [@Mg] any abelian complex structure is equivalent to the previous one. Following a similar argument but now searching for the compatibility condition between $\theta$ and the totally real complex structure $J_s$ (\[h1tr\]), with s=0,1, one obtains that any such a two form cannot be symplectic.
Consider now the complex structure $J$ given by $$\label{h1ka}
Je_1= 2 e_4\qquad Je_2=-e_5\qquad Je_3=e_6$$ this is totally real and it is compatible with the following closed two forms $$\theta = a(e^{45}-2e^{12})+be^{14}+c(e^{24}-2e^{15})+d e^{25}+ e(e^{26}+e^{35})+fe^{36}.$$ For instance the following two forms give rise to Kähler pairs $$\label{ka1}
\omega= e^{45}-2e^{12}+ \mu e^{36}\qquad \qquad \mu \neq 0,$$ $$\label{ka2}
\omega=e^{14} + \nu(e^{26}-e^{35}) \qquad \qquad \nu \neq 0.$$
This together with (\[ek\]) prove the next result.
\[psth1\] The Lie algebra $\ct \hh_1$ carries several Kähler structures. However no abelian structure admits a compatible Kähler pair.
Next we see that the cotangent Lie algebra $\ct^*\hh_1$ possesses several Kähler pairs $(J, \theta)$. Let $\theta$ denote a closed two form on $\ct^*\hh_1$, thus $$\theta=\sum_{i<j} \alpha_{ij} e^{ij}\qquad \qquad
\alpha_{34}=0=\alpha_{35}=\alpha_{45},\quad \alpha_{36}=\alpha_{14}+\alpha_{25}.$$
Consider the complex structure on $\ct^*\hh_1$ given by $Je_1=e_4$ $Je_2=e_6$ $Je_3=-e_5$ (\[h1cs\]). The compatibility condition between $J$ and the closed two form $\theta$ implies the following conditions on the contrains $\alpha_{ij}$: $$\begin{array}{rclrclrcl}
\alpha_{12}& = & \alpha_{46} \quad & \alpha_{13} & = & -\alpha_{45} \quad & \alpha_{15} &= &-\alpha_{34} \\
\alpha_{16}& = & \alpha_{24} & \alpha_{23} & = & \alpha_{56} & \alpha_{25} &= &-\alpha_{36}
\end{array}$$ therefore any two form on $\ggo$ which is compatible with $J$ has the form $$\omega=a(e^{12}+e^{46}) + b(2e^{14}-e^{25}+e^{36})+c(e^{16}+e^{24})+d(e^{23}+e^{56})+e e^{26}+f e^{35}.$$
\[psch1\] The free 2-step nilpotent Lie algebra in three generators $\ct^*\hh_1$ admits several Kähler structures.
\[kaff\] The tangent Lie algebra $\ct (\RR\times\aff(\RR))$ carries several Kähler structures.
Let $J$ denote the complex structure on $\ct \rr_{3,0}$ given by $Je_1=e_2$, $Je_3=-e_6$, $Je_4=e_5$ (\[abaffr\]). Canonical computations show that this complex structure $J$ is compatible with the symplectic forms $$\label{oabg}
\omega_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}=\alpha e^{12} +\beta(e^{15}-e^{24})+\gamma e^{36}\qquad
\qquad \beta\gamma\neq 0$$
therefore the pairs $(J, \omega_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma})$ amount to Kähler pairs on $\ct \rr_{3,0}$.
In view of explanations before, the proof of the theorem below is straighforward.
Let $\hh$ denote a real Lie algebra of dimension three.
i\) If $\hh$ is solvable and $\ct\hh$ admits a complex structure then it carries a Kähler structure.
ii\) If $\ct^*\hh$ carries a Kähler structure then $\hh$ is nilpotent.
On the geometry of some pseudo Kähler homogeneous manifolds
-----------------------------------------------------------
The goal is the study of some geometric features on the homogeneous manifolds arising in the previous paragraphs in Lemmas (\[psth1\]) (\[psch1\]) and (\[kaff\]).
In particular we shall see that in the nilpotent case there are flat and non flat metrics. It was already proved in [@FPS] that pseudo-Kähler metrics on nilmanifolds are Ricci flat.
Let $G_1$ denotes the simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\ct \hh_1$. Its underlying differentiable manifold is $\RR^6$ together with the multiplication $$\begin{array}{rcl}
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6) \cdot (y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6) & = & (x_1+y_1,x_2+y_2,\\
& & x_3+y_3+\frac12 (x_1y_2-x_2y_1),\\
& & x_4+y_4+\frac12 (x_2y_6-x_6y_2),\\
& & x_5+y_5 + \frac12 (x_6y_1-x_1y_6), x_6+y_6).
\end{array}$$ The left invariant vector fields at $Y=(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6)\in G_1$ are $$e_1(Y) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} - \frac12 y_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} +\frac12 y_5 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_6} \quad
e_2(Y) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} + \frac12 y_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} + \frac12 y_4 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_6} \quad
e_3(Y) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}$$ $$e_4(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_4}-\frac12 y_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_6} \qquad e_5(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_5}+\frac12 y_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_6}\qquad e_6(Y)= \frac{\partial}{\partial x_6}.$$
They satisfy the Lie bracket relations of $\ct \hh_1$. Let $e^i$ denote the dual basis of $e_i$ for i=1,2,3,4,5,6, and let $\cdot$ denote the symmetric product. The pseudo-Kähler metric for (\[ka1\]) is $$\label{pka1}
g_{\mu}= 2e^1\cdot e^5+e^2\cdot e^4 +\mu(e^3\cdot e^3+e^6\cdot e^6) \qquad \mu\neq 0$$ while for (\[ka2\]) is $$\label{pka2}
g_{\nu}= 2e^1\cdot e^1+ \frac12 e^4 \cdot e^4 +\nu(e^2\cdot e^3+e^5\cdot e^6)\qquad \nu\neq 0.$$
Let $\nabla^{\mu}$ and $\nabla^{\nu}$ denote the corresponding Levi Civita connections for $g_{\mu}$ and $g_{\nu}$ respectively. From the Koszul formula, for $X=x_i e_i$ one gets $$\nabla^{\mu}_X=\frac14 \left(\begin{matrix}
-\mu x_6 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu x_1\\
0 & 2 \mu x_6 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2\mu x_2\\
-2 x_2 & 2 x_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-2\mu x_3 & 0 & -2\mu x_1 & -2\mu x_6 & 0 & -2\mu x_4\\
0 & \mu x_3 & \mu x_2 & 0 & \mu x_6 & \mu x_5\\
-2 x_5 & 2 x_4 & 0 & -2x_2 & 2 x_1 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ $$\nabla^{\nu}_X=\frac12 \left(\begin{matrix}
0 & x_2 & 0 & 0 & \nu x_5 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
- 2x_2 & 0 & 0 & -x_5 & -x_4 & 0\\
0 & 2\nu x_5 & 0 & 0 & 2\nu x_2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-2 x_5 & x_4 & 0 & -x_2 & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ Clearly the Lie subgroup $H_1$ of $G_1$ with Lie algebra $\hh_1\subset \ct \hh_1$ is totally geodesic for $g_{\nu}$ for every $\nu$ but it is not totally geodesic for $g_{\mu}$ for any $\mu$.
Let $R(X,Y):=[\nabla_X,\nabla_Y]-\nabla_{[X,Y]}$ denote the curvature tensor, for $\nabla$ either the Levi Civita connection $\nabla^{\mu}$ or $\nabla^{\nu}$ . Notice that $\nabla^{\nu}_{[X,Y]}\equiv 0$ for all $X,Y$.
By computing them one can verify:
$\bullet$ The pseudo Kähler metrics $g_{\mu}$ are non flat.
$\bullet$ A pseudo Kähler metric $g_{\nu}$ is flat if $\nu=1$.
The Lie algebra $\ct \hh_1$ carry flat and non flat pseudo Kähler metrics.
The Lie algebra $\ct^*\hh_1$ is the free 2-step nilpotent Lie algebra in three generators. Its simply connected Lie group $G_2$, lies on $\RR^6$ with the multiplication given by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6) \cdot (y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6) & = & (x_1+y_1,x_2+y_2,\\
& & x_3+y_3+\frac12 (x_1y_2-x_2y_1),\\
& & x_4+y_4+\frac12 (x_2y_6-x_6y_2),\\
& & x_5+y_5 + \frac12 (x_6y_1-x_1y_6), x_6+y_6).
\end{array}$$
The left invariant vector fields at $Y=(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6)$ are $$e_1(Y) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} - \frac12 y_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} +\frac12 y_6 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_5} \quad
e_2(Y) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} + \frac12 y_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} - \frac12 y_6 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_4} \quad
e_3(Y) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}$$ $$e_4(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_4}\qquad e_5(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_5}\qquad e_6(Y)= \frac12 y_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_4}-\frac12 y_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_5} +\frac{\partial}{\partial x_6},$$ and let $e^i$ denote the dual left invariant 1-forms for i=1,2,3,4,5,6. Consider the metric on $G$ given by $$g= 2 e^1 \cdot e^1 + e^2\cdot e^3 + 2 e^4\cdot e^4 - e^5\cdot e^6$$ where $\cdot$ denotes the symmetric product. In particular $$\ct^*\hh_1=\hh_1 \oplus J\hh_1$$ denotes a orthogonal direct sum as vector spaces of totally real subalgebras.
The corresponding Levi Civita connection is given by $$\nabla_X=\left( \begin{matrix} 0 & \frac{x_2}2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\frac{x_6}2\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-x_2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -x_4\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & x_2\\
x_6 & -x_4 & 0 & x_2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0& 0& 0& 0
\end{matrix}
\right)
\qquad \mbox{ for } X=\sum x_i e_i.$$ One can verify that the Lie subgroup $H_1$ that corresponds to the Lie subalgebra $\hh_1 $, spanned by $e_1,e_2,e_3$, is totally geodesic.
The corresponding curvature tensor $R(X,Y)$ is given by $$R(X,Y)Z=(x_2y_6-x_6y_2)(\frac32 z_6 e_3+\frac12 z_2 e_5).$$
The Lie algebra $\ct^*\hh_1$ admits non flat but Ricci flat pseudo Kähler metrics.
The simply connected Lie group $G_3$ with Lie algebra $\ct \rr_{3,0}$ is, as a manifold, diffeomorphic to $\RR^6$. Let $(x_1, x_2, \hdots, , x_6)$ denote an arbitrary element in $\RR^6$, then the rule multiplication is given by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6) \cdot (y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6) & = & (x_1+y_1,x_2+e^{x_6}y_2,
x_3+e^{x_6}y_3+ \\ & & + \frac{e^{x_6}}2 (x_1y_2-x_2y_1), x_4+y_4, x_5+y_5, \\
& & x_6+y_6).
\end{array}$$
The left invariant vector fields at $Y=(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6)\in G_3$ are $$e_1(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} - e^{y_6} y_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}\qquad
e_2(Y)=e^{y_6}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} + y_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3})$$ $$e_3(Y)=e^{y_6}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}\qquad e_4(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_4}\qquad e_5(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_5}\qquad e_6(Y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_6},$$
and let $e^i$ denote the dual 1-forms for i=1,2,3,4,5,6.
Consider the metric $\la \, , \, \ra$ on $G$ for which the vector fields above satisfy the non zero relations $$g = \alpha (e_1\cdot e_1+ e_2\cdot e_2) + \beta (e_1\cdot e_4+ e_2\cdot e_5)+\gamma( e_3\cdot e_3+ e_6\cdot e_6)\quad \beta \gamma \neq 0.$$
This metric is clearly non definite.
The complex structure on $G$ is defined as the linear map $J:T_Y G \to T_YG$ such that $J^2=-{\rm I}$ and $$J e_1=e_2 \qquad Je_3=e_6 \qquad Je_4=e_5.$$
This gives a complex structure on $\RR^6$ which is invariant under the action of the Lie group $G$, the action is induced from the multiplication on $G$. Moreover the complex structure is Hermitian for the metric above and it is parallel for the corresponding Levi Civita connection $\nabla$, which on the basis of left invariant vector fields is given by $$\nabla_X=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & x_2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-x_2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 &0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & x_5 & 0 & 0 & x_2 & 0\\
-x_5 & 0 & 0 & -x_2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right) \qquad \qquad \mbox{ for } X=\sum_{i=1}^6 x_i e_i.$$
Let $\hh$ denote the involutive distribution spanned by $e_2,e_6,e_5$, then it admits a complementary orthogonal distribution $J\hh$, therefore $T_YG=\hh\oplus J\hh$ as orthogonal direct sum. At the Lie algebra level, one has the following short exact sequence
$$0 \longrightarrow \hh \longrightarrow \ggo \longrightarrow J\hh \longrightarrow 0.$$
Notice that $\hh$ is a abelian ideal while $J\hh$ is a abelian subalgebra. Moreover, [*the complex structure $J$ is totally real*]{} with respect to this decomposition and the representation $\pi$ deriving from the adjoint action satisfies the conditions of Corollary (\[ca\]).
Let $H$ denote the Lie subgroup corresponding to the distribution $\hh $ and $JH$ the Lie subgroup corresponding to $J\hh$, which is totally geodesic. In fact, making use of the formula for $\nabla$, one verifies $$\nabla_X Y\subseteq J\hh, \qquad \nabla_{JX}{JY}\subseteq J\hh,\qquad \mbox{ for } X,Y\in \hh$$ and since $(J,g)$ is Kähler, $\nabla_X JY=J\nabla_X Y$ and $\nabla_{JX} Y=-J\nabla_{JX} JY$ for $X,Y\in \hh$.
The curvature tensor $R$ is given by $$R(x,y)=-\nabla_{[x,y]}$$ which implies that $J H$ is flat.
The Ricci tensor $r$ follows $r(X,Y)=2(x_1y_1 + x_2y_2)$ for $X=\sum x_i e_1$, $Y=\sum y_i e_i$, therefore $G_3$ is neither flat nor Ricci flat.
[GGGG]{}
, [*Hermitian structures on cotangent bundles of four dimensional solvable Lie groups*]{}, Osaka J. Math. [**44**]{} (4) (2007) 765–793.
, [A. Andrada, M.L. Barberis, G. Ovando]{}, [*Lie bialgebras of complex type and associated Poisson Lie groups*]{}, J. of Geom. and Physics, [**58**]{} 10 (2008), 1310-1328.
, [*Complex structures on affine motion groups*]{}, Quart. J. Math. Oxford. [**55**]{} (4) (2004), 375–389.
, [*On certain locally homogeneous Clifford manifolds*]{}, Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. [**13**]{} (1995) 289–301.
, [*Variétés symplectiques affines*]{}, Manuscripta Math. [**64**]{} (1989), 1–33.
, [*Weak mirror symmetry of Lie algebras*]{} , preprint, arxiv.org:math.AG/0804.4787.
, [*Nilpotent complex structures on compact nilmanifolds*]{}, Rend. Circolo Mat. Palermo [**49**]{} suppl. (1997), 83–100.
, [*Compact nilmanifolds with nilpotent complex structure: Dolbeault cohomology*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**352**]{} (2000), 5405–5433.
, [*Pseudo-Kähler metrics on six dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras*]{}, [J. of Geom. and Phys. [**50**]{} (2004), 115–137]{}.
, [*Generalized complex structures on nilmanifolds*]{}, J. Symplectic Geom. [**3**]{} (2004), 393–410.
, [*Complex structures on tangent and cotangent Lie algebras*]{}, arXiv:math.DG/0805.2520.
, Comment. Math. Helv. [**79**]{} (2004), 317–340.
, [*Structure of Lie groups and Lie algebras*]{}, English transl. in Encycl. Math Sc. [**41**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994.
, [*Generalized complex geometry*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Oxford, 2003, arxiv:math.DG/0401221.
, [*Structures complexes sur les algèbres de Lie nilpotentes quasi-filiformes*]{}, arXiv:math.RA/ 0805.1833.
, [*Generalized Calabi-Yau Manifolds*]{}, Quart. J. Math. Oxford [**54**]{} (2003), 281–308.
, [*A note on automorphisms and derivations of Lie algebras*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, [**6**]{} (1955), 33-39.
, [*Curvatures of left invariant metrics on Lie groups*]{}, Advances in Math., [**21**]{} (1976), 293–329.
, [*Complex structures on indecomposable 6-dimensional nilpotent real Lie algebras*]{}, Intern. J. of Algebra and Computation, [**17**]{} 1 (2007), 77–113.
, [*Invariant complex structures on solvable real Lie groups*]{}, Manuscripta Math., [**103**]{} (2000), 19–30.
, [*Invariant pseudo Kähler metrics in dimension four*]{}, J. of Lie Theory, [**16**]{} (2006), 371–391.
, [*Lie algebras decomposable as a sum of an abelian and a nilpotent subalgebra*]{}, Ukr. Math. J., [**40**]{}(3) (1988), 385–388.
, [*Classification of left invariant complex structures on $GL(2,\RR)$ and $U(2)$*]{}, Kumamoto J. Sci. (Math.), [**14**]{} (1981), 115 - 123.
, [*Classification of left invariant complex structures on $SL(3,\RR)$*]{}, Kumamoto J. Sci. (Math.), [**15**]{} (1982), 59 - 72.
, [*A class of complex-analytic manifolds*]{}, Port. Math. [**12**]{} (1953), 129–132.
, [*Invariant complex structures on reductive Lie groups*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**371**]{} (1986), 191–215.
, [*Invariant complex structures on four dimensional solvable real Lie groups*]{}, Manuscripta Math., [**66**]{} (1990), 397–412.
, [*Classification of left invariant complex structures on $GL(2,\RR)$ and $U(2)$*]{}, Kumamoto J. Sci. (Math.), [**14**]{} (1981), 115–123.
, [*Complex structures on nilpotent Lie algebras*]{}, J. Pure and Applied Algebra, [**157**]{} (2001), 311–333.
, [*On para-Euler-Lagrange and para-Hamilton equations*]{}, Physics Letters A [**340**]{} (2005),7–12.
, [*Hermitian structures on six dimensional nilmanifolds*]{}, Transform. Groups [**12**]{} n. 1, (2007),175–202.
, [*Closed manifolds with homogeneous complex structure* ]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**76**]{} (1954), 1–-37.
[^1]: R.C.S. was partially supported by the research projects MTM2006-09152 of the M.E.C. and CCG07-UCM/ESP-2922 of the C.M.
[^2]: G.O. was partially supported by CONICET, ANPCyT, SECyT-UNC, SCyT-UNR
[^3]: Keywords: Complex structure, totally real, solvable Lie algebra, pseudo Kähler metric.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'One way of evaluating social choice (voting) rules is through a utilitarian distortion framework. In this model, we assume that agents submit full rankings over the alternatives, and these rankings are generated from underlying, but unknown, quantitative costs. The *distortion* of a social choice rule is then the ratio of the total social cost of the chosen alternative to the optimal social cost of any alternative; since the true costs are unknown, we consider the worst-case distortion over all possible underlying costs. Analogously, we can consider the worst-case *fairness ratio* of a social choice rule by comparing a useful notion of fairness (based on approximate majorization) for the chosen alternative to that of the optimal alternative. With an additional metric assumption – that the costs equal the agent-alternative distances in some metric space – it is known that the Copeland rule achieves both a distortion and fairness ratio of at most 5. For other rules, only bounds on the distortion are known, e.g., the popular Single Transferable Vote (STV) rule has distortion $O(\log m)$, where $m$ is the number of alternatives. We prove that the distinct notions of distortion and fairness ratio are in fact closely linked – within an additive factor of 2 for any voting rule – and thus STV also achieves an $O(\log m)$ fairness ratio. We further extend the notions of distortion and fairness ratio to social choice rules choosing a *set* of alternatives. By relating the distortion of single-winner rules to multiple-winner rules, we establish that Recursive Copeland achieves a distortion of 5 and a fairness ratio of at most 7 for choosing a set of alternatives.'
author:
- 'Ashish Goel, Reyna Hulett, Anilesh K. Krishnaswamy\'
title: Relating Metric Distortion and Fairness of Social Choice Rules
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Social choice theory studies the aggregation of agent preferences into a single collective decision via a social choice rule. Often these preferences are expressed as total orderings over a set of possible alternatives, and a social choice rule maps any instance of preferences to one or more alternatives. The traditional approach to evaluating the quality of social choice rules has been a normative, axiomatic one. A great deal of work has been done to propose various axioms or properties that social choice rules ought to satisfy – such as strategy-proofness or the majority winner criterion – and evaluate different rules by which criteria they meet [@arrow2012social]. Unfortunately, even small sets of natural axioms may be impossible to satisfy simultaneously. For instance, the celebrated Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem rules out the existence of strategy-proof, non-dictatorial social choice rules with more than two alternatives [@gibbard1973manipulation; @satterthwaite1975strategy]. Thus we must either accept social choice rules which fail to satisfy some natural properties, or make assumptions which limit the possible agent preferences but permit strategy-proof rules [@barbera2001introduction; @moulin1980strategy].
An alternative to the axiomatic approach, which has lately received much attention in the field of computational social choice [@boutilier2015optimal; @caragiannis2011voting; @procaccia2006distortion], is to adopt a utilitarian view – agents express their ordinal preferences by ranking the alternatives, but have latent *cardinal* preferences over the alternatives. In particular, much work [@anshelevich2015approximating; @anshelevich2016randomized; @skowron2017social] has been done on the *metric distortion* problem [@anshelevich2015approximating]. Under this model, agents and alternatives are assumed to lie in an unknown, arbitrary metric space, and an agent’s cost for an alternative is given by the distance between the two. Social choice rules are viewed as approximation algorithms trying to choose the alternative with the lowest social cost, given access to only the ordinal preferences of agents. Similar to the competitive ratio of online approximation algorithms, the quantity of interest here is the worst-case value (over all possible underlying costs) of the *distortion* – the ratio of the social cost of the chosen alternative to that of the optimal alternative, chosen omnisciently [@anshelevich2015approximating]. In this setting, the best known positive result for deterministic social rules is that the distortion of the Copeland rule is at most $5$ [@anshelevich2015approximating]. Another recent result establishes that the distortion of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) rule, which is widely used in practice, is $O(\log m)$ [@skowron2017social], where $m$ is the number of alternatives.
Under the metric distortion approach, another important question is to quantify how “fair” choosing a particular alternative is. Since the costs incurred could vary widely among the agents, minimizing the total cost might not be the only useful objective. For instance, imagine there are two agents and two alternatives, and the costs for the agents are $\{1,3\}$ for the first alternative, and $\{2,2\}$ for the second. It is natural to expect that under any reasonable notion of fairness the second is more desirable than the first. Although many notions of fairness exist, not all are applicable in this setting, and some cannot even be bounded for any social choice rule [@goel2017metric; @anshelevich2015approximating]. We use the *fairness ratio* [@goel2017metric], which is a simultaneous bound, over all $k$, on the distortion of the social cost objective given by the sum of the $k$ largest agent costs. This definition of fairness is based on the notion of approximate majorization [@goel2006simultaneous], which generalizes the various notions of fairness that have been studied in the context of routing, bandwidth allocation and load balancing problems [@kleinberg1999fairness; @kumar2000fairness; @goel2001approximate]. For instance, it includes as special cases both total cost minimization (utilitarianism), when $k=N$ (where N is the total number of agents), and max-min fairness (egalitarianism), when $k=1$. A bound on the fairness ratio also translates to an approximation guarantee on a wide class of convex objective functions [@goel2017metric]. For example, a constant factor bound on the fairness ratio implies the same bound on the distortion of social cost objectives such as the geometric mean, or any $l_p$ norm of the agent costs [@goel2017metric]. Thus, this interesting notion of fairness captures a wide range of desirable properties.
It is known that Copeland achieves a fairness ratio of at most 5, thereby yielding a constant-factor approximation for a large class of convex objectives [@goel2017metric]. Since it also achieves a distortion of at most 5, a natural question arises as to whether the distortion and fairness ratio are inherently connected. For many popular voting rules – such as scoring rules and STV – bounds are known on the distortion but not the fairness ratio. Could the distortion bounds for these rules extend to the fairness ratio as well, as is the case with Copeland? In particular, does any bound on distortion directly imply a bound on the fairness ratio? The primary aim of this paper is to answer this question.
The majority of previous work on the metric distortion problem looks only at social choice rules that choose a single alternative and not those that choose a set of alternatives. To address this lacuna, we also study the problem of establishing bounds on the distortion and fairness ratio for the case of choosing a set of winners, given the size of the desired set. Applications of multi-winner elections are quite diverse such as proportional representation in parliament [@monroe1995fully; @betzler2013computation], selecting a diverse committee [@chamberlin1983representative] (e.g. locations of fire stations), offering a selection of movies to passengers on a flight [@lu2011budgeted], and shortlisting candidates for a job interview [@barbera2008choose; @elkind2017properties]. We will focus on settings where a set of resources has to be chosen to serve a community of voters. Some examples of these setting are choosing overlay networks in the Internet [@andersen2001resilient], or a set of public projects to implement given a fixed budget [@cabannes2004participatory; @goel2015knapsack]. We will also assume in such settings that the preferences are additive – the total cost for an agent is just the sum of her costs over the chosen set of alternatives. It is fairly straightforward to see that a repeated application of Copeland to choose a set of winners yields a bound of 5 on the distortion. In fact, we establish that any single-winner rule can be applied recursively to obtain a multiple-winner rule with the same bound on distortion. However, it was not known if a constant-factor bound on the fairness ratio is possible in this case. We answer this question in the positive by extending the distortion-fairness relationship to rules choosing a set of winners, thus establishing that the set chosen by a repeated application of Copeland achieves a bound of at most 7 on the fairness ratio.
Our Results
-----------
Our primary focus in this paper will be to quantify the relationship between the distortion and fairness ratio for social choice rules that choose a single winner, which also leads to new results for any rules where bounds are known on the distortion but not the fairness ratio. We then extend these results to rules that choose a set of winners, and characterize upper bounds on distortion and fairness in this setting. We also provide a lower bound on the gap between the distortion and fairness ratio.
*Note: All our proofs are provided separately in the appendix.*
### Distortion and Fairness for Single-Winner Rules
Given the ordinal preferences of the agents, the distortion of an alternative is the worst case value (over all possible underlying metrics) of the ratio between the sum of agent costs for it, and the sum of the agent costs for the optimal alternative. For studying fairness under the metric distortion framework, we instead consider the ratio of the sum of the $k$ largest agent costs for an alternative to the $k$ largest costs for the optimal alternative, and take the maximum value among these ratios over all possible values of $k$. The overall fairness ratio is the worst case value of this quantity over all possible underlying metrics. Since for $k=N$ we get the sum of costs objective, the fairness ratio is at least as large as distortion.
Our main result is that the distortion and fairness ratio are closely related. For any given ordinal preferences, and any alternative, we show that the fairness ratio cannot be much larger than the distortion.
Given the ordinal preferences of the agents, the fairness ratio of any alternative is at most 2 more than its distortion.
We also present instances where the “obvious” winner for any reasonable social choice rule (which is also the distortion minimizing alternative) has a distortion-fairness gap approaching 2.
There exist instances where the gap between the distortion and fairness ratio of the distortion-optimal alternative approaches 2.
In fact, because the above results hold for any set of preferences and any metric space, they also imply that for any social choice rule, the worst-case fairness ratio is at most 2 more than its worst-case distortion. This implies novel bounds on the fairness ratio of several social choice rules, including STV, for which only bounds on distortion were previously known [@skowron2017social].
The fairness ratio of STV is $O(\log m)$ and $\Omega (\sqrt{\log m})$.
### Distortion and Fairness for Multiple-Winner Rules
We also consider the case where a social choice rule selects a set of winners (of a given size). Here, the cost of an agent for any set of alternatives is the sum of her costs over the alternatives in the set, and the social cost is the sum of the individual agent costs, as before.
It is straightforward to see from previous results [@anshelevich2015approximating] that choosing the desired set by a repeated application of the Copeland rule achieves a worst-case distortion of 5. In fact, we show that recursive application of any single-winner rule – where a set of given size $\ell$ is selected by first choosing the winner when the rule is applied over the entire set of $m$ alternatives, then over the remaining $m-1$ alternatives, and so on until we have chosen $\ell$ alternatives – results in an $\ell$-winner rule with the same distortion bound.
Recursive application of a single-winner social choice rule gives an $\ell$-winner rule (for any $\ell$) achieving the same bound on distortion.
Although this result does not directly extend to the fairness ratio, we do establish that our main result relating distortion and fairness *does* apply to multiple-winner rules. Combining this and the above result concerning recursive social choice rules, we show that it is possible to achieve, using Recursive Copeland, a constant-factor bound on the multiple-winner fairness ratio.
Recursive Copeland achieves a worst-case distortion of at most 5, and a worst-case fairness ratio of at most 7.
However, note that we do not know of a better lower bound than 5 for the worst-case fairness ratio of Recursive Copeland. The lower bound of 5 follows from previous work – the upper bound of 5 for both the distortion and fairness ratio of Copeland is known to be tight [@anshelevich2015approximating; @goel2017metric].
Related Literature
------------------
Within the general model of agents with cardinal preferences who report only ordinal information, several ways of bounding distortion have been studied in the literature [@moulin2016handbook]. It is usually assumed that agents’ ordinal rankings straightforwardly match the order of their cardinal utilities, with the most-preferred alternative ranked first. In this case, it is known that when the underlying utilities are unrestricted, or simply normalized, the worst-case distortion of any deterministic social choice rule is large [@procaccia2006distortion]. With randomized mechanisms, it is possible to achieve an expected distortion of $O(\sqrt{m} \log^* m)$, where $m$ is the number of alternatives [@boutilier2015optimal]. However, if the mechanism has control over how agents’ utilities are translated into rankings, it is possible to design randomized rules with very low distortion [@caragiannis2011voting]. The preceding results are not restricted to strategy-proof voting rules, but it is possible to construct a truthful-in-expectation mechanism whose worst-case distortion is $O(m^{3/4})$ [@filos2014truthful].
One way to improve these distortion results is to make spatial assumptions on the underlying cardinal preferences, a technique which has a long history in social choice [@enelow1984spatial; @moulin1980strategy]. Such models, especially those using Euclidean spaces, have naturally also been studied in the approximation algorithms literature on facility location problems [@arya2004local; @drezner1995facility]. In these models, the cost of an agent for an alternative is given by the distance between the two.
As mentioned earlier, our work follows the literature on the analysis of distortion of social choice rules under the assumption that agent costs form an unknown metric space [@anshelevich2015approximating; @anshelevich2016randomized]. Several lower and upper bounds for the sum of costs and median objectives are known, in both deterministic and randomized settings [@anshelevich2015approximating; @anshelevich2016randomized]. For example, in the deterministic case, Copeland achieves a distortion of at most 5 [@anshelevich2015approximating], and the distortion of STV is $O(\log m)$ [@skowron2017social]. In the special case of Euclidean metrics, it possible to design low-distortion mechanisms, with the additional constraint of their being truthful-in-expectation [@feldman2016voting].
Social choice rules choosing sets of alternatives rather than a single winner have been studied for some time [@chamberlin1983representative; @monroe1995fully; @faliszewski2017multiwinner], but recently they have also been evaluated within the distortion framework [@caragiannis2017subset]. In most of these settings, the value of a set for an agent is determined by her favorite item in the set. Such rules have been evaluated both using distortion of utilities and an additive notion of approximation, regret; the distortion in this setting remains large – $\Theta(\sqrt{m})$ – at least when the number of winners is small compared to the number of alternatives [@caragiannis2017subset]. To the best of our knowledge, multiple-winner rules have not been studied under the metric costs model.
In the distortion framework, both the interpersonal comparison of utilities, and the goal of utility maximization, are implicitly assumed to be valid. While the interpersonal comparison of utilities is more meaningful in some contexts than others [@boutilier2015optimal], we take it for granted.
In addition to distortion, we borrow from the various notions of fairness studied in the context of network problems such as bandwidth allocation and load balancing [@kleinberg1999fairness; @kumar2000fairness], of which approximate majorization is the most general [@goel2001approximate]. The notion of approximate majorization has been used in the metric distortion setting to study the fairness properties of social choice rules in the form of the fairness ratio [@goel2017metric]. Copeland is known to achieve a fairness ratio of 5 [@goel2017metric], and a bound on the fairness ratio translates to a bound on social cost objectives belonging to a general class of convex functions [@goel2006simultaneous; @goel2017metric].
Preliminaries
=============
Social Choice Rules
-------------------
Let ${\mathcal{V}}$ be the set of agents and ${\mathcal{C}}$ the set of alternatives. We will use $N$ to denote the total number of agents, i.e., $N = |{\mathcal{V}}|$, and $m$ the number of alternatives, i.e., $m = |{\mathcal{C}}|$. Every agent $v \in {\mathcal{V}}$ has a strict (no ties) preference ordering $\sigma_v$ on ${\mathcal{C}}$. For any $c,{c^\prime}\in {\mathcal{C}}$, we will use $c \succ_v {c^\prime}$ to denote the fact that agent $v \in {\mathcal{V}}$ *prefers* $c$ over ${c^\prime}$ in her ordering $\sigma_v$. Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be the set of all possible preference orderings on ${\mathcal{C}}$. We call a profile of preference orderings $\sigma \in {\mathcal{S}}^N$ an *instance*.
Based on the preferences of the agents, we either want to determine a single alternative as the winner, or a set of alternatives of a given size $\ell$. A (deterministic) single-winner social choice rule is a function $f: {\mathcal{S}}^N \to {\mathcal{C}}$ that maps each instance to an alternative. An $\ell$-winner social choice rule is a function $f: {\mathcal{S}}^N \to \{S \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}: |S|= \ell\}$ that maps each instance to a set of $\ell$ alternatives.
To define the social choice rules that we use in this paper, we need one additional definition. We say that an alternative $c$ *pairwise beats* ${c^\prime}$ if $|\{v \in {\mathcal{V}}: c \succ_v {c^\prime}\}| \geq \frac{N}{2}$, with ties broken arbitrarily.
- **Copeland**: Given an instance $\sigma$, define a score for each alternative $c \in {\mathcal{C}}$ given by $|\{c^\prime \in {\mathcal{C}}: c \mbox{ pairwise beats } {c^\prime}\}|$. The alternative with the highest score (the largest number of pairwise victories, with ties broken arbitrarily) is chosen as the winner.
- **Recursive rules**: For any single-winner rule $f$, we define the $\ell$-winner “Recursive $f$” (e.g., Recursive Copeland). Given an instance $\sigma$, choose $\ell$ winners as follows: First pick the winner $c_1$ under rule $f$ among all alternatives ${\mathcal{C}}$, then pick the winner $c_2$ under $f$ among ${\mathcal{C}}\setminus \{c_1\}$, and so on until $c_\ell$. The set of winners is given by $\{c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_\ell\}$.
- **STV**: Given an instance $\sigma$, repeatedly eliminate the alternative ranked first by the fewest agents and remove this alternative from every ranking. The last remaining alternative is the winner.
Metric costs
------------
We assume that the agent costs over the alternatives are given by an underlying metric $d$ on ${\mathcal{C}}\cup {\mathcal{V}}$, such that $d(v,c)$ is the cost of an agent $v$ for an alternative $c$.
\[def:metric\] A function $d : {\mathcal{C}}\cup {\mathcal{V}}\times {\mathcal{C}}\cup {\mathcal{V}}\to {\mathcal{R}_{\geq 0}}$ is a metric if and only if $\forall x,y,z \in {\mathcal{C}}\cup {\mathcal{V}}$, we have the following:
1. $d(x,y) \geq 0$
2. $d(x,x) = 0$
3. $d(x,y) = d(y,x)$
4. $d(x,z) \leq d(x,y) + d(y,z)$\[eqn:tri-ineq\]
We can do with a much simpler yet equivalent assumption on the agents’ costs. We need to first define a q-metric (“q” for quadrilateral) by replacing the triangle inequalities by “quadrilateral” inequalities (Condition \[eqn:quad-ineq\] in the definition below).
\[def:qmetric\] A function $d : {\mathcal{V}}\times {\mathcal{C}}\to {\mathcal{R}_{\geq 0}}$ is a q-metric if and only if $\forall v,{v^\prime}\in {\mathcal{V}}$, and $\forall c, {c^\prime}\in {\mathcal{C}}$, we have the following:
1. $d(v,c) \geq 0$
2. $d(v,c) \leq d(v,{c^\prime}) + d({v^\prime},{c^\prime}) + d({v^\prime},c)$ \[eqn:quad-ineq\]
The following equivalence has been shown in earlier work [@goel2017metric].
\[thm:tri-eq-quad\] If $d$ is a q-metric, then there exists a metric ${d^\prime}$ such that $d(v,c) = {d^\prime}(v,c)$ for all $v \in {\mathcal{V}}$ and $c \in {\mathcal{C}}$.
Henceforth, we will use the terms *metric* and *q-metric* interchangeably.
Distortion
----------
We say that a metric $d$ is *consistent* with an instance $\sigma$, if whenever any agent $v$ prefers $c$ over ${c^\prime}$, then her cost for $c$ must be at most her cost for ${c^\prime}$, i.e., $c \succ_v {c^\prime}\implies d(v,c) \leq d(v,{c^\prime})$. We denote by $\rho(\sigma)$ the set of all metrics $d$ that are consistent with $\sigma$.
The social cost, $\phi$, of an alternative is defined as the sum of the agent costs for it. For any metric $d$, and any alternative $c \in {\mathcal{C}}$, we define $\phi(c,d) = \sum_{v \in {\mathcal{V}}} d(v,c)$. The social cost of a set of alternatives is the sum of social costs of the constituent alternatives. For any set of alternatives $S \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}$, we define $$\phi(S,d) = \sum_{v \in {\mathcal{V}}} \sum_{c \in S} d(v,c).$$ Below, we will define distortion in terms of choosing sets of alternatives. The corresponding definitions for single-winner social choice rules are obtained by using singleton sets instead.
We view social choice rules as trying to approximate the optimal set of alternatives of a given size $\ell$, with knowledge of only the rankings $\sigma$, but not the underlying metric cost $d$ that induces $\sigma$. To measure how close a social choice rule gets to the optimal set of size $\ell$ in terms of social cost, we define the *distortion* of any given set $S$ of size $\ell$ to be the ratio of the social cost of $S$ to the cost of the optimal set according to $d$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{distortion}}(S,d) = \frac{\phi(S,d)}{\min_{T \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}: |T| = \ell} \phi(T,d)}.\end{aligned}$$ The worst-case distortion of a set alternatives $S \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}$ for a given instance $\sigma$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{distortion}}(S,\sigma) = \sup_{d \in \rho(\sigma)} {\mathrm{distortion}}(S,d).\end{aligned}$$ The distortion of a social choice rule $f$ is said to be at most $\beta$, if for any instance $\sigma$, we have ${\mathrm{distortion}}(f(\sigma),\sigma) \leq \beta$. In other words, the worst-case distortion of the set of alternatives chosen by $f$, over all possible instances $\sigma$, and all metrics $d \in \rho(\sigma)$ that are consistent with it, is at most $\beta$.
Fairness {#subsec:prelims-fairness}
--------
Given an underlying metric, based on the alternative chosen, the costs incurred might vary widely among the agents. We want to formally quantify how “fair” choosing a particular alternative is. For this purpose, we look at social cost defined as the sum of $k$ largest agent costs, for all $1 \leq k \leq N$. For any metric $d$ and $S \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_k(S,d) = \max_{V \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}: |V| = k} \sum_{v \in V} \sum_{c \in S} d(v,c).\end{aligned}$$
We measure fairness by a worst-case bound on how well a social choice rule approximates (simultaneously for all $k$) the optimal set of alternatives in terms of the social cost given by $\phi_k$, with knowledge of only the rankings $\sigma$, but not the underlying metric $d$. To this end, we define the *fairness ratio* of a given set of alternatives $S$ of size $\ell$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{fairness}}(S,d) = \max_{1 \leq k \leq N} \frac{\phi_k(S,d)}{\min_{T \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}: |T| = \ell} \phi_k(T,d)}.\end{aligned}$$ The worst-case fairness ratio of a set of alternatives $S$ of size $\ell$, for a given instance $\sigma$ then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{fairness}}(S,\sigma) = \sup_{d \in \rho(\sigma)} {\mathrm{fairness}}(S,d).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the fairness ratio of a social choice rule $f$ is said to be at most $\beta$, if for any instance $\sigma$, we have ${\mathrm{fairness}}(f(\sigma),\sigma) \leq \beta$.
Another reason for studying the fairness ratio is that for deterministic social choice rules, a bound on the fairness ratio translates to an approximation result with respect to a broad class of convex cost functions (see Goel et al. [@goel2017metric])
Relating Distortion and Fairness
================================
In this section, we establish our main result, which ties the distortion and fairness ratio closely together (within an additive factor of 2). This result additionally implies bounds on the fairness ratio for several popular social choice rules for which only bounds on the distortion were previously known, including $k$-Approval, Veto, Plurality, Borda, and STV. Until Sect. \[sec:sets\], we consider only single-winner social choice rules $f:{\mathcal{S}}^N \to {\mathcal{C}}$.
We will prove that the distortion-fairness gap is at most 2 for any fixed metric, which in turn implies the gap is at most 2 for any instance (taking the supremum over all metrics) *and* for any rule (taking the supremum over all instances). Perhaps surprisingly, although this relationship is established on the level of a specific metric, we will show that it is tight on the level of instances, i.e., there exist instances for which the distortion-fairness gap of a given alternative approaches 2.
First, we note the following trivial relationship between the distortion and fairness ratio.
\[thm:leq\] For any instance $\sigma$ and alternative $c$, $${\mathrm{distortion}}(c,\sigma) \leq {\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma).$$
Theorem \[thm:leq\] also implies that if the fairness ratio of a single-winner rule $f$ is at most $\beta$, then the distortion of $f$ is at most $\beta$.
Next, we establish a corresponding lower bound on distortion, giving the desired gap of 2. Again, we establish the bound for fixed instances by proving it for individual metrics, and this also implies that the same bound applies to any single-winner rule $f$.
\[thm:2\] For any instance $\sigma$ and any alternative $c$, $${\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma) - 2 < {\mathrm{distortion}}(c,\sigma).$$
Theorem \[thm:2\] also implies that if the distortion of a single-winner rule $f$ is at most $\beta$, then the fairness ratio of $f$ is at most $\beta + 2$.
Additionally, the bound of Theorem \[thm:leq\] is tight, in the sense that there exists a series of instances and an alternative $c$ for which the distortion-fairness gap approaches 2 as the number of agents approaches $\infty$. One such series of instances is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:tight\].
= \[draw, fill, circle, inner sep=1.5pt\];
\(21) at (0,0) \[dot\] ; at (21) \[below=5pt\] [$v$]{}; (2) at (2,0) \[dot\] ; at (2) \[below=5pt\] [$c_2$]{}; (12) at (4,0) \[dot\] ; at (12) \[below=5pt\] [${\mathcal{V}}\setminus v$]{}; (1) at (6,0) \[dot\] ; at (1) \[below=5pt\] [$c_1$]{};
\(21) – (2) node \[midway,above\] [$1$]{}; (2) – (12) node \[midway,above\] [$1$]{}; (12) – (1) node \[midway,above\] [$1 - \delta$]{};
\[thm:tight\] For the series of instances $\sigma_N$ illustrated in Fig. \[fig:tight\], ${\mathrm{fairness}}(c_1,\sigma_N) - {\mathrm{distortion}}(c_1,\sigma_N) \to 2$ as $N \to \infty$.
This example also implies that choosing the alternative with lowest distortion (in this case, $c_1$) can result in a distortion-fairness gap approaching $2$. Indeed, any reasonable social choice rule should choose $c_1$, which beats $c_2$ by an overwhelming majority, and thus would have a distortion-fairness gap approaching 2 for this instance.
In fact, this gap makes sense when we note that ${\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma)$ is always at least 3 unless $c$ is ranked first by *every* agent. Otherwise, let $v$ be an agent that prefers some alternative $c_\mathrm{adv}$ above $c$, i.e., $c_\mathrm{adv} \succ_v c$, and consider a metric $d$ such that $$\label{eq:d}
d(v',c') = \begin{cases}
3 &\text{if } v'=v, c_\mathrm{adv} \succ_v c' \\
1 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$ It is not hard to see that this metric satisfies the quadrilateral inequality and is consistent with $\sigma$. For this metric and $k=1$, we have $$\frac{ \phi_1(c,d) }{ \min_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi_1(c',d) } = \frac{3}{1} = 3.$$ Since this consistent metric achieves a fairness ratio of 3, we conclude that ${\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma) \geq 3$ unless every agent ranks $c$ first. Since distortion can approach 1 without this strict requirement, a gap of 2 naturally arises. (However, note that this flooring effect is not the only reason for a distortion-fairness gap; such a gap may still exist when the fairness ratio is larger than 3.)
New Bounds on the Fairness of Specific Rules
--------------------------------------------
Now that we have established a close relationship between the distortion and fairness ratio – within a constant additive factor – we immediately get new results for any single-winner rule where distortion is known but fairness is not. These include many rules in common use: both simple rules such as $k$-Approval, Veto, Plurality, and Borda [@anshelevich2015approximating]; and more complex ones such as STV and the general class of scoring rules, i.e., rules where each position on an agent’s ballot is worth a certain number of points and the alternative with the most points is the winner [@skowron2017social]. The following corollary arises directly from these known bounds and Theorems \[thm:leq\] and \[thm:2\] establishing the relationship between the distortion and fairness ratio.
\[cor:rules\] For an instance $\sigma$ with $N$ agents and $m$ alternatives,
1. The fairness ratio of $k$-Approval and Veto is $\Theta(N)$.
2. The fairness ratio of Plurality and Borda is $\Theta(m)$.
3. The fairness ratio of the harmonic scoring rule [^1] is $O(\frac{m}{\sqrt{\log m}})$ and $\Omega(\frac{m}{\log m})$.
4. The fairness ratio of *any* scoring rule is $\Omega(\sqrt{\log m})$.
5. The fairness ratio of STV is $O(\log m)$ and $\Omega(\sqrt{\log m})$.
Calculating Fairness
--------------------
For completeness, we can give a straightforward way to calculate the fairness ratio exactly, similar to the program given by Goel et al. [@goel2017metric] for calculating distortion. Although we do not have a polynomial time algorithm for calculating the fairness ratio, it can be computed by means of a binary linear program. We provide details in Section \[app:calc\_fairness\] in the Appendix.
Distortion and Fairness for Multiple-Winner Rules {#sec:sets}
=================================================
The notions of distortion and fairness ratio extend naturally to choosing a *set* of winners rather than a single alternative. In this section, we show that the same distortion bounds for single-winner rules can also be obtained for multiple-winner rules (under the sum of costs objective), and thus we can use Recursive Copeland to achieve a distortion of 5 even for multiple-winner rules. Additionally, we note that the close relationship between the distortion and fairness ratio extends to multiple-winner rules, and thus Recursive Copeland has a fairness ratio of at most 7.
First, we demonstrate a simple way to turn a single-winner social choice rule $f$ into an $\ell$-winner rule $f'$ for any $\ell$ and which has the *same* distortion bound.
\[thm:distsets\] Let $f$ be a single-winner social choice rule having distortion at most $\beta$. Let $\ell > 1$. Then the $\ell$-winner social choice rule $f' =$ “Recursive $f$” has distortion at most $\beta$.
Thus any distortion results obtainable for single-winner social choice rules can also be obtained for $\ell$-winner rules when we care about the sum of distances from an agent to each chosen alternative. Unfortunately, the results for fairness cannot be easily extended in the same way. In particular, the last few steps of the preceding proof relied on the ability to decompose the numerator and denominator in the calculation of distortion by separating out the costs for the individual alternatives. That is, we used the fact that $$\phi(c_1,d) + \phi(c_2,d) = \phi(\{c_1,c_2\},d).$$ The analogous statement for fairness does *not* hold, i.e., $$\phi_k(c_1,d) + \phi_k(c_2,d) \neq \phi_k(\{c_1,c_2\},d),$$ because the specific set of agents used to calculate the social cost $\phi_k$ can differ in these three cases unless $k=N$. Thus the left hand side of this equation could conceivably be larger than the right hand side, e.g., if the sets of agents farthest from $c_1$ and those farthest from $c_2$ have little overlap. Intuitively, this suggests that the iterative rule $f'$ might perform worse than the original rule $f$ in terms of fairness ratio, because even if each chosen alternative individually has a low fairness ratio, combining the adversarial alternatives into one set could decrease the denominator.
Nevertheless, it turns out that the fairness ratio of the iterative social choice rule $f'$ can’t be too much worse than the fairness ratio of $f$, because the relationship between the distortion and fairness ratio extends to multiple-winner rules.
\[thm:gapsets\] For any instance $\sigma$ any set of alternatives $S$, $${\mathrm{fairness}}(S,\sigma) - 2 < {\mathrm{distortion}}(S,\sigma) \leq {\mathrm{fairness}}(S,\sigma).$$
Let $f$ be a single-winner social choice rule which has fairness ratio at most $\beta$. Let $\ell > 1$. Then $\ell$-winner social choice rule $f' = $ “Recursive $f$” has fairness ratio at most $\beta + 2$.
This result leads to a low constant-factor bound for the fairness ratio of Recursive Copeland (though we conjecture that the true fairness ratio is lower).
\[cor:recursive\] The $\ell$-winner rule Recursive Copeland has distortion at most 5 and fairness ratio at most 7.
Conclusion
==========
We demonstrated that the distinct notions of distortion and fairness ratio are in fact closely linked – within an additive factor of 2. This further lead to new bounds on the fairness ratio for several common social choice rules for which only bounds on the distortion were previously known, including STV and various scoring rules. Additionally, we showed that the distortion of any single-winner rule can also be obtained by a recursive multiple-winner rule. Together with the relationship between the distortion and fairness ratio for multiple-winner rules, this implied that Recursive Copeland achieves distortion at most 5 and fairness ratio at most 7.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Ashish Goel and Anilesh K. Krishnaswamy were supported in part by NSF grant no. CCF-1637418, ONR grant no. N00014-15- 1-2786 and ARO grant no. W911NF-14-1-0526. Reyna Hulett’s research was supported in part by NSF GRFP grant DGE-1656518.
[10]{}
David Andersen, Hari Balakrishnan, Frans Kaashoek, and Robert Morris. , volume 35. ACM, 2001.
Elliot Anshelevich, Onkar Bhardwaj, and John Postl. Approximating optimal social choice under metric preferences. , 2015.
Elliot Anshelevich and John Postl. Randomized social choice functions under metric preferences. , 2016.
Kenneth J Arrow. , volume 12. Yale university press, 2012.
Vijay Arya, Naveen Garg, Rohit Khandekar, Adam Meyerson, Kamesh Munagala, and Vinayaka Pandit. Local search heuristics for k-median and facility location problems. , 2004.
Salvador Barbera. An introduction to strategy-proof social choice functions. , 2001.
Salvador Barber[à]{} and Danilo Coelho. How to choose a non-controversial list with k names. , 31(1):79–96, 2008.
Nadja Betzler, Arkadii Slinko, and Johannes Uhlmann. On the computation of fully proportional representation. , 47:475–519, 2013.
Craig Boutilier, Ioannis Caragiannis, Simi Haber, Tyler Lu, Ariel D Procaccia, and Or Sheffet. Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view. , 2015.
Yves Cabannes. Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy. , 16(1):27–46, 2004.
Ioannis Caragiannis, Swaprava Nath, Ariel D Procaccia, and Nisarg Shah. Subset selection via implicit utilitarian voting. , 2017.
Ioannis Caragiannis and Ariel D Procaccia. Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication. , 2011.
John R Chamberlin and Paul N Courant. Representative deliberations and representative decisions: Proportional representation and the [B]{}orda rule. , 1983.
Zvi Drezner and Horst W Hamacher. . Springer-Verlag New York, NY, 1995.
Edith Elkind, Piotr Faliszewski, Piotr Skowron, and Arkadii Slinko. Properties of multiwinner voting rules. , 48(3):599–632, 2017.
James M Enelow and Melvin J Hinich. . CUP Archive, 1984.
Piotr Faliszewski, Piotr Skowron, Arkadii Slinko, and Nimrod Talmon. Multiwinner voting: A new challenge for social choice theory. , page 27, 2017.
Michal Feldman, Amos Fiat, and Iddan Golomb. On voting and facility location. , 2016.
Aris Filos-Ratsikas and Peter Bro Miltersen. Truthful approximations to range voting. , 2014.
Allan Gibbard. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. , 1973.
Ashish Goel, Anilesh K Krishnaswamy, and Kamesh Munagala. Metric distortion of social choice rules: Lower bounds and fairness properties. In [*Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation*]{}, pages 287–304. ACM, 2017.
Ashish Goel, Anilesh K Krishnaswamy, Sukolsak Sakshuwong, and Tanja Aitamurto. Knapsack voting. , 2015.
Ashish Goel and Adam Meyerson. Simultaneous optimization via approximate majorization for concave profits or convex costs. , 2006.
Ashish Goel, Adam Meyerson, and Serge Plotkin. Approximate majorization and fair online load balancing. , 2001.
Jon Kleinberg, Yuval Rabani, and [É]{}va Tardos. Fairness in routing and load balancing. , 1999.
Amit Kumar and Jon Kleinberg. Fairness measures for resource allocation. , 2000.
Tyler Lu and Craig Boutilier. Budgeted social choice: From consensus to personalized decision making. In [*IJCAI*]{}, volume 11, pages 280–286, 2011.
Burt L Monroe. Fully proportional representation. , 1995.
Herv[é]{} Moulin. On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. , 1980.
Herv[é]{} Moulin, Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Ariel D Procaccia, and J[é]{}r[ô]{}me Lang. . Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Ariel D Procaccia and Jeffrey S Rosenschein. The distortion of cardinal preferences in voting. , 2006.
Mark Allen Satterthwaite. Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. , 1975.
Piotr Krzysztof Skowron and Edith Elkind. Social choice under metric preferences: Scoring rules and [STV]{}. , 2017.
All proofs
==========
Observe that for any fixed metric $d$, $\phi_N(c,d) = \phi(c,d)$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{distortion}}(c,d) &= \frac{\phi(c,d)}{\min_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi(c',d)} \leq \max_{1 \leq k \leq N} \frac{\phi_k(c,d)}{\min_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi_k(c',d)} \\
&= {\mathrm{fairness}}(c,d) \leq {\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma),\end{aligned}$$ since ${\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma)$ is the worst-case fairness ratio over all metrics. This implies ${\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma)$ upper bounds ${\mathrm{distortion}}(c,d)$ for every $d$, and thus by the definition of supremum, $${\mathrm{distortion}}(c,\sigma) = \sup_{d \in \rho(\sigma)} {\mathrm{distortion}}(c,d) \leq {\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma),$$ as desired.
Denote the $N$ agents of $\sigma$ by ${\mathcal{V}}$ and the $m$ alternatives by ${\mathcal{C}}$. We will establish that for any fixed $k$ and metric $d$, $$\label{eq:goal}
\frac{\phi_k(c,d)}{\min_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi_k(c',d)} - 2\frac{N-1}{N} \leq {\mathrm{distortion}}(c,d),$$ and thus taking the maximum over all $k$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{fairness}}(c,d) - 2\frac{N-1}{N} &= \max_{1 \leq k \leq N} \frac{\phi_k(c,d)}{\min_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi_k(c',d)} - 2\frac{N-1}{N} \\
& \leq {\mathrm{distortion}}(c,d) \leq {\mathrm{distortion}}(c,\sigma),\end{aligned}$$ since ${\mathrm{distortion}}(c,\sigma)$ is the worst-case distortion over all metrics. Thus by the definition of supremum, $${\mathrm{fairness}}(c,\sigma) - 2 = \sup_{d \in \rho(\sigma)} {\mathrm{fairness}}(c,d) - 2 < {\mathrm{distortion}}(c,\sigma),$$ as desired.
For convenience, we denote the adversarial alternative for fairness by ${c_\mathrm{opt}}= {\mathrm{argmin}}_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi_k(c',d)$, and the set of $k$ agents farthest from $c$ by $V_k = {\mathrm{argmax}}_{V \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}: |V| = k} \sum_{v \in V} d(v, c)$. Furthermore, let the numerator and denominator of the fairness ratio be denoted respectively as $f_k = \phi_k(c,d)$ and $g_k = \phi_k({c_\mathrm{opt}},d)$. Thus we can rewrite the desired result \[eq:goal\] as $$\frac{f_k}{g_k} - 2\frac{N-1}{N} = \frac{\sum_{v \in V_k} d(v,c)}{ \phi_k({c_\mathrm{opt}},d) } - 2\frac{N-1}{N} \leq \frac{ \phi(c,d) }{ \min_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi(c',d) }.$$
We proceed by calculating a lower bound on $\frac{ \phi(c,d) }{ \phi({c_\mathrm{opt}},d) }$, which will immediately also apply to $\frac{ \phi(c,d) }{ \min_{c' \in {\mathcal{C}}} \phi(c',d) }$. We divide the agents into two groups, $V_k$ and ${\mathcal{V}}\setminus V_k$. Note that by definition, $\sum_{v \in V_k} d(v, c) = f_k$, and furthermore that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{v \in V_k} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}}) \leq \max_{V \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}: |V| = k} \sum_{v \in V} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}}) = g_k, \end{aligned}$$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:graph\].
Now, consider any $v \notin V_k$. For any $w \in V_k$, we have $d(w,c) \leq d(w,{c_\mathrm{opt}}) + d(v,c) + d(v,{c_\mathrm{opt}})$ by the quadrilateral inequality. Solving for $d(v,c)$ and averaging over all $k$ nodes in $V_k$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:z}
d(v,c) &\geq \frac{\sum_{w \in V_k} \left( d(w,c) - d(w,{c_\mathrm{opt}}) - d(v,{c_\mathrm{opt}}) \right)}{k} \nonumber \\
&\geq \frac{f_k - g_k}{k} - d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}}).\end{aligned}$$
We can now calculate a lower bound on the distortion of $c$ relative to ${c_\mathrm{opt}}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\phi(c,d)}{\phi({c_\mathrm{opt}},d)} &= \frac{ f_k + \sum_{v \notin V_k} d(v,c) }{ \sum_{v \in {\mathcal{V}}} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}}) } \\
&\geq \frac{ f_k + \sum_{v \notin V_k} d(v,c) }{ N \frac{g_k}{k} } \stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}\label{eq:avg} \\
&\geq \frac{ f_k + (N-k)\frac{f_k-g_k}{k} - \sum_{v \notin V_k} d(v,{c_\mathrm{opt}}) }{ N \frac{g_k}{k} } \stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}\label{eq:zz} \\
&= \frac{f_k}{g_k} - \frac{N-k}{N} - \frac{\sum_{v \notin V_k} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}})}{N \frac{g_k}{k}},\end{aligned}$$where (\[eq:avg\]) follows because the average distance from an agent to ${c_\mathrm{opt}}$ can’t be more than $\frac{1}{k}$ times the sum of the largest $k$ distances, and (\[eq:zz\]) follows from (\[eq:z\]). We now consider two cases. In the first, let $k \leq \frac{N}{2}$. Then $|{\mathcal{V}}\setminus V_k| \geq k$ so we can repeat the argument that the average distance from an agent in ${\mathcal{V}}\setminus V_k$ can’t be more than $\frac{1}{k}$ times the sum of the largest $k$ distances for any agents. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \phi(c,d) }{ \phi({c_\mathrm{opt}},d) } &\geq \frac{f_k}{g_k} - \frac{N-k}{N} - \frac{\sum_{v \notin V_k} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}})}{N \frac{g_k}{k}} \\
&\geq \frac{f_k}{g_k} - \frac{N-k}{N} - \frac{(N-k)\frac{g_k}{k}}{N \frac{g_k}{k}} \\
&= \frac{f_k}{g_k} - 2\frac{N-k}{N} \geq \frac{f_k}{g_k} - 2\frac{N-1}{N},\end{aligned}$$ as desired. (Note that the last inequality is tight when $k=1$.) On the other hand, if $k \geq \frac{N}{2}$, then $|{\mathcal{V}}\setminus V_k| \leq k$ so we can only say $\sum_{v \notin V_k} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}}) \leq g_k$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \phi(c,d) }{ \phi({c_\mathrm{opt}},d) } &\geq \frac{f_k}{g_k} - \frac{N-k}{N} - \frac{\sum_{v \notin V_k} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}})}{N \frac{g_k}{k}} \\
&\geq \frac{f_k}{g_k} - \frac{N-k}{N} - \frac{g_k}{N \frac{g_k}{k}} \\
&= \frac{f_k}{g_k} - 1 \geq \frac{f_k}{g_k} - 2\frac{N-1}{N},\end{aligned}$$ as desired, where the last inequality holds provided $N \geq 2$. (When $N=1$, distortion and fairness are identical so the desired result holds regardless.)
As shown in Fig. \[fig:tight\], for $\sigma_N$, we let ${\mathcal{C}}= \{c_1,c_2\}$ where one agent $v$ votes $c_2 \succ_v c_1$ and the remaining $N-1$ agents vote $c_1 \succ_{v'} c_2$ for $v' \in {\mathcal{V}}\setminus \{v\}$. As $N \to \infty$, the distortion of $c_1$ approaches 1, but as the example metric shows, the fairness ratio of $c_1$ is 3. Thus ${\mathrm{fairness}}(c_1,\sigma_N) - {\mathrm{distortion}}(c_1,\sigma_N)$ approaches 2 as $N$ approaches $\infty$.
We wish to show that for any instance $\sigma$ with $N$ agents ${\mathcal{V}}$ and $m \geq \ell$ alternatives ${\mathcal{C}}$, ${\mathrm{distortion}}(f',\sigma) \leq \beta$. Equivalently, for any fixed metric $d$ and adversarial set $T$ of size $\ell$, we wish to show $$\frac{ \phi(f'(\sigma),d) }{ \phi(T,d) } \leq \beta.$$ Let $f'(\sigma) = \{c_1, \dots, c_\ell\}$ in the order in which they are selected by Recursive $f$. Furthermore, order $T$ as $\{c_1', \dots, c_\ell'\}$ such that the elements $f'(\sigma) \cap T$ (if any) appear first and in the same order as in $f'(\sigma)$. Note that this implies if any $c_j = c_i' \in T$, then $i \leq j$. Let $\sigma_i = \sigma \setminus \{c_1, \dots, c_{i-1}\}$ be the instance obtained from $\sigma$ by deleting candidates $\{c_1,\dots,c_{i-1}\}$ from every ranking, so $c_i = f(\sigma_i)$, and analogously let ${\mathcal{C}}_i$ be the set of alternatives remaining in $\sigma_i$, ${\mathcal{C}}_i = {\mathcal{C}}\setminus \{c_1,\dots,c_{i-1}\}$. Then we know that $$\sup_{d \in \rho(\sigma_i)} \frac{\phi(f(\sigma_i),d)}{\min_{c \in {\mathcal{C}}_i} \phi(c,d)} \leq \beta,$$ simply because the distortion of $f$ is at most $\beta$.
However, observe that the specific metric $d$ we are considering satisfies $d \in \rho(\sigma) \subseteq \rho(\sigma_i)$ (because any consistent metric for $\sigma$ is also consistent when considering only the alternatives ${\mathcal{C}}_i$ remaining in $\sigma_i$). Additionally, we must have $c_i' \in {\mathcal{C}}_i = {\mathcal{C}}\setminus \{c_1,\dots,c_{i-1}\}$ because of the way we ordered the alternatives of $T$ – otherwise, we would have $c_i' = c_j$ for some $j < i$, which is a contradiction. Thus, we can look specifically at the metric $d$ and adversarial alternative $c_i'$ to get $$\frac{\phi(f(\sigma_i),d)}{\phi(c_i',d)} \leq \beta.$$ Since this holds for every $i$, we can combine these equations to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\phi(f(\sigma_1),d) + \cdots + \phi(f(\sigma_\ell),d)}{\phi(c_1',d) + \cdots + \phi(c_\ell',d)} &\leq \beta \\
\frac{\sum_{c \in f'(\sigma)} \phi(c,d)}{\sum_{c \in T} \phi(c,d)} &\leq \beta \\
\frac{\phi(f'(\sigma),d)}{\phi(T,d)} &\leq \beta,\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
As with single-winner rules, $${\mathrm{distortion}}(S,\sigma) \leq {\mathrm{fairness}}(S,\sigma)$$ holds because fairness bounds the largest $k$ agent costs simultaneously for all $k$, including $k=N$ which is equivalent to distortion.
To show ${\mathrm{fairness}}(S,\sigma) - 2 < {\mathrm{distortion}}(S,\sigma)$, we first observe that the quadrilateral inequality holds for fixed-size *sets* of alternatives. That is, if we define $d(v,S) = \sum_{c \in S} d(v,c)$ then for any $v,w \in {\mathcal{V}}$, $S,T \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}$, $|S|=|T|=\ell$, we have $d(v,S) \leq d(v,T) + d(w,S) + d(w,T)$. This can be established from the quadrilateral inequality $d(v,c_1) \leq d(v,c_2) + d(w,c_1) + d(w,c_2)$ applied to every pair $c_1 \in S,c_2 \in T$. Summing these inequalities over the $\ell^2$ such pairs and dividing by $\ell$ gives the desired statement for sets of $\ell$ elements. The remainder of the proof is identical to that of Theorem \[thm:2\] where we replace the single alternatives $c,{c_\mathrm{opt}}$ with sets $S,S_\mathrm{opt}$, so we omit the details.
By Theorem \[thm:leq\], if the fairness ratio of $f$ is at most $\beta$ then the distortion of $f$ is also at most $\beta$. Theorem \[thm:distsets\] then implies the distortion of $f'$ is at most $\beta$. Thus using Theorem \[thm:gapsets\], for any instance $\sigma$, we have $${\mathrm{fairness}}(f'(\sigma),\sigma) < {\mathrm{distortion}}(f'(\sigma),\sigma) + 2 \leq \beta + 2.$$ By definition, this means the fairness ratio of $f'$ is at most $\beta+2$, as desired.
Calculating Fairness {#app:calc_fairness}
====================
In what follows, we outline a straightforward way to calculate the fairness ratio exactly, similar to the program given by Goel et al. [@goel2017metric] for calculating distortion. Although we do not have a polynomial time algorithm for calculating the fairness ratio, it can be computed with the following binary linear program on an instance $\sigma$ and alternative $c$ for a fixed $k$ and adversarial alternative ${c_\mathrm{opt}}$. (Note that as with the program of Goel et al. [@goel2017metric], this program could be used on any specific instance to choose the alternative with lowest worst-case fairness ratio – though in this case the resulting social choice rule would not necessarily run in polynomial time.) Here we use $\{v_i : i \in [N]\}$ to represent the agents.
$$\begin{array}{rrclcl}
\max & \multicolumn{3}{l}{\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^N d_i} \\
\\
\textrm{s.t.} & d_i & \leq & d(v_i, c) & & \forall i \\
& d_i & \leq & M b_i & & \forall i \\
&\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^N b_i & \leq & k \\
\\
&\text{binary } b_i \\
\\
& kt + \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^N d_i^{(\mathrm{opt})} & \leq & 1 \\
& d_i^{(\mathrm{opt})} & \geq & 0 & & \forall i \\
& d_i^{(\mathrm{opt})} & \geq & d(v_i,{c_\mathrm{opt}}) - t \\
\\
& d & \in & \rho(\sigma)
\end{array}$$
In the above program, $M$ is any sufficiently large number, e.g., $3^m$ where $m$ is the number of alternatives. Recall that $\rho(\sigma)$ is the set of all valid metrics consistent with $\sigma$; this requirement can also be encoded with a polynomial number of inequalities on the distances $d(v_i,c_j)$ for $i \in [N], j \in [m]$ [@goel2017metric].
We will say a word about the choice of $M$. The program above essentially works by allowing the $d_i$’s to represent the $k$ largest distances $d(v_i, c)$, and 0 for any other distances. (Meanwhile, the $k$ largest distances $d(v_i,{c_\mathrm{opt}})$ are represented by $d_i^{(\mathrm{opt})}$, normalized so that their sum is at most 1; thus maximizing $\sum_{i=1}^N d_i$ is equivalent to maximizing the worst-case fairness *ratio*.) Thus when $b_i =0$, we have $d_i \leq M b_i = 0$, so $v_i$ is not included in the largest $k$ distances, and when $b_i = 1$ we want $d_i \leq M b_i = M$ to be unrestrictive. That is, we would like $M$ to be sufficiently large that, subject to the normalization of the distances to ${c_\mathrm{opt}}$, $d(v_i,c) \leq M$ for any $i$ and metric $d$.
Strictly speaking, no $M$ can guarantee this, because for some instances $\sigma$ the fairness ratio can be unbounded. However, the following lemma gives a simple way to tell whether the fairness ratio of one alternative over another is unbounded, which will also allow us to give an upper bound on $M$ when it *is* bounded.
Consider an instance $\sigma$ with $|{\mathcal{C}}| = m$ alternatives $c_i$ and $|{\mathcal{V}}| = N$ agents $v_i$. Furthermore, consider a directed graph on ${\mathcal{C}}$, $D=({\mathcal{C}},E)$, where $(c_i,c_j) \in E$ whenever at least one agent prefers $c_i$ over $c_j$, i.e., whenever $\exists v c_i \succ_v c_j$. Then the fairness ratio (and therefore the distortion) of an alternative ${c_\mathrm{alg}}$ over ${c_\mathrm{opt}}$ is bounded if and only if there exists a directed path ${c_\mathrm{alg}}\to {c_\mathrm{opt}}$ in $D$.
($\implies$) We prove the contrapositive, namely, that if no directed path ${c_\mathrm{alg}}\to {c_\mathrm{opt}}$ exists, then the fairness ratio is unbounded. Let $S$ be the set of vertices (alternatives) which have a directed path to ${c_\mathrm{opt}}$; by assumption ${c_\mathrm{alg}}\notin S$. Consider the following metric: $S$ and ${\mathcal{V}}$ are co-located at one point, and the remaining alternatives ${\mathcal{C}}\setminus S$, are co-located at another; the distance between the two points is 1. (Alternatively, we can say the distance between any pair of “co-located” points is $\epsilon \ll 1$.) It is not hard to see that this satisfies the triangle inequality. Furthermore, it is consistent. This holds because every agent must rank every alternative in $S$ above every alternative in ${\mathcal{C}}\setminus S$; otherwise there would exist $v, c \in {\mathcal{C}}\setminus S, c' \in S$ such that $c \succ_v c'$, implying $(c,c') \in E$. But this, along with the existence of a directed path $c' \to {c_\mathrm{opt}}$, implies the existence of a path $c \to {c_\mathrm{opt}}$, which contradicts $c \notin S$. Thus we have defined a consistent metric, and in this metric, the fairness ratio is $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$ which approaches $\infty$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
($\impliedby$) Consider an arbitrary edge $(c_i,c_j) \in E$, and let $d_j$ be any upper bound $d_j \geq d(v,c_j) \ \forall v$. Since $(c_i,c_j) \in E$, there must exist some agent $v'$ such that $c_i \succ_{v'} c_j$. Thus using the quadrilateral inequality, for any agent $v$, we have $$d(v,c_i) \leq d(v,c_j) + d(v',c_i) + d(v',c_j) \leq d(v,c_j) + 2d(v',c_j) \leq 3 d_j$$ Thus inductively, if there exists a path ${c_\mathrm{alg}}\to {c_\mathrm{opt}}$, which must have length at most $|{\mathcal{C}}| = m$, then $d(v,{c_\mathrm{alg}}) \leq 3^{m-1} d_\mathrm{opt}$ where $d_\mathrm{opt}$ is any upper bound on $d(v,{c_\mathrm{opt}})$. For instance, we can set $d_\mathrm{opt} = \max_{v\in {\mathcal{V}}} d(v, {c_\mathrm{opt}})$. Then the fairness ratio of ${c_\mathrm{alg}}$ over ${c_\mathrm{opt}}$ for any metric is at most $$\max_{1 \leq k \leq N} \frac{\phi_k({c_\mathrm{alg}},\sigma)}{\phi_k({c_\mathrm{opt}},\sigma)} \leq \frac{N 3^{m-1} d_\mathrm{opt}}{d_\mathrm{opt}} = N 3^{m-1},$$ and thus is bounded.
The above proof incidentally suggests a way of setting $M$ to be unrestrictive when the distortion and fairness ratio are bounded. Specifically, since our binary linear program normalizes $$\max_{V \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}: |V| = k} \sum_V d(v,{c_\mathrm{opt}}) \leq 1,$$ we can upper bound $d(v,{c_\mathrm{opt}})$ with $d_\mathrm{opt} = 1$ which implies $d(v,c) \leq 3^{m-1} d_\mathrm{opt} = 3^{m-1}$ if the fairness ratio is bounded. Thus we can set $M = 3^m$, and we will get the correct answer whenever the fairness ratio is bounded (and the output will be $k 3^m$ if and only if the fairness ratio is unbounded).
[^1]: see Skowron and Elkind [@skowron2017social] for a definition.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
This paper presents a detailed regularity analysis of anisotropic wavelet frames and subdivision. In the univariate setting, the smoothness of wavelet frames and subdivision is well understood by means of the matrix approach. In the multivariate setting, this approach has been extended only to the special case of isotropic refinement with the dilation matrix all of whose eigenvalues are equal in the absolute value. The general anisotropic case has resisted to be fully understood: the matrix approach can determine whether a refinable function belongs to $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ or $L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p < \infty$, but its Hölder regularity remained mysteriously unattainable.
It this paper we show how to compute the Hölder regularity in $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ or $L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p < \infty$. In the anisotropic case, our expression for the exact Hölder exponent of a refinable function reflects the impact of the variable moduli of the eigenvalues of the corresponding dilation matrix. In the isotropic case, our results reduce to the well-known facts from the literature. We provide an efficient algorithm for determining the finite set of the restricted transition matrices whose spectral properties characterize the Hölder exponent of the corresponding refinable function. We also analyze the higher regularity, the local regularity, the corresponding moduli of continuity, and the rate of convergence of the corresponding subdivision schemes. We illustrate our results with several examples.
**Keywords:** [*multivariate wavelets and frames, refinable functions, Hölder regularity, modulus of continuity, local regularity, anisotropic dilation matrix, transition matrix, joint spectral radius, invariant polytope algorithm*]{}
[**Classification (MSCS): 65D17, 15A60, 39A99** ]{}
author:
- 'Maria Charina [^1] and Vladimir Yu. Protasov [^2]'
title: 'Smoothness of anisotropic wavelets, frames and subdivision schemes [^3]'
---
Introduction {#s.intr}
============
We study multivariate refinement equation $$\label{eq.ref}
\varphi(x)\ = \ \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} \, c_k \, \varphi \, (Mx \, - \, k), \quad x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s,$$ with a compactly supported sequence of coefficients $c_k \in {{\mathbb R}}$ and with a general integer dilation matrix $M \in {{\mathbb Z}}^{s \times s}$ all of whose eigenvalues are larger than one in the absolute value. We do not make any assumptions on the stability of the integer shifts of $\varphi$.
In this paper, we characterize continuous and $L_p$ solutions of . Our main contribution is the exact expression for the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$ in $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ and in $L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p < \infty$, see Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-p\]. In the anisotropic case, the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$ reflects the influence of the invariant subspaces of $M$ corresponding to its different by modulus eigenvalues. In the isotropic case, when all the eigenvalues of $M$ are equal in the absolute value, our results reduce to the well-known ones from the literature. We also estimate the modulus of continuity and analyze Lipschitz, local and higher regularity of continuous $\varphi$.
It is well known that compactly supported solutions ([*refinable functions*]{}) of can generate systems of multivariate wavelets or frames, see e.g [@Chr; @Chui; @Daub; @NPS]. Refinable functions are building blocks for the limits of subdivision algorithms widely used in approximation and for generating curves and surfaces, see e.g. [@CDM; @ChuiV; @DynLevin02; @ReifPeter08; @W]. Refinable functions naturally appear in recent applications in probability, number theory, and combinatorics [@DDL; @FS; @KM; @P00; @P16].
In the univariate case, $M\ge 2$ is an integer, there are several efficient methods for determining the regularity of refinable functions. In [@CD; @DD; @E] the authors compute precisely the Sobolev exponent of $\varphi \in L_2({{\mathbb R}})$. The so-called [*matrix approach*]{} yields the Hölder exponent of $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}})$ and, in addition, provides a detailed analysis of its moduli of continuity and of its local regularity [@CH; @DL; @P06; @Rio]. An obstacle to the practical use of the matrix approach is the NP-hardness of the joint spectral radius computation. This problem, however, was successfully resolved for a large class of problems by recent results in [@GP1; @GP2; @MR] where the authors presented fast and efficient methods of the joint spectral radius computation. Indeed, the invariant polytope algorithm [@GP1] estimates the joint spectral radius for the corresponding transition matrices of size up to $20$ and, in most cases, even determines its precise value.
The generalization of the matrix approach to the multivariate case turned out to be a difficult task in the case of general dilation matrices. The special case of isotropic dilation is currently fully understood, see [@CDM; @Charina; @CJR; @CD; @DD; @DynLevin02; @E; @HJ; @H1; @H2; @J; @JZ; @RonS]. Several partial results in the anisotropic case are also available: for characterizations of continuity and $L_p$, $1 \le p < \infty$, regularity of $\varphi$ see e.g. [@CHM2; @H3]; for estimates for the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$ see e.g. [@CHM2; @H3].
The reason for the difficulty of the anisotropic case is natural and hardly avoidable. In the univariate case, say $M = 2$, the distance between two points $x, y\in {{\mathbb R}}$ can be expressed in terms of their binary expansions. The distance between the values $\varphi(x)$ and $\varphi(y)$ depends on the behavior of the products of certain square matrices derived from $c_k$, $k \in{{\mathbb Z}}$. These two observations establish a correlation between $|x-y|$ and $|\varphi(x) - \varphi(y)|$, which leads to the formula for the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$. This summarizes the essence of the matrix approach. In the multivariate case, one can similarly estimate the distance between $\varphi(x)$ and $\varphi(y)$ by suitable matrix products. The problem occurs at an unexpected point: the expression for the distance between $x, y \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$. One can try to use the corresponding $M$-adic expansions with a certain set of digits from ${{\mathbb Z}}^s$, but such expansions do not provide a clear estimate for the distance between $x$ and $y$. Indeed, unless the matrix $M$ is isotropic, multiplication by a high power of $M$ can enlarge distances differently in different directions. Hence, the points $M^\ell x$ and $M^\ell y$, $\ell \in {{\mathbb N}}$, whose $M$-adic expansions are essentially the same, may have different asymptotic behavior as $\ell \to \infty$. Remarkably simple examples show that a direct analogue of the isotropic formula for the Hölder exponent does not hold in the anisotropic case. Moreover, unless $M$ is isotropic, this formula never holds for Lipschitz refinable functions, see section \[ss.hold.spec\].
Nevertheless, there are ways of treating the anisotropic case. In [@CGV], the authors consider special anisotropic Sobolev spaces. We put emphasize on incorporating the spectral properties of the dilation matrix $M$ into the expression for the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$. Furthermore, we get rid of the $M$-adic expansions and base our analysis on geometric properties of tilings generated by $M$.
Our paper is organized as follows. In section \[s.hold\], we characterize the continuity and determine the Hölder regularity of multivariate refinable functions, see Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\]. In subsection \[ss.hold.u\], we provide an algorithm for construction of continuous solutions of . We consider several examples and list several important special cases of Theorems \[th.holder\] in subsection \[ss.hold.spec\]. The crucial steps of the proofs and actual proofs of Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\] are given in subsections \[ss.hold.ideas\] and \[ss.hold.proofs\]. We illustrate our results by numerical examples in subsection \[ss.examples.C\]. In section \[s.higher\], we show how to factorize smooth refinable functions and compute the Hölder exponents of their directional derivatives. Sections \[s.modulus\] and \[s.local\] deal with the moduli of continuity of continuous refinable functions and with determining their local regularity. In section \[s.p\], we analyze the existence of $L_p$-solutions of . We show that a direct analogue of the formula for the Hölder exponent (i.e. replacing the joint spectral radius by the $p$-radius) does not hold in $L_p$, $1 \le p < \infty$. To characterize the $L_p$ Hölder exponent of $\varphi$, we consider extended transition matrices, see subsections \[ss.p.Hoelder\] and \[ss.p.ex\]. In section \[s.subd\], we derive the expression for the convergence rate of subdivision. We show that, in the anisotropic case, the convergence rate of subdivision and the Hölder exponent of the corresponding refinable function $\varphi$ cannot be related similarly to the isotropic case, even if $\varphi$ is stable.
Background and notation {#s.not}
=======================
We consider the standard notation for the function spaces $C, C^k, L_p$, $1 \le p < \infty$, the space of vector-valued functions $f: X \to {{\mathbb R}}^n$ with components belonging to $L_p$ is denoted by $L_p(X, {{\mathbb R}}^n)$. We simply write $L_p(X)$, if the range space is fixed. The Schwartz space of smooth rapidly decreasing functions over ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ is denoted by ${{\mathcal{S}}}$, and ${{\mathcal{S}}}'$ is the space of tempered distributions (distributions over ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ or distributions of slower growth); by $\mu(X)$ we denote the Lebesgue measure of a set $X \subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$, by $|\cdot |$ we denote either a modulus of a complex number or the cardinality of a finite set. The norm $\|\cdot\|$ in finite dimensional spaces is always а Euclidean, unless stated otherwise.
Spectral properties of the dilation matrix {#ss.spectral.M}
------------------------------------------
We make a standard assumption that the integer dilation matrix $M \in {{\mathbb Z}}^{s \times s}$ is expansive, i.e., all its eigenvalues are larger than $1$ in the absolute value. Hence, $m=|{\rm det}\, M| \ge 2$. Among the eigenvalues $1<|\lambda_1| \le \cdots \le |\lambda_s|$ of $M$, exactly $n_i$ of them are in the absolute value equal to $r_i$, $i=1, \ldots, q(M) \le s$. If $M$ is isotropic, then $q(M)=1$. For $i=1, \ldots , q(M)$, let $J_i\subset {{\mathbb R}}^s$ be the root subspaces of $M$ corresponding to the eigenvalues of modulus $r_i$. Thus, $\hbox{dim}(J_i)=n_i$ and the operator $M|_{J_i}$ has all its eigenvalues equal to $r_i$ in the absolute value. The space ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ is a direct sum $${{\mathbb R}}^s\quad =\quad \bigoplus_{i=1}^{q(M)} \, J_i\,$$ of the subspaces $J_1, \ldots , J_{q(M)}$. There exists an invertible transformation $B: {{\mathbb R}}^s \rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^s$ such that $M$ has the following block diagonal structure $$\label{eq.M-factor}
B^{-1} M B\quad = \quad
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
M|_{J_1} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & M|_{J_2} & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & M|_{J_q}
\end{array}
\right).$$
Dilation matrix and tiles
-------------------------
The matrix $M$ splits the integer lattice ${{\mathbb Z}}^s$ into $m$ equivalence (quotient) classes defined by the relation $x \sim y \, \Leftrightarrow \, y - x \in M\, {{\mathbb Z}}^s$. Choosing one representative $d_i \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s$ from each equivalence class, we obtain a [*set of digits*]{} $D(M) = \{d_i \ : i=0, \ldots, m-1\}$. We always assume that $0 \in D(M)$. The standard choice is to take $D(M) = {{\mathbb Z}}^s \cap M [0, 1)^s$.
For every integer point $d \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s$, we denote by $M_d$, the affine operator $M_d\, x \, = \, Mx - d, \, x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$. We use the notation $0.d_1d_2 \ldots =
\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} M^{-i}d_i$, $d_i \in D(M)$. Consider the following set $$\label{eq.G}
G \quad = \quad \left\{\,\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} M^{-i}d_i \quad : \quad
d_i \in D(M) \right\}.$$ By [@GroH; @GroM], for every expansive integer matrix $M$ and for an arbitrary set of digits $D(M)$, the set $G$ is a compact set with a nonempty interior and possesses the properties:
**a)** the Lebesgue measure $\mu(G) \in {{\mathbb N}}$;
**b)** $\ G \, = \, \bigcup\limits_{d \in D(M)} M_d^{\, -1} \, G$, the sets $M_d^{\, -1} \, G$ have intersections of zero measure;
**c)** the indicator function $\chi = \chi_{G}(x)$ of $G$ satisfies the refinement equation $$\chi(x)\ = \ \sum_{d \in D(M)} \, \chi(Mx - d)\, \quad x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s ;$$
**d)** $\displaystyle \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} \chi(x+k)\, \equiv \, \mu(G)$, i.e., integer shifts of $\chi$ cover ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ with $\mu(G)$ layers;
**e)** $\mu(G)=1$ if and only if the function system $\{\chi(\cdot + k)\}_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s}$ is orthonormal.
If $\mu(G) = 1$, then $G$ is called a [*tile*]{}. The integer shifts of a tile define a [*tiling*]{}.
\[d.tiling\] A tiling generated by an integer expansive matrix $M$ and by a set of digits $D(M)$ is a collection of sets ${{\mathcal{G}}}= \{k+ G\}_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s}$ such that
a\) the union of the sets in ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ covers ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ and $\mu\left( ( \ell+ G) \cap (k+ G)\right)=0$, $\ell \not= k$;
b\) $\displaystyle \ G \, = \, \cup_{d \in D(M)} M_d^{\, -1} \, G$.
Not every $M$ possesses a digit set $D(M)$ such that $G$ is a tile. Those situations, however, are rare. For instance, a digit set generating a tile always exists in cases $s =2, 3$ and also for arbitrary $s$ with an extra assumption $\, |{\rm det}\,
M| > s$, which is quite general for integer expansive matrices [@LW1]. See [@CHM2; @LW2] for more details. Thus, in this paper, we assume that $G$ is a tile.
We denote $$G_{d_1 \ldots d_n} \, = \, M_{d_1}^{-1} \cdots M_{d_n}^{-1}G, \quad d_1, \ldots, d_n \in D(M).$$ Then ${{\mathcal{G}}}^n \, = \, M^{-n}{{\mathcal{G}}}= \{M^{-n}(k+ G)\}_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s}= \, \{G_{d_1 \ldots d_n} \ : \ d_1, \ldots, d_n \in D(M)\}$, $n \in {{\mathbb N}}$.
Refinable functions and the transition operator
-----------------------------------------------
A compactly supported distribution $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ satisfying equation (\[eq.ref\]) is called [*a refinable function*]{}. It is well known that the solution of (\[eq.ref\]) such that $\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^s} \varphi (x)\, dx \ne 0$ exists if and only if $\displaystyle \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} c_k = m$. We assume further that the coefficients of (\[eq.ref\]) satisfy sum rules of order one $$\label{def:sum_rules}
\sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} \, c_{Mk-d} \quad = \quad 1\, , \qquad d \in D(M)\, .$$ These conditions arise naturally in the context of subdivision and are necessary for existence of stable refinable functions [@CDM]. Consider the [*transition operator* ]{} ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}:\, {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s) \, \to \, {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ defined by $$\label{eq.transit}
{{\boldsymbol{T}}}f \, (x) \ = \ \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} c_k \, f \, (Mx - k), \quad x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s.$$ For every compactly supported function $f \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'$ such that $\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^s}f(x)\, dx = 1$, the sequence $\{{{\boldsymbol{T}}}^jf\}_{j \in {{\mathbb N}}}$ converges to $\varphi$ in the space ${{\mathcal{S}}}'$ [@CHM2]. The space of distributions supported on the set $$\label{eq.K}
K \quad =\quad \Bigl\{\ x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s \quad : \quad x\ =\ \sum_{j=1}^\infty \
M^{-j} \gamma_j, \ \ \gamma_j \in \hbox{supp}(c), \ \ c=\{c_k\}_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} \Bigl\}$$ is invariant under ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}$. Hence, for $f \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'(K)$, we have ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}^jf \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'(K)$ for all $j \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Therefore, the limit $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'(K)$. Thus, ${\rm supp}\, \varphi \, \subset \, K$, see [@CHM2 Proposition 2.2].
\[d.omega\] A finite set $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb Z}}^s$ is a minimal subset of ${{\mathbb Z}}^s$ with the property $$K \quad \subset \quad \Omega\ +\ G \ = \ \bigcup\limits_{k \in \Omega}(k + G)\, .$$ We denote $\, N \, = \, |\Omega|$.
It is shown easily that $M_d^{-1} (\Omega+G) \, \subset \, \Omega+G$ for every $d \in D(M)$.
The main idea of the matrix approach is to pass from a function $f: {{\mathbb R}}^s \to {{\mathbb R}}$ supported on $K$ to the vector-valued function $$\label{eq.v}
v:G \rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^N, \quad v(x) \ = \ v_{f}(x) \ = \ \Bigl(\, f(x+k)\, \Bigr)_{k \in \Omega}\, , \quad x \in G\, .$$ Then the transition operator (\[eq.transit\]) restricted to the space $$\Bigl\{\, f \in L_1({{\mathbb R}}^s) \quad : \quad {\rm supp}\, f\, \subset \, \Omega+G\, ,
\Bigr\}$$ becomes the [*self-similarity operator*]{} ${{\boldsymbol{A}}}: L_1(G,{{\mathbb R}}^N) \rightarrow L_1(G,{{\mathbb R}}^N)$ defined by $$\label{eq.ss}
({{\boldsymbol{A}}}v) (x) \ = \ T_d \, v(Mx - d)\ , \quad x \in M^{-1}(d + G)\ , \quad d \in D(M)\, ,$$ where $T_d$ are the $N\times N$ [*transition matrices*]{} defined by $$\label{eq.T}
(T_d)_{a b} \ = \ c_{\, Ma - b + d}\ , \quad a, b \, \in \, \Omega\, , \quad d \in D(M).$$ The rows and columns of the matrices $T_d$ are enumerated by elements from the set $\Omega$. We denote $$\label{eq:cT}
{{\mathcal{T}}}= \{T_d \ : \ d \in D(M)\}.$$ The refinement equation becomes the [*self-similarity equation*]{} ${{\boldsymbol{A}}}v = v$ for the vector-valued function $v(x) = v_{\varphi}(x)$ defined by (\[eq.v\]) with $f = \varphi$, i.e. $$\label{eq.ss1}
v (x) \ = \ T_d \, v(Mx - d)\ , \qquad x \in M^{-1}(d + G)\ , \quad d \in D(M)\, .$$
Important subspaces of ${{\mathbb R}}^N$
----------------------------------------
We consider the following affine subspace of the space ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ $$V\ =\ \Bigl\{\, w\, =\, (w_1, \ldots, w_N) \in {{\mathbb R}}^N \quad : \quad \sum_{j=1}^{N} w_j\, =\, 1\, \Bigr\}.$$ It is well known that every compactly supported refinable function $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'$ such that $\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^s} \varphi(x)\, ds = 1$ possesses the [*partition of unity property:*]{} $$\sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} \varphi (x+k)\quad \equiv \quad 1$$ (see, e.g. [@CHM2; @CDM]). Hence, if $\varphi$ is continuous, then $v(x) \in V$ for all $x \in G$. In particular $v(0) \in V$. For summable refinable function, $v(x) \in V$ for almost all $x \in G$.
We denote the linear part of the subspace $V$ by $$W\quad =\quad \Bigl\{\, w\ =\ (w_1, \ldots, w_N) \in {{\mathbb R}}^N \quad : \quad \sum_{j=1}^N w_j=0 \,
\bigr\}\, .$$ Finally, every continuous refinable function defines the space of differences of the vector-valued function $v = v_{\varphi}$ $$\label{eq.U}
U\ = \ {\rm span}\, \Bigl\{\, v(y)\, - \, v(x) \quad : \quad y, x \, \in G\, \Bigr\}, \quad n={\rm dim}\, U.$$ Since $v(x) \in V$ for all $x \in G$, we have $U \subset W$, and, therefore, $n \le N-1$. The sum rules imply that the column sums of each matrix $T_d$ are equal to one. Therefore, $T_dV \subset V$ and $T_d W \subset W$. Thus, $V$ is a common affine invariant subspace of the family ${{\mathcal{T}}}$ and $W$ is its common linear invariant subspace.
Since $U$ is invariant under all $T_d, \, d \in D(M)$, the restrictions $A_d = T_d|_{U}$ of the operators $T_d$, $d \in D(M)$, to the subspace $U$ are well defined. For a fixed basis of $U$, we denote by $$\label{def.cA}
{{\mathcal{A}}}\ = \ {{\mathcal{T}}}|_U=\{A_d\ : \ d \in D(M)\}$$ the set of the associated $n\times n$ matrices. If the family ${{\mathcal{T}}}$ is irreducible on $W$, then ${{\mathcal{A}}}= {{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W}$. We also consider the following subspaces of the space $U$ $$\label{eq.ui}
U_i\ = \
{\rm span}\, \Bigl\{v(y)\, - \, v(x) \quad : \quad x, y \in G, \ y-x \in J_i \Bigr\}\, , \quad
i=1, \ldots, q(M).$$ Note that $U_i$ are nonempty, due to the interior $\hbox{int}(G)$ of $G$ being nonempty. It is seen easily that the spaces $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^{q(M)}$ span the whole space $U$, but their sum may not be direct. Indeed, the subspaces $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^{q(M)}$, unlike the subspaces $\{J_i\}_{i=1}^{q(M)}$, may have nontrivial intersections. For example, they can all coincide with $U$. The following result shows that all $U_i$ are invariant under ${{\mathcal{A}}}$.
\[l.invar\] If $J$ is an invariant subspace of $M$, then $L \, = \, {\rm span}\, \{v(y) - v(x) \ : \ y-x \in J\}$ is a common invariant subspace for ${{\mathcal{A}}}$.
[Proof]{}. If $u \in L$, then $u$ is a linear combination of several vectors of the form $v(y) - v(x)$ with $y - x \in J$. For every $d \in D(M)$ we define $x' = M^{-1}(x+d), y' = M^{-1}(y+d)$ and have $$v(y') - v(x') \ = \ A_d \, \bigl( v(My'-d) \, - \, v(Mx' - d)\bigr) \ = \ A_d \, \bigl( v(y) \, - \, v(x)\bigr)\, .$$ Hence, $A_d\bigl( v(y) - v(x)\bigr) \in L$ for each pair $(x, y)$, and, therefore, $A_d u \in L$ for all $u \in L$.
[$\Box$]{}
Joint spectral radius
---------------------
\[d.jsr\] The joint spectral radius of a finite family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ of linear operators $A_d$ is defined by $$\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})\ = \ \lim_{k \to \infty}\ \max_{A_{d_i} \in {{\mathcal{A}}}, \, i = 1, \ldots , k}\
\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}\|^{\, 1/k}.$$
This limit always exists and does not depend on the operator norm [@RS]. The joint spectral radius measures the simultaneous contractibility of the operators from ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. Indeed, $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$ if and only if there exists a norm in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ in which all $A \in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ are contractions. In general, $$\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})\quad =\quad \inf\, \Bigl\{\, \beta \ge 0 \ : \ \exists \ \| \cdot \| \ \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb R}}^n \ \hbox{such that} \ \|A\| < \beta, \ A \in {{\mathcal{A}}}\, \Bigr\}.$$ We denote $$\rho_i\ = \ \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_i}).$$
Continuous solutions and Hölder regularity {#s.hold}
==========================================
In this section, in Theorem \[th.holder\], we characterize the continuity of a solution $\varphi$ of the refinement equation in terms of the spectral properties of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and determine the exact Hölder exponent $$\alpha_\varphi\ =\ \sup \, \bigl\{\alpha \ge 0 \ : \ \|\varphi(\cdot+h)-\varphi \|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \le C \|h\|^\alpha, \ \ h \in {{\mathbb R}}^s \bigr\}$$ of $\varphi$. Although the definition of $U$ in depends on $\varphi$, the result of Proposition \[p.U0\] and Definition \[d.U\] remove this dependency. Moreover, the space $U$ can be determined explicitly using Algorithm 1 in subsection \[ss.hold.u\] without the knowledge of $\varphi$. If this algorithm fails, then there exists no continuous solution of the corresponding refinement equation. The special cases of Theorem \[th.holder\] are considered in subsection \[ss.hold.spec\], for its summary see Remark \[r.410\]. The crucial result for the proof of Theorem \[th.holder\] is Theorem \[th.holder-direct\]. The main steps of the proof of Theorem \[th.holder-direct\] are summarized in subsection \[ss.hold.ideas\] and the proofs of Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\] are given in subsection \[ss.hold.proofs\]. We illustrate our results with examples in subsection \[ss.examples.C\].
For the readers convenience, we start by listing shortly the crucial results of this section. The proof of Proposition \[p.U0\] is given in subsection \[ss.hold.u\].
\[p.U0\] Let $v_0 \in V$ be an eigenvector of $T_0$ associated to the eigenvalue $1$. If $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, then $U$ is the smallest by inclusion common invariant subspace of the matrices $T_d, \, d \in D(M)$, that contains $m$ vectors $\, T_dv_0 - v_0, \, d \in D(M)$.
\[r.300\] [*Recall that $0 \in D(M)$, which justifies the notation $T_0$. The existence of the eigenvector $v_0 \in V$ of $T_0$ associated to the eigenvalue $1$ follows by the continuity $\varphi$ (which implies, by (\[eq.ss1\]), that $T_0v(0)\, = \, v(0)$) and by the fact that $v(0) \in V$.* ]{}
Proposition \[p.U0\] yields an equivalent definition of $U$, which we use in the sequel.
\[d.U\] Let $v_0\in V$ be an eigenvector of $T_0$ associated to the eigenvalue $1$. The space $U$ is the minimal common invariant subspace of $m$ matrices $T_d, \, d \in D(M)$, that contains $m$ vectors $T_dv_0 - v_0, \, d \in D(M)$.
\[r.400\] [*Since $T_0v_0 - v_0 = 0$, it suffices to use $T_dv_0 - v_0, \, d \in D(M)\setminus \{0\}$ in Definition \[d.U\].* ]{}
Note that due to the sum rules , the column sums of each $T_d$ are equal to one. Hence, each $T_d$ has an eigenvalue one. Even if the eigenvalue $1$ is not simple, Proposition \[p.U3\] in subsection \[ss.hold.u\] guarantees that there exists at most one eigenvector $v_0 \in V$ such that $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})<1$ for $U$ as in Definition \[d.U\]. Thus, the subspace $U$ is always well defined, unless the refinement equation does not possess a continuous solution. For the sake of simplicity, we make the following assumption.
\[a.1\] The matrix $T_0$ has a simple eigenvalue $1$.
Recall that $\rho_i\ = \ \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_i})$, where $U_1, \ldots , U_{q(M)}$ are the subspaces defined in (\[eq.ui\]). Now we are ready to formulate the main result of this section.
\[th.holder\] A refinable function $\varphi$ belongs to $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ if and only if $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$. In this case, $$\label{eq.holder}
\alpha_{\,\varphi}\quad = \quad \min\limits_{i = 1, \ldots , q(M)}\, \log_{\, 1/r_i} \, \rho_i\, .$$
The proof of (\[eq.holder\]) is based on Theorem \[th.holder-direct\]. To state it, we define the [*Hölder exponent of $\varphi$ along a linear subspace $J \subset {{\mathbb R}}^s$*]{} by $$\alpha_{ \varphi , J} \quad =\quad \sup \, \bigl\{\alpha \ge 0 \ : \ \|\varphi(y) - \varphi(x)\| \le C \|y - x\|^{\, \alpha}\, , \
y-x \in J\, \bigr\}\, .$$
\[th.holder-direct\] If $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, then for each $i = 1, \ldots , q(M)$, we have $$\label{eq.holder-direct}
\alpha_{\, \varphi , J_i}\quad = \quad \log_{1/r_i} \, \rho_i\, .$$
\[r.410\] [*The identity emphasizes the influence of the spectral structure of the dilation matrix $M$ on the regularity of the solution $\varphi$. Recall that, in the univariate case, the Hölder exponent is given by $\alpha_{\varphi} \, = \, \log_{1/r}\, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$, where $M=r \ge 2$ is the corresponding dilation factor. In the multivariate case, the Hölder exponent is equal to the minimum of several such values taken over different dilation coefficients $r_i$ on the corresponding subspaces $J_i$ of $M$. In special, favorable multivariate cases, the expression in becomes $\alpha_\varphi=\log_{1/\rho(M)}\, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and, thus, resembles the univariate case. This happens, for instance, when the matrix $M$ is isotropic, i.e. $|\lambda_1|= \ldots= | \lambda_s| = \rho(M)$, in particular, when $M = r\, I$, $r \ge 2$. Another favorable situation is when the matrices in ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ do not possess any common invariant subspace. However, the need for the minimum in (\[eq.holder\]) is not exceptional. It is of crucial importance e.g. for anisotropic refinable Lipschitz continuous functions $\varphi$, see Corollary \[c.regular\] in subsection \[ss.hold.spec\].*]{}
Special cases of Theorem \[th.holder\] and examples {#ss.hold.spec}
---------------------------------------------------
To compare the result of Theorem \[th.holder\] with the known results from the wavelet and subdivision literature, we need to define the stability of $\varphi$.
\[d.stable\] A compactly supported $f \in L_\infty({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ is stable, if there exists $0<C_1 \le C_2 <\infty$ such that for all ${{\boldsymbol{c}}}\in
\ell_\infty({{\mathbb Z}}^s)$, $$C_1 \|{{\boldsymbol{c}}}\|_{\ell_\infty} \le \big\| \sum_{\alpha \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} {{\boldsymbol{c}}}(\alpha)f(\cdot-\alpha)
\big\|_\infty \le C_2\|{{\boldsymbol{c}}}\|_{\ell_\infty}\,.$$
**The univariate case** ($\mathbf{s=1}$). In this case, the dilation factor is $M\ge 2$ and $M=m=r$. Theorem \[th.holder\] becomes a well-known statement that $\alpha_{\varphi} = \log_{1/r} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$. If $\varphi$ is stable, then we have $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})=\rho({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{U}) = \rho({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})$ even if $U \ne W$ (see [@CDM]). The space $U$ was completely characterized in [@P07] and it was shown that every refinement equation can be factorized to the case $U = W$. In the multivariate case, however, there is no factorization procedure and some equations, even with stable solutions, cannot be reduced to the case $U = W$, see Example \[ex.10\] below.
**The case $\mathbf{s \ge 2}$ with isotropic dilation matrix**. Since $q(M) = 1$, it follows that $U_1 = U$. Theorem \[th.holder\] then implies the following well-known fact.
\[c.iso\] If $M$ is isotropic, then $\alpha_{\varphi}\, = \, \log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$.
**The irreducible case with** $\mathbf{s \ge 2}$. The dilation matrix $M$ can be anisotropic, i.e. the number of different in modulus eigenvalues of $M$ is $q(M)>1$. We say that the set of matrices ${{\mathcal{A}}}= {{\mathcal{T}}}|_{\, U}$ is irreducible, if they do not possess any common invariant subspace. Another corollary of Theorem \[th.holder\] states the following.
\[c.irred\] If the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible, then $\alpha_{\varphi}\, = \, \log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$.
The irreducibility assumption fails however in many important cases. For instance, if $\varphi$ is a tensor product of two refinable functions, then ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is always reducible.
\[ex.10\] [*Let $\varphi_1, \varphi_2 \in C^1({{\mathbb R}})$ be two univariate refinable function with dilations $M_1=2$ and $M_2=3$ and refinement coefficients ${{\boldsymbol{c}}}_1 \in \ell_0({{\mathbb Z}})$ and ${{\boldsymbol{c}}}_2 \in \ell_0({{\mathbb Z}})$, respectively. Then the function $\varphi = \varphi_1 \otimes \varphi_2$ satisfies the refinement equation with $M = {\rm diag}\, (2\, , \, 3)$ and ${{\boldsymbol{c}}}= {{\boldsymbol{c}}}_1\otimes{{\boldsymbol{c}}}_2$. Due to $\varphi_1, \varphi_2 \in C^1({{\mathbb R}})$, we have $\rho_1 = \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_1}) = \frac12, \ \rho_2 = \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_2}) = \frac13$. By Theorem \[th.holder\], $\alpha_{\varphi} \, = \, \min\, \{ \log_{1/2} \rho_1\, , \, \log_{1/3} \rho_2\} = 1$, which is natural, because $\varphi \in C^1({{\mathbb R}}^2)$. On the other hand, $\rho ({{\mathcal{A}}}) = \max \, \bigl\{ \rho_1\, , \,
\rho_2 \bigr\} = \frac12$. Hence, $ \log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) = \log_{1/3} \frac12 \, = \,
0.630092\ldots $. Thus, in this case, $\alpha_{\varphi}\, > \, \log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Note that, if $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ are both stable, then so is $\varphi$. Nevertheless, unlike in the univariate case, the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$ is not determined by the value $\log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$.* ]{}
After Example \[ex.10\] one may hope that the case of reducible family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is exceptional, and the equality $\alpha_{\varphi} = \log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$ actually holds for most refinable functions. On the contrary, the result of Corollary \[c.regular\] shows that the the situation when the isotropic formula fails is rather generic.
\[c.regular\] If the matrix $M$ is anisotropic and the refinable function $\varphi \not =0$ is Lipschitz continuous, then $1=\alpha_\varphi> \log_{1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is reducible.
[Proof]{}. The inequality $1\, > \, \log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$ is equivalent to $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) > 1/\rho(M)$. Assume that $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) \le 1/\rho(M)$. Since $M$ is anisotropic, factorization (\[eq.M-factor\]) contains $q(M)\ge 2$ blocks, and, hence, $r_i < \rho(M)$ for some $i \in \{1, \ldots, q(M)\}$. By Theorem \[th.holder-direct\], we have $\alpha_{\varphi, J_i}\, = \, \log_{1/r_i} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) \, > \, \log_{1/\rho(M)} \rho ({{\mathcal{A}}}) \, \ge \, 1$. Therefore, $\varphi$ is constant on every affine subspace $u + U_i$, $u \in {{\mathbb R}}^n$. Hence, $\varphi \equiv 0$, because it is compactly supported. The reducibility of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ follows by Corollary \[c.irred\]. [$\Box$]{}
Thus, we see that at least for all anisotropic smooth refinable functions, the simple formula for the Hölder exponent fails and the minimum in (\[eq.holder\]) is significant.
**The case of a dominant invariant subspace**. In practice, this case is much more generic than the irreducible case.
\[d.dominant\] A subspace $U' \subset U$ is called [dominant]{} for a family of operators ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ if
$(i)$
: $U'$ is a common invariant subspace of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$,
$(ii)$
: $U'$ is contained in all common invariant nontrivial subspaces of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and
$(iii)$
: $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U'})\, = \, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$.
Take a basis of a dominant subspace $U'$ and complement it to a basis of $U$. Let $B$ be the $n \times n$ matrix containing these basis elements of $U$. Then every matrix $A_d \in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ in this basis has a block lower triangular form $$\label{eq.domin}
B^{-1}A_d\,B \quad = \ \quad
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{A_d} & 0\\ * & A_d|_{U'} \end{array} \right), \quad d \in D(M).$$ By Definition \[d.dominant\], $$\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U'})\ = \ \max\, \bigl\{\, \rho(\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}}), \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U'})\bigr\}\ = \ \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})\, , \quad
\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}}=\{\tilde{A}_d\ : \ d \in D(M)\}.$$ Furthermore, since any common invariant subspace of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ contains $U'$, it follows that the joint spectral radius of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ restricted to any common invariant subspace is equal to $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$. Therefore, we have proved the following result.
\[c.domin\] If the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ possesses a dominant subspace, then $\, \alpha_{\varphi}\, = \, \log_{\, 1/\rho(M)} \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$.
Construction of the space $U$ and of the continuous refinable function $\varphi$. {#ss.hold.u}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The continuity of the refinable function $\varphi$ is characterized in terms of the joint spectral radius of the matrices $T_d$, $d \in D(M)$ restricted to the common invariant subspace $U$ in Definition \[d.U\]. In this section, we answer two crucial questions: how to determine the space $U$ and how to construct the corresponding continuous refinable function $\varphi$. In many cases $U$ coincides with $W$. In the univariate case, the algorithm for determining the space $U$ was elaborated in [@CH]. In this section, we present its multivariate analogue and explain several significant unavoidable modifications.
**Algorithm for construction of the space $U$**
[**Algorithm 1:**]{} For a given set ${{\mathcal{T}}}=\{T_d \in {{\mathbb R}}^{N \times N}\ : \ d \in D(M)\}$ of transition matrices
[*$1$.Step:*]{} Compute the eigenvector $v_0$ of $T_0 \, v_0=v_0$ and normalize it so that $( {\bf 1}, v_{0})\, =\, 1$, where ${\bf 1} = (1, \ldots , 1)^T \in {{\mathbb R}}^N$.
[*$2$.Step:*]{} Define $U^{(1)}={\rm span} \, \bigl\{T_dv_0\, -\, v_0 \ : \ d \in D(M) \setminus \{0\}\bigr\}$.
[*$3$.Step:*]{} Repeat $$U^{(k+1)}= U^{(k)} \cup {\rm span}\{ T_d u^{(k)} \ : \ u^{(k)} \in U^{(k)}, \quad d \in D(M)\},
\quad 1 \le k \le N-1,$$ [**until**]{} ${\rm dim}(U^{(k)}) \ < \ {\rm dim}(U^{(k+1)})$.
$$\label{algor:def:U}
\hspace{-12cm} {\rm Output:} \quad U=U^{(k)}$$
Note that the choice of $1 \le k \le N-1$ is imposed by the fact that ${\rm dim}\, U \, \le \, N-1$ and that, by construction, at least one extra element is added to $U^{(k+1)}$ before the algorithm terminates.
\[r.310\] [*In practice, one would first determine a basis of $U^{(1)}$. Then, in [*$3$.Step*]{} for $1 \le k \le N-1$, this basis will be consequently extended by $T_d u^{(k)}$ as long as the extended set stays linearly independent. This extended set provides a basis $\{u^{(k)} \ : \ k=1,\ldots, r^{(k)}\}$ for $U^{(k)}$. The algorithm terminates, if, in the $k$th iteration, for every vector from $\{ T_d u^{(k)} \ : \ u^{(k)} \in U^{(k)}, \quad d \in D(M)\}$ we have $${\rm rank}\, \bigl(\, u^{(1)}, \ldots, u^{(r^{(k)})}, T_d u^{(k)}\ \bigr)\ = \
{\rm rank}\, \bigl(u^{(1)}, \ldots, u^{(r^{(k)})}\, \bigr).$$ Then $U^{(k+1)}\ = U^{(k)}$ and we set $U = U^{(k)}$.*]{}
Note first that the existence of the eigenvector $v_0 \in V$ of the matrix $T_0$ with the eigenvalue one (in [*$1$.Step*]{} of the Algorithm) follows from continuity of the refinable function (see Remark \[r.300\]). Hence, if [*$1$.Step*]{} is impossible, i.e., the eigenvector $v_0$ does not exist, then the solution of the refinement equation is not continuous.
Secondly, we show that the space $U$ in Algorithm 1 coincides with the space in (\[eq.U\]), i.e., we prove Proposition \[p.U0\] stated at the beginning of section \[s.hold\]. To do that we define $$\label{def:Q_k}
Q_k \ = \ \bigl\{0.d_1\ldots d_k= \sum_{j=1}^k M^{-j}d_j \ : \ d_j \in D(M)\, \bigr\}, \quad k \ge 1\, .$$ Every point from $Q_k$ belongs to the set $G_{d_1 \ldots d_k}\, = \, M_{d_1}^{-1}\cdots M_{d_k}^{-1}G$. Thus, the set $Q_k$ contains $m^{k}$ points. The sets in are nested, i.e. $Q_{k} \subset Q_{k+1}$ for all $k \ge 1$. The nestedness follows due to each point $0.d_1\ldots d_k \in Q_k$ being equal to $0.d_1\ldots d_k0 \in Q_{k+1}$. Moreover, each set $Q_k$ is an $\varepsilon_k$-net for the set $G$ with $\varepsilon_k \, = \, {\rm diam} (G_{d_1 \ldots d_k})\, \le \, C\, (\rho(M^{-1}) + \varepsilon)^k$ going to $0$ as $k$ goes to $\infty$. Therefore, the set $$\label{def:Q}
Q \quad = \quad \bigcup_{k \ge 1}\, Q_k\,$$ is dense in $G$.
[Proof of Proposition \[p.U0\]]{}. Let $U$ be as in Definition \[d.U\]. It suffices to show that $v(y) - v(x) \in U$ for all $x, y \in G$. Equivalently, since $Q$ is dense in $G$, it suffices to show that $v(y) - v(x) \in U$ for all $x, y \in Q$. Equivalently, due to the definition of $Q$, it suffices to establish by induction on $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$ that $v(y) - v(x) \in U$ for all $x, y \in Q_k$.
For $k = 1$, the set $Q_1$ consists of $m$ points $0.d \, = \, M^{-1}d, \, d \in D(M)$. For each $d\ne 0$, we have $v(0.d)\, - \, v(0)\, = \, T_dv(0)\, - \, v(0) \, \in \, U$, by Definition \[d.U\]. Hence $v(0.d_1) - v(0.d_2)\, = \, \bigl(v(0.d_1) - v(0) \bigr)\, - \, \bigl(v(0.d_2) - v(0) \bigr)\, \in \, U$.
Assume the claim is true for some $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Take arbitrary $x, y \in Q_{k+1}$. For $x = 0.d_1\ldots d_kd_{k+1}$ and $a = 0.d_1\ldots d_k 0 \in Q_k$, we have that $M_{d_1}x$ and $M_{d_1}a$ are both in $Q_k$. Hence, by the inductive assumption, $v(M_{d_1}x) \, - \, v(M_{d_1}a) \, \in \, U$. Recall that $U$ is invariant under ${{\mathcal{T}}}$, thus $$v(x)\ - \ v(a) \ = \ T_{d_1}\, \Bigl( \, v\bigl(M_{d_1}x \bigr)\, - \,
v\bigl(M_{d_1}a \bigr)\Bigr) \ \in \ U\, .$$ Similarly we take the corresponding point $b \, \in \, Q_k$ for the point $y$ and prove that $v(y) - v(b) \in U$. Since $a, b \in Q_k$ it follows that $v(b) - v(a) \in U$ and, therefore, $$v(y) \, - \, v(x) \ = \ \bigl( v(y) \, - \, v(b)\bigr) \ + \
\bigl( v(b) \, - \, v(a)\bigr) \ + \ \bigl( v(a) \, - \, v(x)\bigr)\ \in \ U\, .$$ This completes the proof.
[$\Box$]{}
The proof of Proposition \[p.U0\] also implies that the spaces $U^{(k)}$ defined in the algorithm above are of the form $U^{(k)} = {\rm span} \Bigl\{v(y) - v(x) \ : \ x, y \in Q_k \Bigr\}$. From $Q_{k} \subset Q_{k+1}$, we have $U^{(k)}\subset U^{(k+1)} \subset {{\mathbb R}}^N$ for all $1 \le k \le N-1$.
**Algorithm for construction of a continuous $\varphi$**.
Due to the fact that the set $Q$ in (\[def:Q\]) is dense in $G$, the slight modification of Algorithm 1 yields a method for the step-by-step construction of the vector-valued function $v = v_{\varphi}$ defined on $G$ or, equivalently, of the function $\varphi$.
[**Algorithm 2:**]{} For a given set ${{\mathcal{T}}}=\{T_d \in {{\mathbb R}}^{N \times N}\ : \ d \in D(M)\}$ of transition matrices
[*$1$.Step:*]{} Compute $(0,v_0)$ such that $T_0 \, v_0=v_0$ and normalize $v_0$ so that $( {\bf 1}, v_0)\, = \, 1$, where ${\bf 1} \, = \, (1, \ldots , 1)^T \in {{\mathbb R}}^N$.
[*$2$.Step:*]{} Define $V^{(0)}\, =\, \{ (0, v_0)\}$.
[*$3$.Step:*]{} For $k=1, \ldots$ $$V^{(k)}= V^{(k-1)} \ \cup \ \bigl\{ (x,v_x) \ : \
x\, =\, M_d^{-1} y, \ v_x\, =\, T_d \tilde{v}_y, \ (y,v_y) \in V^{(k-1)},
\ d \in D(M)\}$$ end
If the function $v$ is continuous, this algorithm determines $V^{(k)}$ consisting of $(x,v(x))$, $x \in Q_{k}$, in a unique way. The piecewise constant function $v_{k}: {{\mathbb R}}^s \rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^N$ such that $$\label{eq.vk}
v_k(x) \ = \ v(x)\ , \qquad x \in Q_k,$$ is an approximation of $v$ and the difference $\|v - v_k\|_\infty$ can be efficiently estimated by the joint spectral radius of the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$. This yields a linear rate of convergence of Algorithm 2. See section \[s.subd\] for more details.
The last result of this section, Proposition \[p.U3\], ensures that $U$ is well defined even if the eigenvalue $1$ of the matrix $T_0$ is not simple.
\[p.U3\] For an arbitrary refinement equation, the matrix $T_0$ has at most one, up to normalization, eigenvector $v_0 \in V$ associated with the eigenvalue $1$ such that, for $U$ in Definition \[d.U\], we have $\rho({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{U}) < 1$. If such $v_0 \in V$ exists, then $\varphi$ is continuous and $v_0 = v_{\varphi}(0)$.
[Proof]{}. If such an eigenvector $v_0$ exists, then by Theorem \[th.holder\] the refinable function is continuous and, by Proposition \[p.U0\], $U={\rm span}\, \{v(y) - v(x) \ : \ \ x, y \in G\}$. By Algorithm 2, there exists a refinable function $\varphi$ such that we get $v_0 = v_\varphi(0)$. If there is another eigenvector $\tilde{v}_0 \in V$ with this property, then, by Algorithm 2, it generates another refinable function $\tilde{\varphi}$ for which $\tilde{v}_0 = v_{\tilde{\varphi}}(0)$. By the uniqueness of the solution of the refinement equation, these two solutions may only differ by a constant, hence, the vectors $v_0$ and $\tilde{v}_0$ are collinear.
[$\Box$]{}
Road map of our main results {#ss.hold.ideas}
----------------------------
We would like to emphasize that, to tackle the anisotropic case, we use geometric properties of tilings rather than the $M$-adic expansions of points in ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ (the latter being a successful strategy in the isotropic case). Our key contribution is Theorem \[th.holder-direct\] that finally reveals the delicate dependency of the Hölder exponent of a refinable function on its Hölder exponents along the subspaces $J_i$, $i=1, \ldots,q(M)$. Due to the importance of Theorem \[th.holder-direct\], we would like to give here a preview of its proof.
[*Step 1.*]{} Extend the vector-valued function $v$ in defined on the tile $G$ to the whole ${{\mathbb R}}^s$, see (\[d.tildev\]). Lemma \[l.main\] yields, for $x, y \in
{{\mathcal{G}}}$ (i.e. $x,y \in G-j$ for some $j \in {{\mathbb N}}$), the estimate $\|\tilde v(y) - \tilde v(x)\|\, \le \, \| v(y+j) - v(x+j) \|$. The extension of $v$ is motivated by the fact that parts of the line segment $[x,y]$ can lie outside of $G$, due to its possible fractal structure.
[*Step 2.*]{} Lemma \[l.tiling\] shows that, for a tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ of ${{\mathbb R}}^s$, the total number of the subsets of the tiling intersected by a line segment is proportional to the length of that segment.
[*Step 3.*]{} Due to Step 2, Lemma \[l.colours\] and Proposition \[p.aux\] imply that, for $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, any line segment $[x, y]$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^s$, $y - x \, \in \, J_i$, consists of several line segments such that 1) the endpoints of each of those line segments belong to one subset of the tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}^k$; 2) the total number of those line segments is bounded by $C\, \|M^k(x - y)\|\, \asymp \, r_i^k \|x-y\|$.
[*Step 4*]{}. The difference between the values of the function $v$ at the endpoints of each of those subsegments of $[x,y]$ is bounded from above by $C_1\, (\rho_i + \varepsilon)^k$ for some $\varepsilon>0$. Hence, by Step 1, the same is true for $\tilde v$. Therefore, by the triangle inequality, $\|\tilde v(y) - \tilde v(x)\|\, \le \, C_2 (\rho_i + \varepsilon)^k$. For $k$ such that $r_i^k \, \asymp \, 1 / \|x-y\| $, we obtain $\|\tilde v(y) - \tilde v(x)\|\, \le \, C_3 \|x-y\|^{\, \alpha (\varepsilon) }$, where $\alpha(\varepsilon)$ approaches $\log_{1/r_i} \rho_i$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$.
Auxiliary results for Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\] {#ss.hold.aux}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The proofs of our main results, Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\], are based on an important observation formulated in Proposition \[p.aux\]. We also make use of the following basic properties of the joint spectral radius and two auxiliary lemmas.
**Theorem A1** [@RS]. [*For a family of operators ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ acting in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ and for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a norm $\|\cdot \|_\varepsilon$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ such that $\|A\|_\varepsilon \, < \, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) + \varepsilon$ for all $A \in {{\mathcal{A}}}$.*]{}
**Theorem A2** [@B]. [*For a family of operators ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ acting in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ there exists $u \in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and a constant $C(u) > 0$ such that $\max_{A_{d_i} \in {{\mathcal{A}}}}\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}u\| \ge C(u)\, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})^{\, k}, \ k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Moreover, if ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible, then $\max_{A_{d_i} \in {{\mathcal{A}}}}\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}\| \le C\, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})^{\, k}, \ k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, for some constant $C>0$.* ]{}
\[l.colours\] Assume that the segment $[0, 1]$ is covered with $\ell$ distinct closed sets. Then there exist $\ell+1$ points $0 = a_0 \le \ldots \le a_{\ell} = 1,$ such that for each $i = 0, \ldots , \ell-1$, the points $a_i, a_{i+1}$ belong to one of these sets,.
[Proof]{}. Let the first set contain the point $a_0=0$. Choose $a_1$ to be the maximal (in the natural ordering of the real line) point of the first set. If $a_1 \ne 1$, then $a_1$ must belong to another set of the tiling. Choose $a_3$ to be the maximal point of this set. Repeat until $a_{\ell_0} = 1$ for some $\ell_0 \in {{\mathbb N}}$. We have $\ell_0 \le \ell$, since the sets are distinct. If $\ell_0 < \ell$, we extend the sequence $a_0 \le \ldots \le a_{\ell_0}$ by the points $a_{\ell_0+1}, \ldots , a_{\ell} = 1$.
[$\Box$]{}
Next we show that a segment of a given length intersects a finitely many sets of the tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}$.
\[l.tiling\] For a tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}$, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that every line segment $[x, y] \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$ intersects at most $\, C \max\{1\, , \, \|y-x\|\, \}$ sets of ${{\mathcal{G}}}$.
[Proof]{}. It suffices to prove that the number of sets $G+k \subset {{\mathcal{G}}}$ intersected by a segment of length one is bounded above by some constant $C$. It will imply that the number of sets $G+k \subset {{\mathcal{G}}}$ intersected by any segment of length $\|y-x\|>1$, is bounded by $C\, \|y-x\|$, and the claim follows. Thus, let a segment $[x, y]$ be of length one. If $(G+k) \cap [x,y] \not= \emptyset$ for some $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, then the set $G+k$ is contained in $[x,y]+B_r(0)$, where $B_r(0)$ is the Euclidean ball of radius $r={\rm diam}\, (G)$. Denote by $V$ the volume of $[x,y]+B_r(0)$, then the total number of sets $G+k \subset {{\mathcal{G}}}$ intersecting $[x, y]$ is bounded by $C=\frac{V}{\mu(G)} = V < \infty$, due to $\mu(G)=1$. This completes the proof.
[$\Box$]{}
To deal with line segments $[x,y]$, $x,y \in G$, that do not completely belong to $G$, we extend the continuous vector-valued function $v=v_\varphi$ in which is defined on $G$ to the whole ${{\mathbb R}}^s$. Define $$\label{d.tildev}
\tilde{v}: {{\mathbb R}}^s \rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^N, \qquad \tilde{v}(x)=\left( \varphi(x+k) \right)_{k \in \Omega}.$$ In Lemma \[l.main\] and in Proposition \[p.aux\], we compare the properties of $v$ and $\tilde{v}$.
\[l.main\] Let $x, y \in G-j$, $j \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s$. Then $\|\tilde v(y) \, - \, \tilde v(x)\| \, \le \, \|v(y+j) \, - \, v(x+j)\|$.
[Proof]{}. Let $j \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s$. By and due to the compact support of $\varphi$, the $k$-th component of $\tilde v(y) \, - \, \tilde v(x)$ is given by $$\left( \tilde v(y) \, - \, \tilde v(x)\right)_k=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left( v(y+k) \, - \, v(x+k)\right)_\ell, & \ell=-j+k \in \Omega, \\ 0, & \hbox{otherwise},
\end{array} \right. \quad k \in \Omega.$$ Hence, in the Euclidean norm we have $\|\tilde v(y) - \tilde v(x)\| \le \|v(y+j) - v(x+j)\|$.
[$\Box$]{}
\[p.aux\] Let $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ be refinable, $x, y \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$ and $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. There exist $$\ell \, \le \, \max\, C \, \bigl\{\, 1\, , \, \|M^k(x-y)\|\, \bigr\}$$ (with $C>0$ from Lemma \[l.colours\]), integers $\{d_1^{(i)},
\ldots, d_k^{(i)}\}_{i=0}^{\ell-1}$ from $D(M)$, positive numbers $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=0}^{\ell - 1}$ whose sum is equal to one, and sets of points $\{x_i\}_{i=0}^{\ell - 1}$, $\{y_i\}_{i=0}^{\ell - 1}$ from $G$ such that $y_i - x_i \, = \, \alpha_i\, M^k(y-x)$ for all $i = 0, \ldots , \ell-1$, and $$\label{eq.auxmain}
\bigl\| \tilde v(y) \, - \, \tilde v(x) \bigr\|\quad \le \quad
\sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1} \ \Bigl\| T_{d_1^{(i)}} \cdots T_{d_k^{(i)}}\, \Bigl( v\, \bigl( y_i \bigr)\ - \ v\, \bigl( x_i \bigr) \Bigl)\, \Bigr\|\, .$$
[Proof]{}. We have $[x,y] \subset {{\mathcal{G}}}^k$. By Lemma \[l.colours\], there exist $\ell+1$ points $\{x=a_0 \le a_1 \le \ldots \le a_\ell=y\} \subset [x,y]$ such that each pair of successive points $a_i, a_{i+1}$ belongs to only one set $G_{d_1^{(i)} \ldots d_k^{(i)}}-j^{(i)}$, $j^{(i)} \in {{\mathbb N}}$, of the tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}^k$. First we give an estimate for $\ell$. Since $\ell$ elements of the tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}^k \, = \, M^{-k}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ cover a segment of length $\|y - x\|$, the same number of elements of the tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ cover a segment of length $\|M^k(y-x)\|$. Therefore, Lemma \[l.colours\] yields $\, \ell \, \le \, C \, \max\{1\, , \, \|M^k(y-x)\|\, \}$. Furthermore, the set $G_{d_1^{(i)} \ldots d_k^{(i)}}-j^{(i)} \subset G-j^{(i)}$, $i=0, \ldots, \ell-1$. Thus, by Lemma \[l.main\], we obtain $$\Bigl\|\tilde v(y) \, - \tilde v(x)\Bigr\|\ \le \ \sum_{i=0}^{\ell - 1} \ \Bigl\|\tilde v(a_{i+1}) \, - \, \tilde v(a_i)\Bigr\|\
\le \ \sum_{i=0}^{\ell - 1} \ \Bigl\|\, v\, \bigl(a_{i+1} + j^{(i)}\bigr) \, - \, v\bigl(a_i + j^{(i)}\bigr)\, \Bigr\|\, .$$ Due to $a_i + j^{i}\, , a_{i+1}+j^{(i)} \in G_{d_1^{(i)} \ldots d_k^{(i)}}$, $i=0,\ldots,\ell-1$, the points $$x_i \quad = \quad M_{d_k^{(i)}} \cdots M_{d_1^{(i)}}\, (a_i+j^{(i)}) \quad \hbox{and} \quad
y_j \quad = \quad M_{d_k^{(i)}} \cdots M_{d_1^{(i)}}\, (a_{i+1}+j^{(i)})$$ belong to $G$. Thus, by (\[eq.ss1\]), we obtain $$\label{eq.auxmain1}
\Bigl\|\tilde v(y) \, - \tilde v(x)\Bigr\| \ \le \sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1} \Bigl\| T_{d_1^{(i)}} \cdots T_{d_k^{(i)}}
\Bigl( v\bigl(y_i) \, \bigr)\ - \ v\bigl(x_i\, \bigr)\, \Bigr)\, \Bigr\|\, .$$ For each $i=0, \ldots, \ell-1$, we define the number $\alpha_i$ from the equality $\|a_{i+1} - a_i\|\, = \, \alpha_i\, \|y-x\|$. It follows that $\, \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{\ell - 1}\, \alpha_i \, = \, 1$ and that $y_i- x_i \, = \, M^k (a_{i+1} - a_i)\, = \, \alpha_i M^k (y-x)$.
[$\Box$]{}
Proofs of Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\] {#ss.hold.proofs}
---------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we prove Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\]. We start with Theorem \[th.holder-direct\] as its proof is a crucial part of the proof of Theorem \[th.holder\]. Note that for both Theorems \[th.holder\] and \[th.holder-direct\] the assumption that $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ implies, e.g. by [@CHM2], that $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})<1$. We will not reprove this result here.
[Proof of Theorem \[th.holder-direct\]]{}. Let $\varepsilon \in (0, 1-\rho_i)$ and $i \in \{1, \ldots , q(M)\}$. We first show that $\alpha_{\varphi, J_i}
\ge \log_{1/r_i} \, \rho_i$. For arbitrary points $x, y \in G$ such that $y - x \in J_i$ and $\|y - x\| < 1$, define $k$ to be the smallest integer such that $ \, \|M^k(y - x)\| \, \ge \, 1$. Since $y - x \in J_i$, it follows that $$\label{eq.k0}
1 \le \|M^{k} (y - x)\| \quad \le \quad C\, (r_i+\varepsilon)^k\, \|y - x\|\, ,$$ where the constant $C>0$ depends only on $M$. By , Theorem A1 and by Proposition \[p.aux\], for these $x, y$ and $k$, there exist a constant $C_1>0$ depending on $G$ and the integer $$\ell \ \le \ C_1\, \max\, \bigl\{1\, , \, \|M^k(y-x)\|\, \bigr\}\ = \ C_1 \|M^k(y - x)\|$$ such that (note that $y-x \in J_i$ implies, by Proposition \[p.aux\], that $x_j,y_j$ in satisfy $y_j-x_j \in J_i$, $j=0,\ldots,\ell-1$) $$\bigl\|v(y) \, - \, v(x)\bigr\| \le 2\, \ell\, C_2 \, (\rho_i+\varepsilon)^k \, \|v \|_{C(G)} \le
2\, C_3 \|M^k(y - x)\| \, \|v\|_{C(G)}\, (\rho_i+\varepsilon)^k$$ with the constant $C_3$ independent of $k$. By the choice of $k$, we have $\|M^{k-1}(y - x)\| < 1$ and, hence, $\|M^k(y - x)\| \, \le \, \|M\|\, \|M^{k-1}(y - x)\|\, < \, \|M\|$. Thus, $$\label{eq.some}
\bigl\|v(y) \, - \, v(x)\bigr\| \ \le \ 2\, C_3
\, \|M\| \, \|v\|_{C(G)}\, (\rho_i+\varepsilon)^k.$$ Combining the above estimate with (i.e. $k \ge
-\frac{\log\|y-x\|}{\log(r_i+\varepsilon)}+C_4$), we get, due to $\rho_i+\varepsilon<1$, $$\bigl\|v(y) \, - \, v(x)\bigr\| \ \le \ C\, \|y - x\|^{\, \alpha (\varepsilon)}$$ with $\, \alpha (\varepsilon) \, = \, \log_{1/(r_i+ \varepsilon )} (\rho_i+ \varepsilon)$ and with some constant $C$ depending on $\varepsilon$. Letting $\varepsilon \to 0$, we obtain the claim.
Next we establish the reverse inequality $\alpha_{\varphi, J_i}
\le \log_{1/r_i} \, \rho_i$. Let $\varepsilon \in (0, r_i)$ and $d_1,\ldots,d_k \in D(M)$, $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. By Theorem A2, there exist $u \in U_i$ and a constant $C(u)>0$ such that $\|A_{d_1} \cdots
A_{d_k}\, u\| \, \ge \, C(u) \rho_i^{\, k}$. Since the subspace $U_i$ is spanned by the differences $v(y) - v(x), \ y - x \in
J_i$, $x,y \in G$, there exist $x_j, y_j \in G$, $y_j-x_j \in
J_i$, $j = 1, \ldots , n_i$ ($n_i$ dimension of $U_i$), such that $\displaystyle u \, = \, \sum_{j=1}^{n_i} \gamma_j \bigl( v(y_j) -
v(x_j)\bigr)$, $\gamma_j \in {{\mathbb R}}$. Denote $x_j^{(k)} =
M_{d_1}^{-1}\cdots M_{d_k}^{-1} x_j\, $ and $\, y_j^{(k)} =
M_{d_1}^{-1}\cdots M_{d_k}^{-1} y_j$. Thus, $\, x_j^{(k)},
y_j^{(k)} \in G_{d_1 \ldots d_k}$ and there exists $C(\varepsilon)>0$ such that $$\label{aux300}
\|y_j^{(k)} - x_j^{(k)}\| \, \le \, C(\varepsilon)\, (r_i-\varepsilon)^{-k}\|y_j - x_j\|, \quad k \in {{\mathbb N}}.$$ Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{j=1}^{n_i} |\gamma_j|\, \cdot \, \bigl\|v(y_j^{(k)}) \, - \, v(x_j^{(k)})\bigr\| \ = \
\sum_{j=1}^{n_i} |\gamma_j| \, \cdot \, \bigl\|\, A_{d_1} \cdots A_{d_k}\, \bigl(v(y_j) \, - \, v(x_j)\bigr)\, \bigr\| \ge \\
&&\hspace{0.3cm}
\left\| \sum_{j=1}^{n_j} \gamma_j \, A_{d_1} \cdots A_{d_k} \, \bigl(v(y_j) \, - \, v(x_j)\,\bigr)\, \right\| =
\left\|\, A_{d_1} \cdots A_{d_k}\, \left( \sum_{j=1}^n \gamma_j\, \bigl(v(y_j) \, - \, v(x_j)\,\bigr)\, \right)\, \right\| =\\
&& \hspace{0.3cm}
\bigl\|\, A_{d_1} \cdots A_{d_k} u\, \bigr\|\ \ge \ C(u)\, \rho_i^{\, k}\,, \quad k \in {{\mathbb N}}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, at least one of the $n_i$ numbers $\|v(y_{j}^{(k)})
- v(x_j^{(k)})\|, \ j = 1, \ldots , n_i$, is larger than or equal to $\frac{C(u)}{\sum_j |\gamma_j|}\, \rho_i^{\, k}$. Combining this estimate with (i.e. $k \le -\frac{\log
\|y_j^{(k)} - x_j^{(k)}\|}{\log(r_i-\varepsilon)}+C_1$ with the constant $C_1$ independent of $k$), we obtain $$\bigl\|v(y_{j}^{(k)}) \, - \, v(x_j^{(k)})\| \ \ge \ C \, \bigl\|\, y_j^{(k)} \, - \, x_j^{(k)}\,
\bigr\|^{\, \alpha(\varepsilon)}\, ,$$ where $\alpha(\varepsilon) = \log_{1/(r_i-\varepsilon)}\, \rho_i$ and the constant $C > 0$ does not depend on $k$. Since $\|y_j^{(k)} - x_j^{(k)}\|\to 0$ as $k \to \infty$, there are arbitrary small segments $[x_j^{(k)}\, , \, y_j^{(k)}]$ on which the variation of the function $v$ is at least a constant times the length of that segment to the power of $\log_{1/(r_i-\varepsilon)}\, \rho_i$. Therefore, $\alpha_{\varphi, J_i} \le \log_{1/(r_i-\varepsilon)} \, \rho_i$. Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, the claim follows.
[$\Box$]{}
[Proof of Theorem \[th.holder\]]{}. We only show that the condition $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$ is sufficient for continuity of $\varphi$. Let $\varepsilon \in (0, 1- \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}))$. Recall that $Q$ in is dense in $G$. To determine the values of the vector-valued function $v=v_\varphi$ in on $Q$, the set of rational $M$-adic points from $G$, use the algorithm from subsection \[ss.hold.u\]. We first show that the vector-valued function $v$ is uniformly bounded on $Q$. Denote $C_0 = \max \{\|v(x) - v(y)\| \ : \
x, y \in Q_1\}$ with $Q_1$ defined in . Then, for every $x = 0.d_1\ldots d_j \, \in Q_j \subset Q$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \bigl\| \, v(0.d_1\ldots d_j \, - \, v(0)\, \bigr\| \ \le \
\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \bigl\| T_{d_1}\cdots T_{d_i}
\bigl(\, v(0.d_{i+1}) \, - \, v(0) \, \bigr) \, \bigr\|, \quad j \in {{\mathbb N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, by construction, $v(0.d_{i+1}) - v(0)\, = \, T_{d_{i+1}}v_0 - v_0 \, \in \, U$ for $i=1, \ldots, j-1$. Therefore, by Theorem A1, $\bigl\| T_{d_1}\cdots T_{d_i}
\bigl(v(0.d_{i+1}) - v(0) \bigr)\bigr\| \, \le \,
C_1 (\rho + \varepsilon)^i$, $i=1, \ldots, j-1$. Thus, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl\| \, v(0.d_1\ldots d_j) \, - \, v(0)\, \bigr\| \ \le \
C_1 \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} (\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) + \varepsilon)^i \ \le \
C_1 \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} (\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) + \varepsilon)^i \ = \ \frac{C_1}{1 - \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) - \varepsilon}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C_1>0$ is independent of $j \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Hence, $\|v(x)\| \, \le \,
\|v(0)\|\, + \, \frac{C_1}{1 - \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) - \varepsilon}$ which proves the uniform boundedness of $v$ on $G$.
The values of $v$ on $Q$ define the function $\varphi$ on $\tilde Q$, where $\tilde{Q} = \cup_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} (k+Q)$ is the set of all rational $M$-adic points of ${{\mathbb R}}^s$. The so constructed $\varphi: \tilde{Q} \rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ is supported on $K \cap \tilde Q$. Using $\varphi$, define the extension $\tilde v: \tilde Q \to {{\mathbb R}}$ of $v$ in . We show next that $\tilde v$ is uniformly continuous on $\tilde Q$, which implies that its extension to ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ is continuous. Take arbitrary points $x, y \in \tilde Q$. By Proposition \[p.aux\] and the same argument as in the first part of the proof of Theorem \[th.holder-direct\], we obtain $$\bigl\|\tilde v(y) \, - \, \tilde v(x)\bigr\| \ \le \
2 \, C_2 \, \|M\| \, \|v\|_{C(Q)}\, (\rho({{\mathcal{A}}})+\varepsilon)^k\, ,$$ where $k$ is the smallest number such that $\|M^k(y-x)\| \ge 1$. Note that the value $\|v\|_{C(Q)}$ is finite because $v$ is bounded $Q$. Since $\|M\|^k \ge 1/ \|y-x\|$, i.e. $k$ goes to $\infty$ as $\|y - x\|$ goes to zero, $\tilde v$ is uniformly continuous on $\tilde Q$, which completes the proof of continuity. Thus, if $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$, then $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$.
By Theorem \[th.holder-direct\], the Holder exponent $\alpha_\varphi$ of $\varphi$ on shifts along the subspace $J_i$ is equal to $\alpha_i = \log_{1/r_i}\, \rho_i$. We pass to a basis in the space ${{\mathbb R}}^s$, in which all the subspaces $J_i$ are orthogonal to each other. Using a natural expansion $h = h_1 + \ldots + h_{q(M)}, \ h_i \in J_i$ we obtain for arbitrary $\varepsilon > 0$ $$\bigl\|\varphi (\cdot + h) - \varphi(\cdot)\bigr\| \ \le \ \sum_{i=1}^{q(M)} \, \bigl\|\varphi (\cdot + h_i) \, - \, \varphi(\cdot)\, \bigr\|\ \le \
\sum_{i=1}^{q(M)} \, C \, \|h_i\|^{\, \alpha_i - \varepsilon} \ \le \ C \, d^{\, \alpha - \varepsilon} \|h\|^{\, \alpha_i - \varepsilon},$$ where $\alpha = \min\limits_{i=1, \ldots , q(M)}\alpha_i$. Consequently, $\alpha_{\varphi}\, = \, \min\limits_{i=1, \ldots , q(M)}\alpha_i$.
[$\Box$]{}
Examples {#ss.examples.C}
--------
We consider the dilation matrix $M=\left(\begin{array}{rr}2&1\\
1&-1\end{array}\right)$ and the refinement equation with five nonzero coefficients $$c_{(0,0)}=\frac{1}{2}, \quad c_{(1,-1)}=\frac{1}{2}, \quad c_{(1,0)}=1, \quad
c_{(2,0)}=\frac{1}{4} \quad \hbox{and} \quad c_{(1,1)}=\frac{3}{4}.$$ The dilation matrix has eigenvalues $\lambda_1=\frac{1 -
\sqrt{13}}{2}$ and $\lambda_2=\frac{1 + \sqrt{13}}{2}$. By [@GroH], for the digit set $D(M)=\{(0,0), (1,0), (2,0)\}$, the set $G$ in is a tile. Using the result of [@CHM2], we determine $$\Omega=\{-1,0,1\}^2 \cup \{(0,\pm 2),(1,-2),(-1,2)\}.$$ The corresponding transition matrices $T_{(0,0)}$, $T_{(1,0)}$ and $T_{(2,0)}$ are given by$$\frac{1}{4}\, \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&2&4&3&0\\
0&3&1&0&0&0&4&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
2&0&0&0&4&2&0&3&0&0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&2&0&1&4&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&2&0&0&0\\
0&0&3&4&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&3\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right), \quad
\frac{1}{4}\, \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
4&2&2&0&3 &0&2&0&0&0 &1&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&2&0&0&1 &4&2&0&3&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&1&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&2&0&0 &0&0&0&0&4 &3&0&2 \\
0&0&0&1&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&2 \\
0&0&0&3&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&2&0&0 &0&2&0 \\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&2&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&2&0&0 &0&0&0 \end{array} \right)$$ and $$\frac{1}{4}\, \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
1&4&0&0&0 &0&4&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
3&0&4&2&0 &0&0&0&0&1 &0&0&0 \\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&2&0 &0&0&0&0&3 &0&0&4 \\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&2 &0&0&4&2&0 &0&0&0 \\
0&0&0&0&2 &4&0&0&0&0 &2&4&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&0&0 &2&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0 &0&0&0&2&0 &0&0&0 \end{array} \right),$$ respectively. The matrix $T_{(0,0)}$ has one eigenvalue $1$ with the corresponding eigenvector $$v_0=\frac{1}{5} \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}0&4&0&0&0&0&1&0&0&0&0&0&0 \end{array}\right)^T \in V,
\quad ({\bf 1},v_0)=1.$$ Using the algorithm for construction of $U$ from subsection \[ss.hold.u\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
U^{(1)}&=&\{u_1^{(1)}, u_2^{(1)} \}=\{T_{(1,0)}v_0-v_0,T_{(2,0)}v_0-v_0
\}, \\
U^{(2)}&=&\{u_1^{(2)}, \ldots, u_4^{(1)}
\}=U^{(1)} \cup \{T_{(0,0)}u_1^{(1)},T_{(1,0)}u_1^{(1)}\}, \\
U^{(3)}&=&\{u_1^{(3)}, \ldots, u_7^{(3)}
\}=U^{(2)} \cup \{T_{(0,0)}u_3^{(2)},T_{(2,0)}u_3^{(2)},T_{(2,0)}u_4^{(2)}\}, \\
U^{(4)}&=&\{u_1^{(4)}, \ldots, u_{11}^{(4)}
\}=U^{(3)} \cup
\{T_{(0,0)}u_5^{(3)},T_{(1,0)}u_5^{(3)},T_{(2,0)}u_5^{(3)},T_{(2,0)}u_6^{(3)}\},\\
U=U^{(5)}&=&U^{(4)} \cup \{T_{(1,0)}u_{10}^{(4)}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Due to $\hbox{dim}(U)=12$, we have $W=U$ and, therefore, ${{\mathcal{A}}}=\{T_d|_{W} \ : \ d \in D(M)\}$. Denote $A_0 = T_{(0, 0)}|_W, \, A_1 = T_{(1, 0)}|_W,\, A_2 = T_{(2, 0)}|_W$. We computed the joint spectral radius of the set ${{\mathcal{A}}}= \{A_0, A_1, A_2\}$ using the invariant polytope algorithm from [@GP1] and obtained that the joint spectral radius is attained at the finite product $(A_0 A_1)^2 A_0^2 A_2$ of length $7$, i.e. $$\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) \ = \ \Bigl[ \rho \, \bigl( (A_0 A_1)^2 A_0^2 A_2\bigr) \Bigr]^{1/7} \ = \
0.93816\ldots .$$ The algorithm constructs an invariant polytope of the operators $A_0, A_1, A_2$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^{12}$. That polytope has $434$ vertices.
Since $M$ has two eigenvalues of different moduli, $q(M) = 2$, and there exist two corresponding non-zero subspaces $U_1, U_2 \subset U$. On the other hand, we verified that the matrix family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible in this case. Hence, the only non-zero common invariant subspace of the matrices in ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is $U$. Thus, $U_1 = U_2 = U = W$. Therefore, $\rho_1 = \rho_2 = \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and Theorem 1 implies that $$\alpha_{\varphi} \ = \ \log_{1/\rho(M)}\, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}) \ = \
\frac17\, \log_{\frac{2}{1 + \sqrt{13}}} \rho \, \bigl( (A_0 A_1)^2 A_0^2 A_2\bigr) \ = \
0.07652\ldots$$
Higher order regularity {#s.higher}
=======================
It is well known that in the univariate case, if the solution $\varphi$ of the refinement equation belongs to $C^1({{\mathbb R}})$, then $\varphi$ is a convolution of a piecewise-constant function and of a continuous solution of a refinement equation of a smaller order [@DL; @P07; @Vil]. This observation resolves the question of the differentiability of refinable functions and classifies all smooth refinable functions. In particular, every $C^{\ell}$-refinable function is a convolution of a refinable spline of order $\ell-1$ and of a continuous refinable function. This recursive decomposition technique, however, cannot be extended to the multivariate case, see e.g. [@CGV; @J98; @MoeSA].
In this section, we show that the derivatives of the multivariate refinable function $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ satisfy a system of nonhomogeneous refinement equations. The differentiability of $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ is then equivalent to continuity of the solutions of all these equations, see Theorem \[th.deriv\]. The main idea is that the directional derivatives of $\varphi$ along the eigenvectors of the dilation matrix $M$ satisfy certain refinement equations and the directional derivatives along the generalized eigenvectors (of the Jordan basis) of $M$ satisfy nonhomogeneous refinement equations, see Proposition \[p.derivatives\].
\[d.gen-ref\] A multivariate nonhomogeneous refinement equation is a functional equation of the form $$\varphi \, = \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\, \varphi\, + \, g,$$ where ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}$ is the transition operator in (\[eq.transit\]) and $g$ is a given compactly supported function or distribution.
For more details on nonhomogeneous refinement equations see e.g. [@DH; @JJS; @SZ] and references therein.
Let $$E=\{e_1, \ldots, e_s\}$$ be the Jordan basis of the matrix $M$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^s$. The Jordan basis consists of the eigenvectors of $M$, which satisfy $Me_i = \lambda e_i$, and of the generalized eigenvectors, which satisfy $Me_i = \lambda e_i + e_{i-1}$. Consider an $\ell \times \ell$ Jordan block of $M$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $\lambda$. With a slight abuse of notation, denote by $$E_\lambda=\{e_{1}, \ldots, e_{\ell}\} \subset E, \quad Me_{1} = \lambda e_{1}, \quad
Me_{i} = \lambda e_{i} + e_{i-1}, \ i = 2, \ldots , \ell,$$ the Jordan basis corresponding to this Jordan block. In the following we study the properties of the directional derivatives of the refinable function $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, which belong to the following subspaces of ${{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$.
For a vector $a \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$, we denote by $${{\mathcal{S}}}'_a({{\mathbb R}}^s)\ =\ \left\{ \varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s) \ : \ \int_{x=at+b \atop t\in {{\mathbb R}}^s} \varphi(x)dx=0, \ b \in {{\mathbb R}}^s \right\}$$ the space of compactly supported distributions, whose mean along every straight line $\bigl\{x=at+b \ : \ t \in {{\mathbb R}}\bigr\}$, $\ b\in {{\mathbb R}}^s$, parallel to $a$, is equal to zero.
By $\nabla \varphi\, = \, \bigl(\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x_1}, \ldots ,
\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x_s} \bigr)$ we denote the total derivative (gradient) of $\varphi$ and by $\frac{\partial \, \varphi}{\partial \, a}\, = \, \bigl( a\, , \, \nabla \varphi \bigr)$, its directional derivative along a nonzero vector $a \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$. Due to the compact support of $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, its directional derivative $\frac{\partial \, \varphi}{\partial \, a}$ belongs to ${{\mathcal{S}}}'_a({{\mathbb R}}^s)$.
The next result shows that a directional derivative of a refinable function $\varphi$ along an eigenvector of the dilation matrix $M$ is also a refinable function and satisfies the refinement equation (\[eq.e1\]). A directional derivative of $\varphi$ along a generalized eigenvector of $M$ satisfies the nonhomogeneous refinement equation (\[eq.ei\]).
\[p.derivatives\] Let $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ and $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $M$. If $\varphi={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$, then $\varphi_i = \bigl(e_{i}, \nabla \varphi\bigr) \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'_i:={{\mathcal{S}}}_{e_{i}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $e_{i} \in E_\lambda$, satisfy the refinement equation $$\label{eq.e1}
\varphi_1 \ = \ \lambda \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_1\,$$ and the nonhomogeneous refinement equations $$\label{eq.ei}
\varphi_i \ = \ \lambda \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_i \ + \ \sum_{j=1}^{i-1}(-1)^{j-1}\, \lambda^{-j}\, \varphi_{i-j}\, ,
\quad i = 2, \ldots , \ell\ =\ { \rm dim}\, (E_\lambda).$$ Conversely, the system of equations (\[eq.e1\])-(\[eq.ei\]) possesses a unique up to a normalization solution $(\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_\ell) \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'_1 \times \ldots \times {{\mathcal{S}}}'_\ell$. Moreover, if $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ satisfies $\bigl(e_{i}, \nabla \varphi\bigr)=\varphi_i$, $e_i \in E_\lambda$, then $\varphi={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$ along the lines parallel to $e_i \in E_\lambda$.
[Proof]{}. By induction on $\ell$, we show that, if $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ satisfies the refinement equation $\varphi={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$, then $\varphi_i = \bigl(e_{i}, \nabla \varphi\bigr)$, $i=1,\ldots,\ell$, satisfy (\[eq.e1\])-(\[eq.ei\]). For $\ell=1$, due to $Me_{1} = \lambda e_{1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1&=& \bigl(e_{1}, \nabla \varphi\bigr) \ = \
\left( e_{1}, \sum_{k \in{{\mathbb Z}}^s} c_k M^T \nabla \varphi \right)(M\cdot - k) =
\left( M\, e_{1}, \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} c_k \nabla \varphi(M\cdot - k)\, \right) \\ &=& \
\lambda \, \sum_{k\in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} \, c_k\, \Bigl( \, e_{1}, \nabla \varphi\, \Bigr)(M\cdot - k) \ = \
\lambda\, \sum_{k \in{{\mathbb Z}}^s} c_k \varphi_1 (M \cdot - k)\, =\lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_1\, .\end{aligned}$$ For $i \in \{2, \ldots,\ell\}$, due to $Me_{i} = \lambda e_{i} + e_{i-1}$ and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i \, = \, \lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_{i} \, + \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_{i-1}=\lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_{i} \, + \lambda^{-1}\varphi_{i-1}-\sum_{j=1}^{i-2} (-1)^{j-1}\lambda^{-j} \varphi_{i-1-j}.\end{aligned}$$ And the claim follows.
Conversely, by [@JJS], the system (\[eq.e1\])-(\[eq.ei\]) possess a unique up to normalization solution. We show that the compactly supported primitive $\varphi$ of $\varphi_i$, $i=1,\ldots,\ell$, along $e_{i} \in E_\lambda$ satisfies $\varphi = {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$. Indeed, since $Me_{1} = \lambda e_{1}$ and by (\[eq.e1\]), we obtain $$\left( e_1 , \nabla \varphi \right) \ = \lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\left( e_1, \nabla \varphi \right) \ = \left( e_1\, , M^T {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\nabla \varphi \right)=
\left( e_1\, , \nabla {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi \right),$$ which implies that the gradient of the function ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi - \varphi$ is orthogonal to $e_{1}$. Hence, the function ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi - \varphi$ is constant along all lines parallel to $e_{1} \in E_\lambda$. On the other hand, $\varphi$ is compactly supported, consequently ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi - \varphi=0$ along all lines parallel to $e_{1} \in E_\lambda$. For $i \in \{2, \ldots,\ell\}$, due to $Me_{i} = \lambda e_{i}+ e_{i-1}$ and $\varphi_i=\lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_i+{{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_{i-1}$, we obtain $$\left(e_{i}, \nabla \varphi \right) \ = \lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\left(e_{i}, \nabla \varphi \right)+ {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\left(e_{i-1}, \nabla \varphi \right)
= \left( \lambda e_i+e_{i-1}\, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\nabla \varphi \right)=
\left( e_i\, , \nabla {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi \right).$$ Analogous considerations about ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi-\varphi$ along $e_i \in E_\lambda$ imply the claim. [$\Box$]{}
\[r.250\] [*If, for the eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the dilation matrix $M$, the set $E_\lambda$ does not contain any generalized eigenvectors, then the system (\[eq.e1\])-(\[eq.ei\]) reduces to homogeneous refinement equations $\varphi_i \ = \ \lambda \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_i$, $e_i \in E_\lambda$.* ]{}
The main result of this section, Theorem \[th.deriv\], states that $\varphi \in C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ if and only if the (nonhomogeneous) refinement equations in Proposition \[p.derivatives\] corresponding to the Jordan basis $E \subset {{\mathbb R}}^s$ of the dilation matrix $M$ have continuous solutions $\varphi_i \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'_{e_i}({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $e_i \in E$. The directional derivatives $\varphi_i$, $i=1,\ldots,s$, determine the total derivative $\nabla \varphi$ of $\varphi$. Moreover, $\varphi_i$, $i=1,\ldots,s$, can be constructed and their Hölder exponents can be computed as described in section \[s.hold\] (see Remark \[r.610\]). Thus, the higher regularity of any refinable function $\varphi$ can be analyzed by this recursive reduction to a set of continuous refinable functions.
\[th.deriv\] Let $\varphi \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. There exist continuous solutions $\varphi_i \in {{\mathcal{S}}}'_{e_i} ({{\mathbb R}}^s), \, e_i \in E_\lambda$, of (\[eq.e1\]) – (\[eq.ei\]) for each eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the dilation matrix $M$ if and only if $\varphi \in C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ satisfies $\varphi={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$ and $\frac{\partial \, \varphi}{\partial \, e_i}\, = \, \varphi_i$, $e_i \in E$.
[Proof]{}. If $\varphi \in C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ is a compactly supported solution of the refinement equation $\varphi={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$, then, by Proposition \[p.derivatives\], its directional derivatives $\varphi_i:=\frac{\partial \, \varphi}{\partial \, e_i}
\in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ along $e_i \in E$ satisfy equations (\[eq.e1\])-(\[eq.ei\]). Conversely, if the equations (\[eq.e1\])-(\[eq.ei\]) possess continuous solutions, then, by Proposition \[p.derivatives\], $\varphi$ is in $C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $\frac{\partial \, \varphi}{\partial \, e_i}=\varphi_i$, $e_i \in E$, and satisfies $\varphi={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$. [$\Box$]{}
\[c.deriv\] Suppose that $E$ does not contain any generalized eigenvectors, i.e., the matrix $M$ has a basis of eigenvectors; then
$(i)$
: If $\varphi \in C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ is refinable, then $\varphi_i \, = \, \frac{\partial\, \varphi}{\partial \, e_i}\in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ satisfy $\varphi_i \ = \ \lambda_i \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_i$, $i=1, \ldots,s$.
$(ii)$
: Conversely, if the solutions $\varphi_i \in {{\mathcal{S}}}_{e_i}'$ of $\varphi_i \ = \ \lambda_i \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_i$, $i=1, \ldots,s$, are continuous, then the solution of $\varphi ={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$ belongs to $C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. Moreover, $\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial e_i}=\varphi_i$, $i=1, \ldots,s$.
\[r.610\] [*The system of refinement equations (\[eq.e1\])-(\[eq.ei\]) is solved and analysed in the same way described in subsection \[ss.hold.u\] for the usual refinement equation (\[eq.ref\]). First we solve the equation $\varphi_1 = \lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_1$. We find $v_{\varphi_1}(0)$ as an eigenvector of the matrix $T_0$ with the eigenvalue $1/\lambda $. If $T_0$ does not have this eigenvalue, then equation $\varphi_1 = \lambda {{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi_1$ does not have a solution, and hence $\varphi \notin C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. Then we compute $\varphi_1(x)$ at $M$-adic points by the formula $v_{\varphi_1} (0.d_1\ldots d_k)\, = \,
\lambda^k T_{d_1}\cdots T_{d_k}v_{\varphi_1}(0)$, and extend it by continuity to the whole set $K$ (as in Algorithm 2, subsection \[ss.hold.u\]). Then we define the space $U_{\lambda , 1}$ as the minimal common invariant subspace of the transition matrices containing the vectors $\lambda T_d v_{\varphi_1}(0)\, - \, v_{\varphi_1}(0), \, d \in D(M)$. This can be done by Algorithm 1 from subsection \[ss.hold.u\]. Then $\varphi_1 \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ if and only if the joint spectral radius of the matrices $\lambda T_d,\, d \in D(M),$ restricted to the subspace $U_{\lambda , 1}$ is smaller than one. The Hölder regularity of $\varphi_1$ is computed by formula (\[eq.holder\]) for the matrices $A_d = \lambda T_d|_{U_{\lambda , 1}}$. Similarly, we solve the other equations of the system (\[eq.ei\]) successively for $i = 2, \ldots , \ell$.* ]{}
Modulus of continuity and Lipschitz continuity {#s.modulus}
==============================================
Apart from the computing of the exact Hölder exponent of a refinable function $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, the matrix approach allows for a refined analysis of its modulus of continuity $$\label{eq.mod}
\omega (\varphi, t) \ = \ \sup_{\|h\|\, \le \, t} \ \|\varphi(\cdot + h)\ - \ \varphi\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)}\ ,
\qquad t > 0,$$ also in the case of a general dilation matrix $M$. In Theorem \[th.res1\], we show how the asymptotic behavior of $\omega(\varphi, t)$ as $t \to 0$ depends on the spectral properties of $M$. Corollary \[c.res2\] states under which conditions on $M$ the Hölder exponent $\alpha_\varphi=1$ of $\varphi$ guarantees its Lipschitz continuity. Indeed, the condition $\alpha_\varphi=1$ on the Hölder exponent $$\alpha_\varphi=\sup \{\alpha \ge 0 \ : \ \omega (\varphi, t)\, \le \, C \, t^{\, \alpha}, \quad t>0 \}$$ is not sufficient to guarantee the Lipschitz continuity of $\varphi$. The Lipschitz continuity takes place if and only if the exponent $\alpha_{\, \varphi} = 1$ is [*sharp*]{}.
\[d.sharp\] The Hölder exponent $\alpha_\varphi$ of $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ is sharp if there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $\omega(\varphi, t)\, \le \, C t^{\, \alpha}, \ t \in (0, 1)$.
\[r.260\] [*Even in the univariate case the Hölder exponent of a refinable function may not be sharp. For example, the derivative of the refinable function generated by the four-point interpolatory subdivision scheme with the parameter $w = \frac{1}{16}$ is “almost Lipschitz” with factor $1$, i.e., $\omega (\varphi', t) \, \asymp \, t\, |\log\, t|$ as $\, t \to 0$. See [@Dub]. It has been shown recently [@GP2], that in the bivariate case with the dilation matrix $M = 2I$, the derivatives of the refinable function generated by the butterfly subdivision scheme with the parameter $w = \frac{1}{16}$ is “almost Lipschitz” with factor $2$, i.e., $\omega (\varphi', t) \, \asymp \, t\, |\log\, t|^2$ as $\, t \to 0$.*]{}
To formulate the main result of this section we need to introduce some further notation.
\[d.resonance\_degree\] The [*resonance degree*]{} of a compact set ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ of $n \times n$ matrices is defined by $$\nu({{\mathcal{A}}})\ =\ \min\bigl\{\nu \in {{\mathbb N}}\cup\{0\} \ : \ \max_{A_{d_1}, \ldots , A_{d_k} \in {{\mathcal{A}}}} \|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}\| \, \le \, C\, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})^k\, k^{\nu}, \ k\in {{\mathbb N}}\bigr\}.$$
\[r.resonance\_degree\] [*$(i)$ Note that the resonance degree $\nu(A)$ of one square matrix $A$ is less by one than the size of the largest Jordan block of $A$ corresponding to one of the largest eigenvalues in the absolute value. Thus, the resonance degree of one matrix can be computed efficiently. $(ii)$ In general, $\nu({{\mathcal{A}}}) \le n-1$. Indeed, by [@P06], the resonance degree does not exceed the [*valency*]{} of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ minus one, determined from the lower triangular Frobenius factorization of the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, i.e. there exists an invertible $B \in {{\mathbb C}}^{n \times n}$ $$\label{eq.A-factor}
B^{-1} A B \quad = \quad
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
A^{(1)} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
* & A^{(2)} & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
* & \cdots & * & A^{(r)}
\end{array}
\right)\ , \qquad A \in {{\mathcal{A}}}\, ,$$ where each family ${{\mathcal{A}}}^{(j)}\, = \, \{A^{(j)} \ : \ A \in {{\mathcal{A}}}\}$, $j = 1, \ldots ,r \le n$, is irreducible. The [*valency*]{} of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is defined as the number of ${{\mathcal{A}}}^{(j)}=\{A^{(j)}\ : \ A \in {{\mathcal{A}}}\}$ such that $\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}^{(j)})\, = \, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})$. In particular, if the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible, then the Frobenius factorization is trivial with $r=1$. In this case, the valency of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is equal to one, which is stated in Theorem A2. Thus, in this case, $\nu({{\mathcal{A}}})=0$. $(iii)$ For a sharper estimate on the [*valency*]{} of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ see [@CMS]. $(iv)$ The resonance degree is an integer, by definition. By [@PJ], there exist finite matrix families (even pairs of matrices ${{\mathcal{A}}}= \{A_0, A_1\}$) for which $\displaystyle \max_{A_{d_1}, \ldots , A_{d_k} \in {{\mathcal{A}}}}\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}\|\, \asymp \, \rho({{\mathcal{A}}})^k k^{\beta}$ with a non-integer $\beta$.*]{}
Now we are ready to formulate the main result of this section.
\[th.res1\] Let $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ with the Holder exponent $\alpha=\alpha_\varphi$. For $$\alpha \nu(M|_{J_i}) \, + \, \nu({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_i})=\max \{ \alpha \nu(M|_{J_j}) \, + \, \nu({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_j}) \ : \
\log_{1/r_j} \rho_j\, = \, \alpha_{\varphi}, \ j =1, \ldots , q(M) \}$$ the modulus of continuity of $\varphi$ satisfies $$\label{eq.res1}
\omega (\varphi, t)\quad \le \quad C\, t^{\, \alpha}\, |\log \, t|^{\, \alpha \nu(M|_{J_i}) \, + \, \nu({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_i})}\, , \qquad
t \in (0\, ,\, 1/2)\, .$$
[Proof]{}. Let $j \in \{1,\ldots,q(M)\}$ and $y-x \in J_j$, $\|y-x\|< 1$. The proof is similar to the first part of the proof of Theorem \[th.holder-direct\], where, using Definition \[d.resonance\_degree\], we replace the estimate (\[eq.k0\]) by $$\label{aux50}
1 \le \|M^{k} (y - x)\| \, \le \, C\, r_j^k\, k^{\, \nu(M|_{J_j})}\, \|y - x\|.$$ Then in the estimate , by Definition \[d.resonance\_degree\], we have $$\label{aux51}
\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k} |_{U_j}\| \le \, C\, \rho_j^k \, k^{\, \nu({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_j})}$$ Let $v=v_\varphi$ be defined in . Combining and , we obtain $$\|v(y) - v(x)\|\ \le \
C\, \|y-x\|^{\, \alpha}\, \bigl|\, \log \, \|y - x\|\, \bigr|^{\, \alpha \nu(M|_{J_j}) \, + \, \nu({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_j})}\, .$$ Since this estimate holds for each $j \in \{ 1, \ldots , q(M)\}$, the claim follows.
[$\Box$]{}
The first corollary of Theorem \[th.res1\] lists the conditions sufficient for the sharpness of the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$.
\[c.res1\] Let $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ with the Holder exponent $\alpha=\alpha_\varphi$. If for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, q(M)\}$ such that $\log_{1/r_i} \rho_i\, = \, \alpha$, the matrix $M|_{J_i}$ has only trivial Jordan blocks and $\nu({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{U_i}) = 0$, then the Hölder exponent $\alpha$ is sharp.
The proof of Corollary \[c.res1\] follows by Remark \[r.resonance\_degree\] $(i)$, which implies that $\nu(M|_{J_i})=0$ in Theorem \[th.res1\]. An important particular case of Corollary \[c.res1\] is stated in the following result.
\[c.res3\] Let $\varphi \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. If the dilation matrix $M$ has a complete system of eigenvectors and the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible, then the Hölder exponent $\alpha_\varphi$ of $\varphi$ is sharp.
\[c.res2\] Under the assumptions of Corollary \[c.res1\], if $\alpha_{\varphi} = 1$, then $\varphi$ is Lipschitz continuous.
\[ex.res10\] [*The refinable function $\varphi$ from subsection \[ss.examples.C\] has a sharp Hölder exponent. Indeed, for that equation $M$ has two different eigenvalues, and hence $\nu(M) = 0$; the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible, therefore $\nu({{\mathcal{A}}}) = 0$. Thus, $\omega (\varphi, t) \, \le \, C\, t^{\,0.07652\ldots}$.*]{}
\[r.50\] [*The moduli of continuity along the subspaces $J_i$, $i = 1, \ldots ,q(M)$: $$\omega(\varphi, t, J_i) \, = \, \sup \, \{\|\varphi(\cdot+h) - \varphi\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \ : \
\|h\| \le t\, , \ h \in J_i\},\qquad t \in (0,1/2)\, ,$$ satisfy the estimate in (\[eq.res1\]).*]{}
\[r.60\] [*A careful analysis of the proof of Theorem \[th.res1\], makes it possible to construct examples for which the upper bound (\[eq.res1\]) is attained. Thus, inequality (\[eq.res1\]) cannot be improved in that terms. In particular, it is shown easily that if $M$ has the largest Jordan block of a given size $\nu +1 \ge 2$ corresponding to the biggest by modulus eigenvalue and the family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible, then $\omega (\varphi , t) \, \ge \, C t^{\, \alpha}\, |\log t|^{\, \alpha \nu}$ for a sequence of numbers $t$ that tends to zero.* ]{}
\[r.65\]
*It is known that in the univariate case, the Hölder exponent of a refinable function is always sharp, whenever it is not an integer [@P07]. Remark \[r.60\] shows that in the multivariate case this does not hold. If $M$ has the largest Jordan block of a size $\nu + 1 \ge 2$ corresponding to the largest by modulus eigenvalue, and ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ is irreducible, then $\omega (\varphi , t) \, \ge \, C t^{\, \alpha}\, |\log t|^{\, \alpha \nu}$ for $t$ tending to zero.*
Local regularity of continuous solutions {#s.local}
========================================
The matrix approach (for the matrices $A_d$, $d \in D(M)$ in ) makes it possible to compute the local regularity of continuous refinable functions at concrete points and to study sets of points with the given local regularity. In the univariate case, the analysis of the local regularity of the refinable function generating the Daubechies wavelet $D2$ was done in [@DL]. For the general theory of local regularity of univariate refinable functions see [@P06]. In particular, in [@P06], the authors show that all univariate refinable functions, except for refinable splines, have a varying local regularity, which explains their fractal properties. The matrix approach, see Theorem \[th.holder-loc\], extends the above mentioned local regularity analysis to the case of multivariate refinable functions with an arbitrary dilation matrix $M$.
\[d.local\_Hoelder\] The *local Hölder exponent* of $f \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ at a point $x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$ along a subspace $J \subset {{\mathbb R}}^s$ is defined by $$\alpha_{f, J}(x) \quad =\quad
\sup \ \Bigl\{\ \alpha \ge 0 \ : \ \bigl\|f(x+h) - f(x)\bigr\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \ \le \ C \, \bigl\|h\bigr\|^{\, \alpha}\, , \
h \in J\, \Bigr\}.$$ If $J = {{\mathbb R}}^s$, then we omit the index $J$ and denote the local Hölder exponent by $\alpha_{f}(x)$.
\[r.550\] [*Similarly to Definition \[d.local\_Hoelder\], we define the local Hölder exponent of the vector-valued function $v$ in for $x \in G$. Note that in Theorem \[th.holder-loc\] we determine the local Hölder exponent of $v_\varphi$ which satisfies $$\alpha_{v_\varphi,J}(x)=\min\{\alpha_{\varphi,J}(x+k)\ : \ k \in \Omega \}, \quad x \in G.$$* ]{}
For the sake of simplicity, we formulate Theorem \[th.holder-loc\] for rational $M$-adic points $x$. The following definition allows us to avoid the possible non-uniqueness of such representations.
\[d.rational\_point\] Let $\ell, L \in {{\mathbb N}}$. A point $x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$ is called rational $M$-adic with period $(\ell,L)$, if $$x=x_{d_1, \ldots, d_\ell-1, (\ell,L)}=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1} d_j M^{-j} + \sum_{j=\ell+j'(L+1) \atop j'\in {{\mathbb N}}_0}^{\ell+(j'+1)(L+1)-1}
d_{j-j'(L+1)}M^{-j}, \quad d_j \in D(M).$$ For purely periodic $x \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$ we write $x=x_{(\ell,L)}$.
\[r.270\] [*The point $x_{(\ell,L)}$ is the unique fixed point of the contraction $M_\ell^{-1}\cdots M_{\ell+L}^{-1}$. Thus, $x_{(\ell,L)} \in G_{(\ell,L)^j}$ for all $j \ge 0$. If $x_{(\ell,L)} \in {\rm int} (G)$, then $x_{(\ell,L)} \in {\rm int} (G_{(\ell,L)^j})$ for all $j \ge 0$, and this point has a unique $M$-adic expansion. Since $M$ is nonsigular, $x_{d_1 \ldots d_{\ell-1}\, (\ell,L)} \, \in \, {\rm int} \, (G_{d_1 \ldots d_{\ell-1}\, (\ell,L)})$ for some $d_1,\ldots, d_{\ell-1} \in D(M)$.*]{}
We are now ready to formulate the main result of this section. Recall that the subspaces $J_i$, $i=1, \ldots, q(M)$, of ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ determined by the dilation matrix $M$ are defined in subsection \[ss.spectral.M\].
\[th.holder-loc\] Let $\varphi\in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ be refinable with the dilation matrix $M$ and $x_{(\ell,L)} \in {\rm int} (G)$, $\ell,L \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Then for every rational $M$-adic point $x=x_{d_1,\ldots,d_{\ell-1},(\ell,L)}$ with the period $(\ell,L)$, we have $$\label{eq.holder-loc-direct}
\alpha_{v_\varphi, J_i}(x)\quad \ge \quad \frac{1}{L}\, \log_{1/r_i} \, \rho (A_{d_\ell} \cdots A_{d_{\ell+L}}|_{U_i})\, ,
\qquad i = 1, \ldots , q(M)\,$$ and $$\label{eq.holder-loc}
\alpha_{v_\varphi}(x)\quad \ge \quad \max_{i = 1, \ldots , q(M)}
\alpha_{v_\varphi, J_i}(x)\, .$$ If the operators $A_d|_{U_i}$ are nonsingular (in particular, if all $A_d, \, d \in D(M)$, are nonsingular), then the inequalities in (\[eq.holder-loc-direct\]) and in (\[eq.holder-loc\]) become equalities.
Thus, to compute the local regularity at a given $M$-rational point $x$, one does not need the joint spectral radius. The local regularity is determined by the usual spectral radius of the matrix product corresponding to the period of the $M$-adic expansion of $x$.
\[r.70\] [*The assumption that the operators $A_d|_{U_i}$, $d \in D(M)$, are nonsingular cannot be avoided even in the univariate case, see [@P06 Example 7].*]{}
[Proof of Theorem \[th.holder-loc\].]{} Let $i \in \{1, \ldots, q(M)\}$. Denote $\rho_{\ell,L} = \rho(A_{d_\ell} \cdots A_{d_{\ell+L}}|_{U_i})$. Note that $\rho_{\ell,L} < 1$, due to the continuity of $\varphi$. Choose $\varepsilon \in (0, 1 - \rho_{\ell,L})$. Since $x_{(\ell,L)} \in {\rm int}(G)$, an open ball with the center $x_{(\ell,L)}$ and radius $\delta > 0$ belongs to ${\rm int}(G)$. Choose $y=x+h$, $x=x_{d_{1} \cdots d_{\ell-1},(\ell,L)}$ and $h \in J_i$ such that $\|h\| < \delta \|M\|^{-\ell-L+1}$. Let $j \in {{\mathbb N}}_0$ be the maximal number such that $\|M^{\ell-1+jL}h\| < \delta$. Then, for the points $$x'=(M_{d_{\ell+L}} \cdots M_{d_\ell})^j M_{d_{\ell-1}}\cdots M_{d_1} x =x_{(\ell,L)} \quad
\hbox{and} \quad y' = (M_{d_{\ell+L}}\cdots M_{d_\ell})^j M_{d_{\ell-1}}\cdots M_{d_1} y,$$ we have $\|y'-x'\| \le \|M^{\ell-1+jL} h\| < \delta$. Therefore, due to $x' \in {\rm int}(G) $, we have $y' \in G$ and, consequently, $x, y \in G_{d_1 \ldots d_{\ell-1} (\ell,L)^j}$. Thus, due to $\|v(y') - v(x')\| \, \le \, 2 \, \|v\|_{C(G)}$ and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux60}
\Bigl\|v(y) \, - \, v(x)\Bigr\|\ &=& \ \Bigl\| A_{d_1} \cdots A_{d_{\ell-1}}\, \left(A_{d_\ell} \cdots A_{d_{\ell+L}}\right)^j \Bigl( v(y') \, - \, v(x')\Bigr)\Bigr\| \ \notag \\ &\le& \
2 \Bigl\| A_{d_1} \cdots A_{d_{\ell-1}}|_{U_i}\Bigr\| (\rho_{\ell,L} + \varepsilon)^j \, \bigl\|v \bigr\|_{C(G)} \,
\le C_1 (\rho_{\ell,L} + \varepsilon)^j\end{aligned}$$ with $C_1 >0$ independent of $h$. On the other hand, the choice of $j$ implies that $\|M^{\ell + jL}h\| \ge \delta$. Since $h \in J_i$, we have $\delta \le \|M^{\ell + jL}h\|\, \le \, C_2 \, (r_i+ \varepsilon)^{\ell + jL} \|h\|$, where $C_2>0$ is independent of $h$. Thus, due to $r_i+\varepsilon>1$, we obtain $$\label{aux61}
\|h\|\, \ge \, \frac{\delta}{C_2}\, (r_i+ \varepsilon)^{-\ell - jL} \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad
j \ge -\frac{1}{L} \, \log_{r_i+\varepsilon}\|h\|+C_3$$ with $C_3>0$ independent of $h$. Combining and , we get, due to $\rho_{\ell,L} + \varepsilon<1$, $$\bigl\|v(x+h) \, - \, v(x)\bigr\|=\bigl\|v(y) \, - \, v(x)\bigr\| \ \le \ C\, \|h\|^{\, \alpha (\varepsilon)}$$ with $\, \alpha (\varepsilon) \, = \frac{1}{L}\,
\log_{1/(r_i+ \varepsilon )} (\rho_{\ell,L}+ \varepsilon)$ and with some constant $C>0$ depending on $\varepsilon$. Taking $\varepsilon \to 0$, we conclude that $\alpha_{v_\varphi, J_i}(x)\, \ge \,
\frac{1}{L}\, \log_{\, 1/r_i} \, \rho_{\ell,L}$.
The proof of the reverse inequality in under the assumption that the operators $A_d|_{U_i}$, $d \in D(M)$, are nonsingular is done similarly to the second part of the proof of Theorem \[th.holder-direct\]. Let $\varepsilon \in (0,r_i)$. By Theorem A2, there exists $u \in U_i$ and $C(u)>0$ such that $\|\left(A_{d_\ell} \cdots A_{d_{\ell+L}}\right)^j u\| \, \ge \, C(u)\, \rho_{\ell,L}^j, \ j \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Since all $A_d|_{U_i}$ are nonsingular, it follows that $\|A_{d_1} \cdots A_{d_{\ell-1}} \left(A_{d_\ell} \cdots A_{d_{\ell+L}}\right)^j u\| \, \ge \, C_1\, \rho_{\ell,L}^j$ with a constant $C_1>0$. Next, we observe that, for $x_{(\ell,L)} \in G$, the vectors $\bigl\{v(y) \, - \, v(x_{(\ell,L)})\, \bigr\}_{y \in G, \, y - x_{(\ell,L)} \in J_i}$ span $U_i$. Recall that $\hbox{dim}(U_i)=n_i$, hence, there exist $n_i$ vectors $v(y_k) \, - \, v(x_{(\ell,L)})$, $y_k \in G$, $y_k-x_{(\ell,L)} \in J_i$, $k = 1, \ldots , n_i$ that span $U_i$. Hence $u \, = \displaystyle \, \sum_{k=1}^{n_i} \gamma_k \bigl( v(y_k) - v(x_{(\ell,L)})\bigr)$, $\gamma_k \in {{\mathbb R}}$. Therefore, for the points $$y_k^{(j)} \ = \ M_{d_1}^{-1}\cdots M_{d_{\ell-1}}^{-1}\, \Bigl[M_{d_{\ell}}^{-1}\cdots M_{d_{\ell+L}}^{-1}\Bigr]^j
\,y_k \ , \qquad k = 1, \ldots, n_i\, ,$$ we have, due to $x,y_k^{(j)} \in G_{d_1 \ldots d_{\ell-1} (\ell,L)^j}$, $$\sum_{k = 1}^{n_i}\, |\gamma_k| \, \Bigl\|v( y_k^{(j)}) \, - \, v(x) \Bigr\| \, \ge \, C_1\, \rho_{\ell,L}^j,
\quad j \in {{\mathbb N}}.$$ Hence, there exists $k \in \{1, \ldots, n_i\}$ such that $$\label{aux62}
\|v(y_k^{(j)}) \, - \, v(x)\| \ge \frac{C_1}{ \sum |\gamma_i|}\, \rho_{\ell,L}^j, \quad j \in {{\mathbb N}}.$$ Consequently, due to $$\|y_k^{(j)}-x\| \le (r_i-\varepsilon)^{-\ell+1-jL} \|y_k-x_{(\ell,L)}\| \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad
j \le -\frac{1}{L}\log_{r_i-\varepsilon} \|y_k^{(j)}-x \|+C_2,$$ we obtain $$\bigl\|v(y_k^{(j)}) \, - \, v(x)\bigr\| \ \ge \ C_3 \, \bigl\|y_j^{(k)} \, - \, x\bigr\|^{\, \alpha(\varepsilon)}$$ with $\, \alpha (\varepsilon) \, = \, \frac{1}{L}\, \log_{1/(r_i- \varepsilon )} \, \rho_{\ell,L}$ and with some constant $C_3>0$ depending on $\varepsilon$. Note that $\|y_k^{(j)}-x\|$ goes to zero as $j$ goes to infinity, due to $x,y_k^{(j)} \in G_{d_1 \ldots d_{\ell-1} (\ell,L)^j}$. Taking $\varepsilon \to 0$ we conclude that $\alpha_{v_\varphi, J_i}(x)\, \le \, \frac{1}{L}\, \log_{\, 1/r_i} \, \rho_{\ell,L}$.
[$\Box$]{}
Existence and smoothness in $\mathbf{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s),\ 1 \le p < \infty}$ {#s.p}
==============================================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[th.p\] that characterizes the existence of refinable functions in $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p < \infty$, and Theorem \[th.holder-p\] that provides a formula for the Hölder exponent of such $\varphi$ in terms of the $p$-radius ($p$-norm joint spectral radius [@J95; @P97]) of a set of transition matrices.
\[d.pr\] For $1 \le p < \infty$, the $p$-radius ($p$-norm joint spectral radius) of a finite family of linear operators ${{\mathcal{A}}}\, = \, \{A_0, \ldots , A_{m-1}\}$ is defined by $$\rho_p=\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}})\ = \ \lim_{k \to \infty}\, \Bigl(\,
m^{-k}\sum_{A_{d_i} \in {{\mathcal{A}}}, \, i = 1, \ldots , k}\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}\|^p \, \Bigr)^{\, 1/pk}.$$
Note that, for $\varphi\in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, the difference space $U$ is defined similarly to by
$$\label{eq.U_Lp}
U\ = \ {\rm span}\, \Bigl\{\, v(y)\, - \, v(x) \quad : \quad \hbox{for almost all} \quad y, x \, \in G\, \Bigr\} \subseteq W.$$
In this section, we also determine the exact Hölder regularity of refinable functions in the spaces $L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p < \infty$, see Theorem \[th.holder-p\]. Although these estimates look familiar to us from section \[s.hold\], the corresponding proofs require totally different techniques.
The Hölder exponent of a function $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ is defined by $$\alpha_{\varphi, p}\quad = \quad \sup \Bigl\{\, \alpha \ge 0 \quad : \quad \bigl\|\varphi(\cdot + h) \, - \, \varphi(\cdot) \bigr\|_p \ \le \ C\, \|h\|^{\, \alpha}\, , \quad h \in {{\mathbb R}}^s\, \Bigr\}\, .$$ Here and below we use the short notation $\|\cdot \|_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)}\, = \,
\|\cdot \|_{p}$. To determine the influence of the dilation matrix $M$ on the Hölder exponent of $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, in Theorem \[th.holder-p\], we consider the Hölder exponents of $\varphi$ along the subspaces determined by the Jordan basis of $M$. The Hölder exponent of $\varphi$ along a subspace $J \subset {{\mathbb R}}^s$ is defined by $$\alpha_{\varphi, J, p}\quad = \quad \sup
\Bigl\{\, \alpha \ge 0 \quad : \quad \bigl\|\varphi(\cdot + h) \, - \, \varphi(\cdot)\bigr\|_p \ \le \ C\, \|h\|^{\, \alpha}\, , \quad h \in J\, \Bigr\}\, .$$
In the proofs of Theorems \[th.p\] and \[th.holder-p\] we use the following auxiliary results.
Auxiliary results {#ss.p.prem}
-----------------
The following analogues of Theorems A1 and A2 from section \[s.hold\] were proved in [@P08].
**Theorem A3**. [*Let $1 \le p < \infty$. For a finite family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ of $m$ operators acting in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ and for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a norm $\|\cdot \|_{\varepsilon}$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ such that $$\Bigl( m^{-1}\, \sum_{A \in {{\mathcal{A}}}}\, \|A u\|_{\varepsilon}^p \, \Bigr)^{\, 1/p}\ \le \
\bigl(\rho_p + \varepsilon\bigr)\, \|u\|_{\varepsilon}\, , \qquad u \in {{\mathbb R}}^n\, .$$* ]{}
For $1 \le p < \infty$ and for a finite family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ of $m$ operators acting in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, we denote $${{\mathcal{F}}}_{p} (k,u)\quad = \quad \Bigl(\,
m^{-k}\, \sum_{ A_{d_i} \in {{\mathcal{A}}}, i=1,\ldots,k}
\, \bigl\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}u\bigr\|^p \ \Bigr)^{1/p} , \qquad k \in {{\mathbb N}}\, .$$ Since each norm $\|\cdot\|$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ is equivalent to the norm $\|\cdot \|_{\varepsilon}$, Theorem A3 yields the following result.
\[c.p-rad\] Let $1 \le p < \infty$. For every $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a constant $C(\varepsilon) >0$ such that ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{p} (k,u) \, \le \, C(\varepsilon) (\rho_p + \varepsilon)^k\|u\|$ for all $u \in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$.
**Theorem A4**. [*Let $1 \le p < \infty$ and ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ be a finite family of $m$ linear operators in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Then for every $u\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ that does not belong to any common invariant linear subspace of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$, there exists a constant $C(u) > 0$ such that $$\label{eq.constant}
{{\mathcal{F}}}_p(k, u) \ \ge \ C(u)\, \rho_p^{\, k}, \qquad k \in {{\mathbb N}}.$$* ]{}
In the next result we relax assumptions of Theorem A4. We show that (\[eq.constant\]) holds for all points $u$ apart from the ones in a proper linear subspace of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$.
\[l.p-rad\] Let $1 \le p < \infty$. Every finite family ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ of $m$ linear operators possesses a common invariant linear subspace ${{\mathcal{L}}}\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$, ${{\mathcal{L}}}\not ={{\mathbb R}}^n$, (possibly ${{\mathcal{L}}}= \{0\}$) such that for every $u \notin {{\mathcal{L}}}$ there exists a constant $C(u) > 0$ for which (\[eq.constant\]) holds.
[Proof]{}. Without loss of generality, after a suitable normalization, it can be assumed that $\rho_p = 1$. Let ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ be the biggest by inclusion common invariant subspace of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ such that $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}}) < 1$. Note that ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ is a proper subspace of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, otherwise we get a contradiction to $\rho_p = 1$. Hence, ${\rm dim}\, {{\mathcal{L}}}\, \le \, n-1$. Take arbitrary $u \notin {{\mathcal{L}}}$ and denote by ${{\mathcal{L}}}_u$ the minimal common invariant subspace of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ that contains $u$. If $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_u}) < 1$, then the $p$-joint spectral radius of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ on the linear span of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{L}}}_u$ is equal to $\max\, \{\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}}), \rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_u})\} < 1$, which contradicts the maximality of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$. Hence, $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_u}) = 1$. Since $u$ does not belong to any common invariant subspace of the finite family ${{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_u}$, by Theorem A4, there exists a constant $C(u)>0$ such that ${{\mathcal{F}}}_p(k, u) \ge C(u) \rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_u})^k, \, k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. On the other hand, $\rho_p=\rho({{\mathcal{A}}}|_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_u}) = 1$, and, hence, the claim follows.
[$\Box$]{}
For $1 \le p < \infty$, in the rest of this section, we denote by $C(u) > 0$ the largest possible constant in inequality (\[eq.constant\]), i.e., $$\label{d.C}
C(u)\, = \, \inf_{k \in {{\mathbb N}}}\, (\rho_p)^{\, -k}{{\mathcal{F}}}_p(k, u).$$ This function is upper semi-continuous and, therefore, is measurable.
### Properties of the space $U$ {#ss.p.U}
Note that, by (\[eq.ss1\]), the vector $\displaystyle z = \int_{G}v(x)\, dx \in V$ is an eigenvector of the operator $\displaystyle T \, = \, \frac{1}{m}\, \sum_{d \in D(M)}\, T_d $ associated with the eigenvalue $1$. The following result is an analogue of Proposition \[p.U0\].
\[p.U0p\] If $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p < \infty$, then the subspace $U$ in coincides with the smallest by inclusion common invariant subspace of matrices $T_d, \, d \in D(M)$, and contains $m$ vectors $\, T_dz - z, \, d \in D(M)$, where $z \in V$ is an eigenvector of the operator $T \, = \, \frac{1}{m}\, \sum_{d \in D(M)}\, T_d $ corresponding to the eigenvalue one.
The proof of Proposition \[p.U0p\] is similar to the one of Proposition \[p.U0\]. Note that, since $\displaystyle \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} c_k = m$, the column sums of the matrix $T$ are equal to one. Hence, $T$ has at least one eigenvalue one. This eigenvalue does not have to be simple. Nevertheless, the following result guarantees the correctness of the choice of $U$. The proof of Proposition \[p.U3p\] is similar to the one of Proposition \[p.U3\].
\[p.U3p\] There exists at most one eigenvector $z \in V$ of $\, T$ associated to the eigenvalue $1$ and such that the common invariant subspace $U$ of the family of the matrices $T_d, \, d \in D(M)$, is spanned by the vectors $T_dz - z, \,
d \in D(M)$, and such that $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$.
$\mathbf{L_p}$-solutions of refinement equations {#ss.p.Lp}
------------------------------------------------
We are now ready to formulate the first result of this section.
\[th.p\] A refinable function $\varphi$ belongs to $L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p < \infty$, if and only if $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$.
[Proof]{}. Assume first that $\rho_p=\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$. Choose $\varepsilon \in (0, 1- \rho_p)$ and consider the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\varepsilon}$ in $U$ as in Theorem A4. Define the function space $$V_{U, p}\ = \
\bigl\{f \in L_p(G+\Omega) \ : \ v_f(x) \in V, \ v_f(x) - v_f(y) \in U\quad \mbox{ a.e.}, \ x, y \in G\, \bigr\}$$ with the norm $\|f\| \, = \, \bigl(\, \int_{G}\|v_f(x)\|^p_{\varepsilon}\, d x\, \bigr)^{1/p}$. The space $V_{U, p}$ is nonempty because it at least contains a piecewise constant function $f$ such that $v_f \equiv z$ a.e., where $z \in V$ is the eigenvector of the operator $\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}\sum_{d \in D(M)}\, T_d$ associated with the eigenvalue one. Note that, for $f_1, f_2 \in V_{U, p}$, we have $$\|{{\boldsymbol{T}}}(f_1 - f_2)\| \, = \, \left( \int_{G} \|{{\boldsymbol{A}}}(v_{f_1} - v_{f_2})(x)\|_{\varepsilon}dx \right)^{1/p} \, \le \,
(\rho_p + \varepsilon)\|f_1-f_2\|.$$ Therefore, due to $\rho_p + \varepsilon<1$, ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}$ is a contraction on $V_{U, p}$, and, hence, it has a unique fixed point $\varphi$, which is the solution of the refinement equation $\varphi={{\boldsymbol{T}}}\varphi$.
Assume next that $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. By Lemma \[l.p-rad\], there exists a proper subspace ${{\mathcal{L}}}\subset U$ (due to $\hbox{dim} U=n$, we associate ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ with $U$) invariant under ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ such that ${{\mathcal{F}}}_p(k, u) \ge C(u)\, \rho_{p}^{\, k}, \ k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, whenever $u \notin {{\mathcal{L}}}$. Since $U$ is the smallest by inclusion subspace of ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ invariant under ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ and containing the differences $v(x_2) - v(x_1)$ for almost all $x_1, x_2 \in G$, the set $
\{(x_1, x_2) \in G^2 \ : \ v(x_2) - v(x_1) \notin {{\mathcal{L}}}\}$ has a positive Lebesque measure $\mu$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^s \times {{\mathbb R}}^s$. Hence, the set $$\label{aux71}
\{(x, h) \in {{\mathbb R}}^s\times {{\mathbb R}}^s \ : \ x, x+h \in G, \ v(x+h) - v(x) \notin {{\mathcal{L}}}\}$$ has a positive Lebesque measure. By the Fubini theorem, the set in has sections of positive Lebesque measure. Thus, there exists $h \in {{\mathbb R}}^s$ such that $$\mu \bigl\{x \in G \ : \ x + h \in G \, , \ v(x+h) - v(x) \notin {{\mathcal{L}}}\bigr\} >0.$$ Therefore, there exist $\delta > 0$ and a set $H \subset G$ of positive Lebesque measure such that the function in satisfies $C\bigl( v(x+h) - v(x)\bigr) > \delta$ for almost all $x \in H$. Thus, $$\label{eq.p-low}
{{\mathcal{F}}}_p\, \bigl(k, v(x+h) - v(x)\bigr) \quad \ge \quad
\delta \, \rho_{p}^k, \qquad k \in {{\mathbb N}}\ ,\quad \mbox{for almost all} \ x \in H\, .$$ Denote $h_k = M^{-k}h$, $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, then, by (\[eq.ss1\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.p1}
\bigl\| \, v(\cdot+h_k) \, - \, v\, \bigr\|^p_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \ &\ge&
\bigl\| \, v(\cdot+h_k) \, - \, v\, \bigr\|^p_{L_p(G)} \notag \\ &\ge& \
\sum_{d_1, \ldots, d_k \in D(M)}\int_{H_{d_1 \ldots d_k}}\, \bigl\| \, v(x+h_k) \, - \, v(x)\, \bigr\|^{p}\, dx\,
\notag \\
&=&\sum_{d_1, \ldots, d_k \in D(M)}m^{-k}\, \int_{H}\, \bigl\|A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}\,
\bigl( \, v(y+h) \, - \, v(y)\, \bigr) \bigr\|^p\, dy \notag\\& =& \
\int_{H}\, {{\mathcal{F}}}^p_p\, \bigl( k\, , \, \bigl( \, v(y+h) \, - \, v(y)\, \bigr)\, \bigr)\, dy\, .\end{aligned}$$ Since $y \in H$, by , we obtain $$\int_{H}\, {{\mathcal{F}}}^p_p\, \bigl( k\, , \, \bigl( \, v(y+h) \, - \, v(y)\, \bigr)\, \bigr)\, dy\ \ge \
\delta^p\, \rho_p^{ p\, k}\, \mu(H)\, .$$ Thus, $$\label{eq.p2}
\bigl\| \, v(\cdot+h_k) \, - \, v\, \bigr\|_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \quad \ge \quad
\delta\ \rho_p^{k}\ [\mu(H)]^{1/p}\ , \qquad h_k = M^{-k}h\, , \quad k \in {{\mathbb N}}\, .$$ Since $v \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s, {{\mathbb R}}^N)$ and $h_k$ goes to $0$ as $k \to \infty$, we get $\rho_p < 1$.
[$\Box$]{}
\[r.30\] [*The proof of Theorem \[th.p\] is much simpler than that of Theorem \[th.holder\] in $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. Indeed, an elegant argument with a contraction operator ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}$ on the affine subspace $V(U, p)$ cannot be directly extended to prove the continuity of $\varphi$ due to the following reason: the piecewise constant function $f$ for which $v_f \equiv z$ is not continuous. Thus, it is not clear how to show that $V(U, p)$ is nonempty. We are not aware of any simple proof of this fact in the multivariate case. We, however, apply this argument once again in estimating the rate of convergence of the subdivision schemes in section \[s.subd\].* ]{}
Hölder regularity in $\mathbf{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)}$ {#ss.p.Hoelder}
----------------------------------------------------
To be able to determine the exact Hölder regularity of a refinable function $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, $1 \le p <\infty$, we need to adjust the definitions of the transition matrices $T_d$, $d \in D(M)$. To do so we replace the set $\Omega$ in Definition \[d.omega\] by the set $\tilde{\Omega}$ in , the latter contains $\Omega$ and is determined by a certain admissible absorbing set $\Delta$.
\[d.absorb\] Let $1 \le p <\infty$. A set $\Delta \subset {{\mathbb R}}^s$ is called absorbing if, for all $f \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, the Hölder exponent of $f$ along $\Delta$ satisfies $\alpha_{f, \Delta , p} \, = \, \alpha_{f, p}$.
\[r.280\][*An arbitrary set that contains some neighborhood of the origin is absorbing. It is also easy to show that any convex body (convex set with a nonempty interior) that contains the origin is absorbing.*]{}
For the sake of simplicity, we choose $\Delta$ to be an arbitrary simplex with one of the vertices at the origin and such that its interior intersects all the spaces $J_i, i = 1, \ldots , q(M)$. In this case $\Delta$ is absorbing, and the sets $\Delta \cap J_i$, $i=1,\ldots,q(M)$, are absorbing in the corresponding subspaces $J_i$. We call such a simplex $\Delta$ [*admissible*]{}. Note that for each $t > 0$, the set $t\, \Delta$ is also an admissible simplex.
Define $\tilde{\Omega} \subset {{\mathbb Z}}^s$ to be the minimal set such that $$\label{eq.omega0}
K_{\Gamma}\, + \, \Delta \ \subset \ \bigcup\limits_{k \in \tilde{\Omega}} (k + G)\, .$$ Such a set $\, \tilde{\Omega}\, $ always exists, due to $\displaystyle \cup_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} (k + G) \, = \, {{\mathbb R}}^s$. Note that $\Omega \subset \tilde \Omega$. In many cases $\tilde \Omega = \Omega$, but not always, see examples \[ex.p10\] and \[ex.p20\]. Thus, $\, {\rm supp} \, \varphi \, + \, \Delta \ \subset \ \tilde{\Omega}+G\, .$ Using $\tilde{\Omega}$ we redefine $$\tilde{v}_{\varphi} \, = \, \bigl(\varphi(\cdot +k)\bigr)_{k \in \tilde{\Omega}} \quad \hbox{a.e. on} \quad {{\mathbb R}}^s,$$ and $$(\tilde{T}_d)_{a,b}=c_{Ma-b+d}, \quad a,b \in \tilde{\Omega}, \quad d \in D(M),$$ are now of size $\tilde{N} = |\tilde{\Omega}|$. This leads to the appropriate modification $$\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}}=\{ \tilde{T}_d|_U \ : \ d \in D(M)\}$$ of the finite set ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ in . The modified subspaces $\tilde{V}$, $\tilde{U}$, $\tilde{U_i}$, $i=1, \ldots, q(M)$, and $\tilde{W}$ differ from the subspaces $V, U, U_i$ and $W$, respectively, only by the lengths of their corresponding elements. We are now ready to formulate the main result of this subsection.
\[th.holder-p\] Let $1 \le p <\infty$. For a refinable function $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, we have $$\label{eq.holder-direct-p}
\alpha_{\varphi, J_i , p}\quad = \quad \log_{\, 1/r_i} \, \rho_{p}(\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}}|_{\tilde{U}_i})\, , \qquad i = 1, \ldots , q(M)\,$$ and, consequently, $$\label{eq.holder-p}
\alpha_{\varphi , p}\quad = \quad \min\limits_{i = 1, \ldots , q(M)}\,
\log_{\, 1/r_i} \, \rho_{p}(\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}}|_{\tilde{U}_i})$$
[Proof]{}. We first show that $\alpha_{\varphi, J_i, p}
\ge \log_{\, 1/r_i} \, \rho_{p}(\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}}|_{\tilde{U}_i})$. Set $\rho_{i,p}=\rho_{p}(\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}}|_{\tilde{U}_i})$. Choose an arbitrary $\tilde{h} \in J_i \cap \Delta$ such that $\|\tilde{h}\| < \delta$, $\delta \in (0,1)$. Then the function $\psi = \varphi(\cdot+\tilde{h}) - \varphi$ is supported on $K_{\Gamma}+\Delta$. Hence, the vector-valued function $\tilde{v}_{\psi}$ is well defined on $G$. Thus, for arbitrary $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \bigl\| \varphi(\cdot + M^{-k} \tilde{h})\, - \, \varphi \bigr\|_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)}^p\ = \
\bigl\| {{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k \bigl( \varphi(\cdot + \tilde{h})\, - \, \varphi\bigr) \bigr\|_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)}^p\ = \
\bigl\| {{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k \psi \bigr\|_{L_p(K_{\Gamma}+\Delta)}^p\ = \\
&& \hspace{0.3cm} \bigl\| \tilde{{{\boldsymbol{A}}}}^k \tilde{v}_{\psi} \bigr\|_{L_p(G)}^p\ =
\sum_{d_1, \ldots, d_k \in D^k(M)}\, \int_{G_{d_1 \ldots d_k}}\| \tilde{A}_{d_1}\cdots \tilde{A}_{d_k} \tilde{v}_{\psi}
\bigl(M_{d_k}\cdots M_{d_1}x \bigr)\bigr\|^p\, dx\ = \\
&& \hspace{0.3cm} \sum_{d_1, \ldots,d_k \in D(M)} \, m^{-k}\, \int_{G}\| \tilde{A}_{d_1}\cdots \tilde{A}_{d_k}
\tilde{v}_{\psi}(y)\bigr\|^p\, dy\ = \
\int_{G} {{\mathcal{F}}}_p \, \bigl(k\, , \, \tilde{v}_{\psi}(y ) \, \bigr)\, dy\, .\end{aligned}$$ By Corollary \[c.p-rad\], for every $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a constant $C(\varepsilon)>0$ such that $$\int_{G} {{\mathcal{F}}}_p \, \bigl(k\, , \, \tilde{v}_{\psi}(y ) \, \bigr)\, dy \ \le \
C(\varepsilon) \, (\rho_{ i, p} + \varepsilon)^{kp} \|\tilde{v}_{\psi}\|^p_{L_p(G)}\ \le \
C(\varepsilon) \, (\rho_{ i, p} + \varepsilon)^{kp} \,
2^p\, \|\tilde{v}_{\varphi}\|^p_{L_p(G)} \, .$$ Thus, we obtain $$\label{aux70}
\bigl\| \varphi(\cdot + M^{-k} \tilde{h})\, - \, \varphi \bigr\|_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \ \le \ \tilde{C}(\varepsilon)\, (\rho_{i, p} + \varepsilon)^k, \quad k \in {{\mathbb N}},$$ where $\tilde{C}(\varepsilon)>0$ is independent of either $k$ or $\tilde{h}$. Choose an arbitrary $h \in J_i \cap \Delta , \, \|h\| < \delta$, and let $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$ be the largest integer such that $\|M^kh\| < \delta$. From $\|M^{k+1}h\| \ge \delta$ and substituting $\tilde{h} = M^k h$ in , we obtain $$\bigl\| \varphi(\cdot + h)\, - \, \varphi \bigr\|_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \ \le \ \tilde{C}(\varepsilon)\, (\rho_{i, p} + \varepsilon)^k\, ,
\qquad k \ge C_1+ \log_{\, r_i} (\delta /h)\,$$ for some constant $C_1>0$. Combining these estimates, we obtain $\alpha_{\varphi, J_i, p}\, \ge \, \log_{\, 1/r_i}\,
(\rho_{i, p} + \varepsilon)$. Taking the limit for $\varepsilon \to 0$, we obtain the claim.
To establish the reverse inequality $\alpha_{\varphi, J_i, p}
\le \log_{\, 1/r_i} \, \rho_{i, p}$, we argue as in the second part of the proof of Theorem \[th.p\]. We show the existence of a vector $h \in J_i \cap \Delta$ and of a subset $H \subset J_i$ of positive Lebesque measure (on the space $J_i$) for which inequality (\[eq.p2\]) holds (with $\rho_p$ replaced by $\rho_{i, p}$). Taking a limit in that inequality as $k \to \infty$ and using the fact that $k \, \le \, C_2 + \log_{\, r_i}\, \frac{\|h\|}{\|h_k\|}$, where $C_2>0$ independent of $k$, we complete the proof.
[$\Box$]{}
Examples {#ss.p.ex}
--------
The following examples illustrate the need for the modifications of the set $\Omega$ in subsection \[ss.p.Hoelder\].
\[ex.p10\]
*The solution of the simplest univariate refinement equation $$\varphi(x) = \varphi(2x) + \varphi(2x-1), \quad x \in {{\mathbb R}},$$ is the characteristic function of the unit segment: $\varphi=\chi_{[0,1)}$. The $L_p$-regularity of $\varphi$ is $\alpha_{\varphi, p} = \frac1p$. In this case, $M=2$ and, for the standard set of dyadic digits $D(M) = \{0, 1\}$, we have $G = [0,1]$ and $\Omega = \{0\}$. Hence, $N=1$ and we get two one-dimensional operators $T_0 = T_1 = 1$. The common invariant subspace of $T_0$ and $T_1$ is trivial $U = \{0\}$, hence, by definition, $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}) = 0$. Thus, $\alpha_{\varphi, p} = \frac{1}{p}$, while $\log_{1/2} \rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}})\, = \, +\infty$. We see that $\alpha_{\varphi, p} \ne \log_{1/2} \rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}})$.*
On the other hand, for $\tilde{\Omega} = \{0, 1\}$, we get $$\tilde{T}_{0} \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right) \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad
\tilde{T}_{1} \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$ The corresponding common invariant subspace $\tilde{U} = \tilde{W} = \{u \in {{\mathbb R}}^2 \ : \ u_1 + u_2 = 0\}$ is one dimensional, and $\tilde{A}_0 = \tilde{A}_1 = 1$. Clearly, $\rho_p (\{\tilde{A}_0, \tilde{A}_1\}) = 2^{-1/p}$. Applying Theorem \[th.holder-p\], we obtain the correct Hölder exponent $\alpha_{\varphi , p} = \frac1p$.
The next example shows that in some cases $\Omega=\tilde{\Omega}$.
\[ex.p20\]
*The solution of the univariate refinement equation $$\varphi(x) \ = \ \varphi(3x) \ + \ \varphi(3x-1)\ + \ \varphi(3x-5), \quad x \in {{\mathbb R}},$$ is $\varphi=\chi_{G}$, where $G$ is the tile in ${{\mathbb R}}$ corresponding to the dilation $M = 3$ and to the digit set $D(M) = \Gamma = \{0, 1, 5\}$. Thus, $\hbox{supp}(\varphi) \subset [0,\frac{5}{2}]$.*
For the standard set of triadic digits $D(M) = \{0, 1, 2\}$, we have $G = [0,1]$ and $\Omega = \{0, 1, 2\}$, i.e. $N=3$. In this case, $K+\Delta \subseteq [0, 3]$. Hence, one can take the complemented set $\tilde{\Omega}=\Omega = \{0,1,2\}$. Thus, in this case, $$T_0 \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)\ , \quad
T_1 \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right)\ \quad \hbox{and} \quad
T_2 \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$ Their common invariant subspace $U = W = \{u \in {{\mathbb R}}^3 \ : \ u_1 + u_2 + u_2 = 0\}$ is two-dimensional. In the basis $e_1 = (1, -1, 0)^T, e_2 = (0, 1, -1)^T$ of $U$, the matrices $A_d=T_d|_U$, $d \in D(M)$, are $$A_0 \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)\ , \quad
A_1 \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{rr}
-1 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)\ \quad \hbox{and} \quad
A_2 \ = \ \left(
\begin{array}{rr}
0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$$ Since $\rho_p(\{A_0, A_1, A_2\}) = \rho_p (\{A_0 , -A_1, -A_2\})$, we need to compute $\rho_p$ for a family of non-negative matrices. For such families, $\rho_1$ is equal to the Perron eigenvalue of the arithmetic mean of matrices [@P12]. In our case this is the matrix $\frac13 (A_0 - A_1 + A_2)$, for which $\lambda_{\max} = \frac{\sqrt{2} + 1}{3}$. By Theorem \[th.holder-p\], $\, \alpha_{\varphi , 1}\, = \, - \log_2 \frac{\sqrt{2} + 1}{3}$. Since $\varphi \equiv 1$ on its support, it follows that $\, \alpha_{\varphi , p}\, = \, - \frac 1p\, \log_2 \frac{\sqrt{2} + 1}{3}$.
For another digit set $D(M) = \{0, 1, 5\}$, we have $\Omega = \{0\}$, i.e. $N = 1$. As in Example \[ex.p10\], the common invariant subspace $U = \{0\}$ of $T_d$, $d \in D(M)$, is trivial, and we have $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}) = 0$. Thus, for this set of digits, $ \alpha_{\varphi , p} \ne -
\log_2 \rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}})$. For $\tilde{\Omega} = \{0, 1, 2\}$, we get the same $3\times 3$ matrices $T_d$ as above. Hence, $\rho_1 = \frac{\sqrt{2} + 1}{3}$, and we have $\, \alpha_{\varphi , 1}\, = \, - \log_2 \rho_1 (\tilde{{{\mathcal{A}}}})$.
\[r.p100\] [*It is well known that, if $p$ is an even integer, then $\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}})$ can be efficiently computed as an eigenvalue of a certain matrix derived from the matrices in ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ [@JZ; @P97]. Hence, Theorem \[th.holder-p\] allows us to find the Hölder $L_p$-regularity at least for even integers $p$, in particular, for $p=2$, see Example \[p.ex30\].* ]{}
\[p.ex30\] [*For the refinement equation from subsection \[ss.examples.C\], we have $\tilde \Omega = \Omega$ and $U = W$. Therefore, Theorem \[th.holder-p\] yields $\alpha_{\varphi, p}\, = \,
\log_{1/\rho(M)} \rho_p({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})$. Furthermore, $\rho(M) = \frac{1+\sqrt{13}}{2} \, = \, 2.30277\ldots$ and $\rho_2 ({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})\, = \, 0.79736\ldots$. Hence, $\alpha_{\varphi, 2}\, = \, \log_{1/\rho(M)} \rho_2({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})\, = \, 0.27148\ldots$. Recall that the Hölder exponent in $\in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ of $\varphi$ is $\alpha_{\varphi}\, = \, 0.07652$.* ]{}
Construction of the space $U$ and of $L_p$-refinable function $\varphi$. {#ss.p.const.u}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The construction of a continuous refinable function described in Section \[s.hold\] is realized pointwise and, hence, is not applicable in $L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. Moreover, the vectors $v(z_s)$ are not well defined if $v \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s, {{\mathbb R}}^N)$, thus, the constructions of $U$ and of the function $\varphi$ are modified in the following way, using Proposition \[p.U0p\].
First, we find the eigenvector $z \in V$ of the operator $\displaystyle T \, = \, \frac{1}{m}\, \sum_{d \in D(M)}\, T_d $ associated with the eigenvalue $1$. If such a vector does not exist, then $\varphi \notin L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. If such $z \in V$ exists, then the subspace $U$ is the minimal common invariant subspace of the matrices $T_d, \, d \in D(M)$, that contains $m$ vectors $T_d z\, - \, z, \ \, d \in D(M)$.
If $\rho_p=\rho_p({{\mathcal{A}}}) < 1$, then the solution $\varphi \in L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. Numerically $\varphi$ can be computed as follows. For every $d_1, \ldots, d_k \in D(M)$, $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, the value $\frac{1}{{\rm Vol (G_{d_1 \ldots d_k})}}\int_{G_{d_1 \ldots d_k}} v(x)\, d x$, which is simply the mean of the function $v = v_{\varphi}$ on the set of the tile $G_{d_1 \ldots d_k}$ (let us recall that ${\rm Vol (G_{d_1 \ldots d_k})} = m^{-k}$) is equal to $A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}z$. So, we can compute the mean values of the solution $\varphi$ on all sets of the tiling ${{\mathcal{G}}}^k$. For instance, if $\chi = \chi_G$ is the characteristic function of the tile $G$, then the function $\varphi_k = {{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k\chi$ is a piecewise-constant approximation of the solution $\varphi$. On each set $G_{d_1 \ldots d_k}$, $\varphi_k(x)$ is equal to $A_{d_1}\cdots A_{d_k}z$. The function $\varphi_k$ converges to $\varphi$ at the linear rate $\|\varphi_k \, - \, \varphi\|_{L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \, \le \, C (\rho_p + \varepsilon)^k$ as $k$ goes to infinity. In rare cases, when the eigenvalue $1$ of $T$ is not simple, by Proposition \[p.U3p\], there exists at most one vector $z \in V$ for which the corresponding subspace $U$ yields $\rho_p=\rho_p({{\mathcal{T}}}_U) < 1$.
The rate of convergence of subdivision schemes {#s.subd}
==============================================
In this section, we use the matrix approach to compute the rate of convergence in $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ of subdivision schemes with anisotropic dilations, see Theorem \[th.subd\]. Example \[ex.subd10\] illustrates one more difference between isotropic and anisotropic cases. Similar analysis can be done in the case of $L_p$-convergence using the results of section \[s.p\], see Remark \[r.600\].
Subdivision schemes are recursive algorithms for linear approximation of functions by their values on a mesh in ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ [@CDM; @DynLevin02]. Refinable functions appear naturally in the context of subdivision and of corresponding wavelet frames. Let $\ell({{\mathbb Z}}^s)$ be the space of all sequences and $\ell_{\infty}({{\mathbb Z}}^s)$ of all bounded sequences over ${{\mathbb Z}}^s$, respectively. The [*subdivision operator*]{} on $\ell\, ({{\mathbb Z}}^s)$ is defined by $$\label{eq.subd}
\bigl[\, S a \, \bigr]_i \quad = \quad \sum_{j \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s} c_{\, i - Mj} \, a_j \quad \ i \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s, \quad
a \in \ell\, ({{\mathbb Z}}^s).$$ The subdivision scheme (repeated application of $S$) converges in $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ if for every $a \in \ell_{\infty}({{\mathbb Z}}^s)$ there exists a function $f_{a} \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ such that $$\label{eq.subd-limit}
\lim_{k \to \infty}\ \left\| f_{a}\bigl(M^{-k}\cdot \bigr) \ - \ S^k a\, \, \right\|_{\, \ell_{\infty}} \ = \ 0\, .$$ The map $a \mapsto f_{a}$ is a linear shift-invariant operator from $\ell_{\infty}({{\mathbb Z}}^s)$ to $C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. The limit function $f_\delta$ for $a=\delta$ (with $\delta_0=1$ and zero otherwise) is the solution $\varphi$ of the refinement equation (\[eq.ref\]) normalized by $\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^s}\varphi (x) dx = 1$.
The [*rate of convergence*]{} $\tau = \tau(S)$ is defined by $$\label{eq.sub-rate}
\tau \ = \ \inf\, \Bigl\{\, t>0 \ : \ \left\| \, f_{a}\bigl(M^{-k}\cdot \bigr) \ - \ S^k a\, \right\|_{\ell_{\infty}} \, \le \, C\, t^k \,
\|a\|_{\ell_{\infty}}, \ k \in {{\mathbb N}}\, , \, a \in \ell_{\infty}({{\mathbb Z}}^s) \, \Bigr\}.$$ By e.g. [@CHM2; @CDM], the subdivision scheme converges if and only if $\tau < 1$. Thus, the convergence is always linear, whenever it takes place. Necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for the convergence are that the refinable function is continuous and the sum rules (\[def:sum\_rules\]) are satisfied.
\[rem:conv\_rate\] [*It is well known that the rate of convergence of a subdivision scheme is equal to that of the [*cascade algorithm*]{} (repeated application of the transition operator ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}$ to some initial function $f_0$). We denote by ${{\mathcal{V}}}$ the affine space of continuous compactly supported functions on ${{\mathbb R}}^s$ such that $\displaystyle \sum_{j \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s}f(x+j)\, \equiv \, 1$, and ${{\mathcal{W}}}$ its linear part, which consists of functions such that $ \displaystyle \sum_{j \in {{\mathbb Z}}^s}f(x+j)\, \equiv \, 0$. The sum rules (\[def:sum\_rules\]) imply that the subspaces ${{\mathcal{V}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{W}}}$ are invariant under the transition operator ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}$. Then, for $f_0 \in {{\mathcal{V}}}$ and $g_0 \in {{\mathcal{W}}}$, the sequences $$\label{eq.trans-rate}
\{ \left\| {{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k f_0 - \varphi \right\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \ : \ k \in {{\mathbb N}}\} \quad \mbox{and}
\quad \{ \left\| {{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k g_0 \right\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \ : \ k \in {{\mathbb N}}\}$$ have the same rate of convergence as that of the corresponding subdivision scheme [@CHM2; @CDM]. In other words, $\tau$ is equal to the spectral radius of the operator ${{\boldsymbol{T}}}|_{{{\mathcal{W}}}}$. Moreover, one can restrict ${{\mathcal{W}}}$ to functions supported on the set $K$ defined in (\[eq.K\]), the rate of convergence stays the same [@CHM2; @CDM].* ]{}
In the isotropic case, it is known that $\tau = \rho({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})$ with ${{\mathcal{T}}}$ in . We derive an analogous result in the anisotropic case.
\[th.subd\] If a subdivision scheme satisfies sum rules (\[def:sum\_rules\]), then ${\tau\, = \, \rho({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})}$.
[Proof.]{} Denote $\rho = \rho({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})$. By Theorem A1, for arbitrary $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a norm $\|\cdot\|_{\varepsilon}$ on $W$ such that $\|T_d u\|_{\varepsilon} \, \le \, (\rho + \varepsilon)\, \|u\|_{\varepsilon}$ for all $u \in W$ and $d \in D(M)$. Then, for an arbitrary function $g_0 \subset {{\mathcal{W}}}$ supported on $K$, we denote $v(x) = v_{g_0}(x)$ and, for every point $x = 0.d_1\ldots \, \in \, G$, have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl\| \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k\, v \, \bigl(x\bigr)\, \bigr\|_{\varepsilon}\ &=& \
\bigl\| \, T_{d_1}\cdots T_{d_k}v \, \bigl(0.d_{k+1}\ldots\bigr)\, \bigr\|_{\varepsilon}\ \le \
\bigl(\rho + \varepsilon \bigr)^k\, \bigl\|\, v \, \bigl(0.d_{k+1}\ldots\bigr)\, \bigr\|_{\varepsilon}
\\ &\le&
C\,\bigl(\rho + \varepsilon \bigr)^k\, \bigl\|\, v \, \bigl(0.d_{k+1}\ldots\bigr)\, \bigr\|\ \le \
C\, \sqrt{N}\, \bigl(\rho + \varepsilon \bigr)^k\,
\max_{j \in \Omega}\bigl\|\, g_0 \, \bigl( j \, + \, 0.d_{k+1}\ldots\bigr)\, \bigr\| \\
& \le&
\ C\, \sqrt{N}\, \bigl(\rho + \varepsilon \bigr)^k \, \bigl\|\, g_0\, \bigr\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)}\, , \quad k \in {{\mathbb N}}\, .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\bigl\| \, {{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k\, v \, \bigr\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)}\, \le \, C_0 \,
\bigl(\rho + \varepsilon \bigr)^k \, \bigl\|g_0\bigr\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)}$ for all $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Therefore, by Remark \[rem:conv\_rate\], $\tau \le \rho + \varepsilon$ for every $\varepsilon > 0$, and so $\tau \le \rho$.
The proof of the reverse inequality $\tau \ge \rho$ is similar to the proof of Theorem \[th.holder-direct\]. By Theorem A2, there exists $u \in W$ such that $\max\limits_{d_1, \ldots , d_k \in D(M)} \|T_{d_1}\cdots T_{d_k}u\| \, \ge \, C(u)\, \rho^{\,k}, \,
k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. If we find $N-1$ functions $g_i \in {{\mathcal{W}}}, \, {\rm supp}\, g_i \, \subset \, K,
\ i = 1, \ldots , N-1$, such that at some point $z \in G$, the vectors $\{v_{g_i}(z)\}_{i = 1}^{N-1}$ constitute a basis of the space $W$, then the claim follows. Indeed, the vector $u$ possesses a representation $u = \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} \gamma_i v_{g_i}(z), \, \gamma_i \in {{\mathbb R}}$, hence $$C(u)\rho^k \ \le \
\max_{d_1, \ldots , d_k \in D(M)}\, \bigl\|T_{d_1}\ldots T_{d_k} u\bigr\|\ \le \ \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} |\gamma_i|\,
\max_{d_1, \ldots , d_k \in D(M)}\, \bigl\|T_{d_1}\ldots T_{d_k}v_{g_i}(z)\bigr\|\, .$$ The latter sum does not exceed $ \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} |\gamma_i|\, \sqrt{N}\, \bigl\|{{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k g_i \bigl\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)}$. On the other hand, $\bigl\|{{\boldsymbol{T}}}^k g_i \bigl\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \, \le \, \tau^k\, \bigl\|g_i \bigl\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)}$. Therefore, we obtain $$C(u)\rho^{\, k} \quad \le \quad
\left( \sqrt{N}\ \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} |\gamma_i|\, \bigl\|g_i \bigl\|_{C({{\mathbb R}}^s)} \, \right)\ \tau^{\,k}\,$$ The expression inside the brackets is independent of $k$, hence taking $k \to \infty$, we obtain $\rho \, \le \, \tau$.
To construct the functions $g_i$ we take arbitrary $g \in C({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ such that ${\rm supp}\, g \, \subset \, K \cap G$ and $g(z) = 1$ at some point $z$. Then for the functions $g_i(\cdot) \, = \, g(\cdot + d_i) - g(\cdot)$, $d_i \in D(M), \, i = 1, \ldots , N-1$ (as usual, $0 \in D(M)$), the vectors $\{v_{g_i}(z)\}_{i=1}^{N-1}$ form a basis of $W$. Indeed, the vector $v_{g_i}(z)$ has the component $1$ at position $0$ and the component $-1$ at the position $i$; all other components are zeros. Clearly, those vectors for $i = 1, \ldots , N-1$, constitute a basis of the space $W$.
Moreover, in the isotropic case, if the refinable function $\varphi$ is stable, then the rate of convergence is related to the the Hölder exponent of $\varphi$ by $\log_{1/\rho(M)} \, \tau \, = \, \alpha_{\varphi}$ [@CDM]. For unstable refinable function this may not be true, however, in the univariate case, the convergence analysis can be still done as shown in [@P07]. The following example shows that, in the anisotropic case, the equality $\log_{1/\rho(M)} \, \tau \, = \, \alpha_{\varphi}$ may fail even if the refinable function is stable.
\[ex.subd10\] [*Consider the refinable function $\varphi = \varphi_1 \otimes \varphi_2$ that satisfies the refinement equation with $M = {\rm diag}\, (2\, , \, 3)$ from Example \[ex.10\]. If $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ are stable and both belong to $C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$, then $\varphi \in C^1({{\mathbb R}}^s)$ is stable. Hence, $\alpha_{\varphi} = 1$. On the other hand, since $\alpha_{\varphi_1} = \alpha_{\varphi_2}= 1$, we have $\rho({{\mathcal{T}}}_1|_{W_1}) = \frac12$ and $\rho({{\mathcal{T}}}_2|_{W_2}) = \frac13$. Therefore, $\rho({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W}) = \frac12$. By Theorem \[th.subd\], we have $\tau = \frac12$. On the other hand, $\log_{1/\rho(M)}{\tau}\, = \, \log_3 2 \, \ne \, \alpha_{\varphi}$, although $\varphi$ is stable.* ]{}
\[r.600\] [*A similar result as Theorem \[th.subd\] holds for subdivision schemes in $L_p({{\mathbb R}}^s)$. Their rate of convergence is also equal to $\rho_p({{\mathcal{T}}}|_{W})$. The proof is essentially the same as the one of Theorem \[th.subd\], with the joint spectral radius replaced by the $p$-radius.*]{}
**Acknowledgements.** The authors are grateful to N. Guglielmi who kindly spent his valuable time to help us with computation issues.
N.E. Barabanov, , Autom. Remote Control, 49 (1988), 152 – 157.
C.A. Cabrelli, C. Heil, U.M. Molter, , J. Approx. Theory, 95 (1998), 5 – 52.
C.A. Cabrelli, C. Heil, U.M. Molter, , Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc., 170 (2004), no. 807.
A. S.Cavaretta, W.Dahmen, C.A.Micchelli, , Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 93 (1991), no. 453.
M. Charina, , Appl. Comp. Harm. Anal., 32 (2012), 86 – 108.
D.-R.Chen, R.-Q.Jia, S.D.Reimenschneider, , Appl. Comp. Harm. Anal., 12 (2002), 128 – 149.
Y.Chitour, P.Mason, M.Sigalotti, , Syst. Cont. Letters, 61 (2012), 747 – 757.
O. Christensen, , Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel, 2003.
C. Chui, , Academic Press, London, 1992.
C. Chui, J. de Viles, , CRC Press, 2011.
A. Cohen, I. Daubechies, , Revista Mathematica Iberoamericana, 12 (1996), 527 – 591.
A. Cohen, K. Gröchenig, L. Villemoes, , Constr. Approx., 15 (1999), 241 – 255.
D. Collela, C. Heil, , SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 15 (1994), 496 – 518.
I. Daubechies, , CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol. 61, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992.
I. Daubechies, , Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 41 (1988), 909 – 996.
I. Daubechies, J. Lagarias, , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 23 (1992), 1031 – 1079.
G. Derfel, N. Dyn, A. Levin, , J. Approx. Theory, 80 (1995), 272 – 297.
G. Deslauriers, S. Dubuc, , Constr. Approx., 5 (1989), 49 – 68.
T. B. Dinsenbacher, D. P. Hardin, , in Wavelets, Multiwavelets, and their Applications, A. Aldroubi and E. Lin, eds., AMS, Providence, RI, 1998, 117 – 127.
S. Dubuc, , J. Math. Anal. Appl., 114 (1986), 185 – 204.
N. Dyn, D. Levin, , Acta Numer., 11 (2002), 73 – 144.
N. Dyn, D. Levin, G.A. Gregory, , ACM transactions on graphics, 9 (1990), 160 – 169.
T.Eirola, , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 23 (1992), 1015 – 1030.
D.-J.Feng, N.Sidorov, , Monatsh. Math., 162 (2011), 41 – 60.
G. Gripenberg, , Lin. Alg. Appl., 234 (1996), 43 – 60.
K. Gröchenig, A. Haas, , J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 2 (1994), 131 – 170.
K. Gröchenig, W.R. Madych, , IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 38 (1992), 556 – 568.
N. Guglielmi, V.Yu. Protasov, , Found. Comput. Math., 13 (2013), 37 – 97.
N. Guglielmi, V.Yu. Protasov, , SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 37 (2016), 18 – 52.
B. Han, R-Q. Jia, , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 29 (1998), 1177 – 1199.
B.Han, , SIAM J. Matr. Anal. Appl., 24 (2003), 693 – 714.
B. Han, , J. Approx. Theory, 124 (2003), 44 – 88.
B.Han, , Advances Comput. Math., 24 (2006), 375 – 403.
R.-Q.Jia, , Advances Comp. Math., 3 (1995), 455 – 454.
R.-Q.Jia, , Math. Comp., 67 (1998), 647 – 665.
R.-Q.Jia, , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 351 (1999), 4089 – 4112.
R.-Q.Jia, Q. Jiang, Z. Shen, , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 32 (2000), 420 – 434.
R.-Q.Jia, S.R. Zhang, , Lin. Alg. Appl., 292 (1999), 155 – 178.
R.Kapica, J.Morawiec, , J. Math. Anal. Appl., 350 (2009), 393 – 400.
J.Lagarias, Y.Wang, J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 3 (1997), 83 – 102.
J.Lagarias, Y.Wang, , J. Number Theory, 76 (1999), 330 – 336.
C. Möller, U. Reif, , Lin. Alg. Appl., 563 (2014), 154 – 170.
M. Möller, T. Sauer, , Advances Comput. Math., 20 (2004), 205 – 228.
I.Y. Novikov, V.Yu. Protasov, M.A. Skopina, , AMS, Translations Mathematical Monographs, 239 (2011).
J. Peter, U. Reif, , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008.
V.Yu. Protasov, Fundam. Prikl. Mat., 2 (1996), 205 – 231.
V.Yu. Protasov, , Izvestiya Math., 61 (1997), 995 – 1030.
V.Yu. Protasov, , J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 6 (2000), 55 – 78.
V.Yu. Protasov, , Izvestiya Math., 70 (2006), 123 – 162.
V.Yu. Protasov, , St.Petersburg Math. J., 18 (2007), 607 – 646.
V.Yu. Protasov, , Lin. Alg. Appl., 428 (2008), 2339 – 2357.
V.Yu. Protasov, , Lin. Alg. Appl., 433 (2010), 781 – 789.
V.Yu. Protasov, , Math. Comput., (2016), Published electronically: https://doi.org/10.1090/mcom/3128
V.Yu. Protasov, R. Jungers, , Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 17 (2015), 81 – 93.
V.Yu. Protasov, R.M. Jungers, V.D. Blondel, , SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 31 (2010), 2146 – 2162.
O. Rioul, , SIAM J. Math. Anal., 23 (1992), 1544 – 1576.
A. Ron, Z. Shen, , J. Approx. Theory, 106 (2000), 185 – 225.
G.C. Rota, G. Strang, , Kon. Nederl. Acad. Wet. Proc., 63 (1960), 379 – 381.
P. Shenkman, N. Dyn, D. Levin, , Special issue: computational methods in computer graphics. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 102 (1999), 157 – 180.
G. Strang, D. X. Zhou, , J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 4 (1998), 733 – 747.
L.Villemoes, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 25 (1994), 1433 – 1460.
J.Warren, H. Weimer, , Morgan-Kaufmann, 2002.
[^1]: Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Wien, Austria [e-mail: [email protected]]{}
[^2]: DISIM of University of L’Aquila, Dept. of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, and Faculty of Computer Science of National Research University Higher School of Economics, [e-mail: [email protected]]{}
[^3]: The first author is sponsored by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF) grant P28287-N35; the second author is supported by RFBR grants nos. 14-01-00332 and 16-04-00832, and by the grant of Dynasty foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Up to now, the only known exact Foldy- Wouthuysen transformation (FWT) in curved space is that concerning Dirac particles coupled to static spacetime metrics. Here we construct the exact FWT related to a real spin-0 particle for the aforementioned spacetimes. This exact transformation exists independently of the value of the coupling between the scalar field and gravity. Moreover, the gravitational Darwin term written for the conformal coupling is one third of the relevant term in the fermionic case.'
address: |
[*Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista,*]{}\
[*Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil*]{}\
author:
- 'Antonio Accioly$^{\ast}$ and Harold Blas$^{\dag}$'
title: 'Exact Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation for spin $0$ particle in curved space'
---
1.5 cm
PACS numbers: 04.20.Cv, 03.65.Ta, 04.80.Cc
.3in
The COW experiment [@colella] as well as the Bonse-Wroblewski [@bonse] one not only shed a new light on the physical phenomena in which gravitational and quantum effects are interwoven; they also showed that the aforementioned phenomena are nomore beyond our reach. The theoretical analyssis concerning these experiments consisted simply in inserting the Newtonian gravitational potential into the Schrödinger equation. To improve their analysis we need to learn certainly how to obtain an adequate interpretation for relativistic wave equations in curved space. In other words, we have to acquaint ourselves, with the issue of the gravitational effects on quantum mechanical systems. This can be done by constructing the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation (FWT) [@foldy], [@case]- the keystone of relativistic quantum mechanics- for both bosons and fermions coupled to the space-time metric. However, there are very few known problems in flat space that admit an exact FWT [@eriksen]-[@nikitin]. In curved space the situation is quite dramatic since up to now the only known exact FWT is that related to Dirac particles coupled to a static spacetime metric [@obukhov].
Here we address ourselves to the problem of finding the exact FWT for a real spin-0 particle coupled to the static metrics $$\begin{aligned}
\label{metric}
ds^2 = V^2 dt^2 - W^2 d {\bf{x}}^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $V=V({\bf{x}})$ and $W=W({\bf{x}})$. For the sake of clarification concerning the interpretation of the relativistic single particle wave mechanics for spin-0 boson, we reproduce a remark made by Feshbach and Villars [@feshbach] in the 1950’s: “Although it is well known that the Dirac equation gives within proper limits a relativistic wave-mechanical description of a single electron, we find in the literature the (incorrect!) statement that an analogous formalism does not exist for charged spin-0 particles”.
By the middle of the 1970’s, Guertin [@guertin] constructed the generalized FWT for any $2(2J+1)$-component Poincaré- invariant Hamiltonian theory that describes free massive spin$-J$ particles and that is subject to the conditions: a) every observable is either Hermitian or pseudo-Hermitian and b) the theory is invariant under certain discrete symmetries.
In our convention the signature is $(+ - - - )$. The curvature tensor is defined by $R^\alpha_{\;\; \beta \gamma
\delta} = -
\partial_\delta \Gamma^\alpha_{\;\; \beta \gamma} +\ldots$, the Ricci tensor by $R_{\mu\nu} = R^\alpha_{\;\; \mu\nu \alpha}$, and the curvature scalar by $R = g^{\mu\nu} R_{\mu\nu}$, where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric tensor. Natural units are used throughout.
Currently, we do not have a standard theory of massive spinless bosons in curved space. That is not the case as far as the Dirac fermions are concerned. Therefore, our first task is to find out how the Klein-Gordon (KG) equation should be written in the general case of a spacetime with nonvanishing curvature. Let us then start with the following scalar field equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation}
\left( \Box + m^2 + \lambda R \right) \phi =0 \;\;\; , \end{aligned}$$ which is obtained from the action $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action}
S = \int \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g} \left[ g^{\mu\nu}
\partial_{\mu} \phi \; \partial_{\nu} \phi - \left( m^2 + \lambda
R \right) \phi^2 \right] d^4 x \;\;\; . \end{aligned}$$
Note that the coupling between the real scalar field $\phi$ and the gravitational field represented by the term $\lambda R
\phi^2$,where $\lambda$ is a numerical factor and $R$ is the Ricci scalar, is included as the only possible local scalar coupling of this sort [@birrel]. Here $$\Box \equiv g^{\mu\nu} \nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu} =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu} \left( \sqrt{-g}
g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu} \right)\;\;\; .$$
The coupling constant $\lambda$, of course, can have any real value. This raises a delicate question: Which value of $\lambda$ should we single out? Fortunately, there are some arguments that seems to favour the choice $\lambda\,=\, 1/6$:
i\) the equation for the massless scalar field is conformally invariant [@birrel]-[@chernikov];
ii\) under the assumption that a) the scalar field satisfies (\[equation\]), and b) the field $\phi$ does not violate the equivalence principle, the coupling constant is forced to assume the value $1/6$ [@sonego]-[@faraoni];
iii\) the minimal coupling leads to a tachyonic behavior whereas the conformal one ($\lambda\,=\, 1/6$) have a correct quasiclassical limit [@grib]
There are other reasons (see e.g. [@flachi] and references therein) to justify the presence of the nonminimal term in ( \[action\]).
Here we examine the problem in the context of the exact FWT transformations for spin-0 particles. Let us then concentrate our attention on the curved spacetimes described by Eq. (\[metric\]). The Ricci scalar related to this metric is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ricci}
R = \frac{2}{W^4} \left(\nabla W \right)^2 -
\frac{2}{V W^3} \nabla V \cdot \nabla W -
\frac{2}{V W^2} \nabla^2 V - \frac{4}{W^3}\nabla^2 W. \;\;\;\end{aligned}$$
Inserting (\[ricci\]) into (\[equation\]), we promptly obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{secondorder}
\ddot{\phi} - F^2 \nabla^2 \phi - F^2 \nabla \ln
(VW) \cdot \nabla \phi + m^2 V^2 \phi + \lambda R
V^2 \phi =0 \;\;\; , \end{aligned}$$ where $F^2 \equiv \frac{V^2}{W^2}$. Here the differentiation with respect to time is denoted by dots.
In order to bring the equation in hand to Schr$\ddot{{\rm
o}}$dinger form we introduce the two-component formalism for the KG equation $$\phi = \phi_1 + \phi_2 \;\;\;, \;\;\; \frac{i}{m} \dot{\phi} =
\phi_1 - \phi_{2} \;\;\; .$$
Accordingly, the KG equation can be written in first-order form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{schrodinger1}
i \dot{\Phi} = {\cal{H}} \Phi \;\;\;,\end{aligned}$$ with the Hamiltonian given by $$\label{hamiltonian}
{\cal{H}} = \frac{m}{2} \xi^T - \xi \theta \;\;\; ,$$ where $$\Phi = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi_1 \\
\phi_2
\end{array}\right) \;\;\;, \;\;\;
\xi= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
-1 & -1
\end{array}\right)$$ and the operator $\theta$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\theta \equiv \frac{F^2}{2m} \nabla^2 - \frac{F^2}{2m}
\nabla \ln (VW) \cdot \nabla -
\frac{m}{2} V^2 - \frac{\lambda}{2 m}V^2 R \;\;\; . \end{aligned}$$
Note that the matrix $\xi$ has the following algebraic properties $$\xi^2 = 0 \;\;\; , \;\;\; \left\{ \xi , \xi^{T} \right\} = 4
\;\;\; .$$
It is worth mentioning that the equations of motion derived from (\[schrodinger1\]) are invariant under ${\cal{H}}\rightarrow -{\cal{H}}^{*}$ and $\phi_{1, 2} \rightarrow \pm \phi_{2, 1}$, which implies that in the two-component description of neutral spin-0 particles the particle and antiparticle may be identified since the gravitational interaction does not remove the particle-antiparticle degeneracy.
The operator $\theta$ is formally self-adjoint [@nota1] with respect to an inner product provided the spatial integrations are carried out using the correct measure [@fulling] $$\left\langle {\theta} \right\rangle = \int \rho \; d^3
{\bf{x}} \psi^{\dagger} {\theta} \psi \;\;\; ,$$ where $\rho \equiv g^{00} \sqrt{-g} = \frac{W^3}{V}\;\;\; .$
However, it is more convenient to write the wave function so that $\theta$ is Hermitian with respect to the usual flat space measure. We do this by means of a transformation $$\Phi \longrightarrow \Phi' = f \Phi \;\;\; ,\;\;\;{\theta'}=
f {\theta} f^{-1} ,\,\,\,\,\,\mbox{and} \,\,\,\,\,\, {\cal{H}'}=
f {\cal{H}} f^{-1} \;\;\; ,$$ with $ f \equiv \sqrt{\rho} = V^{-1/2} W^{3/2} \;\;\; . $
Therefore $${\cal{H}}' = \frac{m}{2} \xi^{T} - \xi
\theta ' \;\;\; ,$$ where $$\theta ' \Phi ' = f \theta f^{-1} \Phi ' \;\;\; .$$
Performing the computation, we then find that $\theta '$ can be written as $$\label{tetali}
\theta ' = - \frac{m}{2} V^2 - \frac{1}{2m}F {\hat{p}}^2 F +
\frac{1}{8m} \nabla F \cdot \nabla F + {\cal{D}}_{\lambda}(V, W) \;\;\; ,$$ where $ \hat{\bf{p}} = - i \nabla $ denotes the momentum operator and the last term becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{D}}_{\lambda}(V, W)\, \equiv \, \lambda [ (\frac{1}{2\lambda}-2)\frac{V}{W^2}\nabla^2 V- 2\frac{V}{W^3}\nabla V. \nabla W + (\frac{1}{2\lambda}-4) \frac{V^2}{W^3} \nabla^2 W + 2\frac{V^2}{W^4} (\nabla W)^2 ]\end{aligned}$$
The fascinating property of the transformed Hamiltonian ${\cal{H}}'$ is that its square,
$${{\cal{H}}'}^{\Box} = - \frac{m}{2} \theta ' \left\{ \xi
,\xi ^{T} \right\} = -2 m \theta ' I\;\;\; ,$$
where $$I = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right) \;\;\;.$$
Note that formally $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\label{root}
\sqrt{{\cal{H}'}^{\Box}} = (- 2m \theta ' )^{1/2} \,I^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Since the square root of the $2$x$2$ identity matrix is not unique the FWT transformation needs an extra diagonalizing transformation to the basis where positive and negative energy eigenstates are decoupled. This process can be made with the help of a nondegenerate matrix $U$ such that [@nota3] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal{H}}'' & \equiv & (- 2m \theta ' )^{1/2} U\, I^{1/2}\, U^{-1}\\
\nonumber
& =& (- 2m \theta ' )^{1/2} \eta\end{aligned}$$ where $$\eta= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 &0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array} \right).$$
Accordingly, $\cal{H} \rightarrow {\cal{H}}''$ is the exact FWT for the KG equation in curved space.
Taking (\[tetali\]) into account, we arrive at the following expression for the Hamiltonian squared $$\begin{aligned}
{{\cal{H}}'}^{\Box} = m^2 V^2 + F \hat{p}^2 F -\frac{1}{4}
\nabla F \cdot \nabla F + {\cal{D}}_{\lambda}(V, W).
\;\;\; \end{aligned}$$
The quasirelativistic Hamiltonian is simply obtained by assuming that $m^2$ is the dominating term. We thus arrive at $$\label{quasire1}
{\cal{H}}'' \approx \{ m V + \frac{1}{4m}
\left( W^{-1} {\hat{p}}^2 F + F {\hat{p}}^2 W^{-1} \right) -
\frac{1}{8 m V} \nabla F \cdot \nabla F + \frac{1}{2
m V} {\cal{D}}_{\lambda}(V, W)\}\,\, \eta \;\;\; .$$
Some comments are in order here:
[*(i)*]{} Notice the appearance of a Darwin-like term $\frac{1}{2
m} {\cal{D}}_{\lambda}(V, W)$ in the quasirelativistic Hamiltonian (\[quasire1\]). For $\lambda = 1/6$ conformal invariance constrains the structure of the Darwin-like term to the form $$\label{darwin}
\frac{1}{12 m W} \nabla^2 F. \;\;\;$$ Therefore one obtains $$\label{quasire2}
{\cal{H}}'' \approx \{ m V + \frac{1}{4m}
\left( W^{-1} {\hat{p}}^2 F + F {\hat{p}}^2 W^{-1} \right) -
\frac{1}{8 m V} \nabla F \cdot \nabla F + \frac{1}{12
m W} \nabla^2 F \}\,\, \eta.\;\;\;$$
[*(ii)*]{} (\[quasire2\]) is identical to the spinless sector found by Obukhov [@obukhov] for the Dirac particle except for the Darwin term which is one third of the corresponding term in the fermionic case [@nota2].
iii\) The Darwin term (\[darwin\]) only exists in the context of the exact FWT if the interaction of the scalar field with gravity is of the conformal type $\lambda=1/6$, while for $\lambda \neq 1/6$ the Darwin term is more complicated.
Some remarks about i) and iii). It is claimed in the literature that (\[equation\]) with $\lambda = 1/6$ violates the equivalence principle and leads to the appearance of anomalous R-forces between two “scalar charged” particles [@lightman]. Grib and Poberii [@grib] showed, however, that this is not the case. According to them the conformal coupling leads to a correct quasiclassical limit while the minimal one is responsible for a tachyonic behavior.
To conclude we shall prove that the conformal coupling does not violate the equivalence principle by making a comparison of the true gravitational coupling with the pure inertial case. To do that, we recall that far from the source the solution of the Einstein equation for a point particle of mass M located at $r=0$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g1}
g_{00}\,\approx\, 1-\frac{2MG}{r}\\
\label{g2}
g_{11}\,=\, g_{22}\,=\,g_{33}\,\approx\,-1-\frac{2MG}{r}\end{aligned}$$
From (\[g1\]) and (\[g2\]) we get immediately
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{v1}
V\,\approx\,1-\frac{MG}{r},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
W\,\approx\,1+\frac{MG}{r}\\
\label{f1}
\mbox{and}\,\,\,\,\,\, F\,\approx\, 1- 2 \frac{MG}{r}.\end{aligned}$$
Inserting (\[v1\]) and (\[f1\]) into (\[quasire2\]) we obtain the nonrelativistic FW Hamiltonian, namely, $$\label{f12}
{\cal{H}}'' =\left[ {\atop} m+ m \; {\bf g} \cdot
{\bf x} + \frac{\hat{{\bf p}}^2}{2m} + \frac{3}{2m} \hat{{\bf{p}}} \cdot({\bf g} \cdot {\bf x}) \hat{{\bf{p}}} \right] \eta, \;\;\;$$ where $ {\bf g} = - GM \frac{{\bf r}}{r^3}$. On the other hand, in the case of the flat Minkowski space in accelerated frame, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
V= 1+ {\bf a}\cdot {\bf x} \;\;\; , \;\;\; W=1\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{and}\,\,\,\,\,F=V ,\end{aligned}$$ one gets $$\label{f13}
{\cal{H}}'' = \left[ {\atop} m + m \; {\bf a} \cdot
{\bf x} + \frac{\hat{{\bf{p}}}^2}{2m}+ \frac{1}{2m} \hat{{\bf{p}}}\cdot ({\bf a}\cdot {\bf x})\hat{{\bf{p}}} \right] \eta. \;\;\;$$ In (\[f12\]) and (\[f13\]) we have neglected the higher order relativistic and gravitational/inertial terms.
For the particle $m$ far away from the body $M$ one can neglect the terms $\frac{3}{2m} \hat{{\bf{p}}} \cdot({\bf g} \cdot {\bf x}) \hat{{\bf{p}}}$ and $\frac{1}{2m} \hat{{\bf{p}}}\cdot ({\bf a}\cdot {\bf x})\hat{{\bf{p}}}$ in (\[f12\]) and (\[f13\]), respectively, since they are less than the kinetic term by a factor of $GM/r \sim 10^{-6}$ (for the gravitational field of the Earth) and much weaker by several orders than the leading and next to leading order terms linear in $m$. In(\[f13\]) we are assuming that ${\bf a}$ is such that $|{\bf a}\cdot {\bf x}| \sim GM/ r$. The Darwin term contributions in these expansions are zero in each case; in fact, in (\[f12\]) we have $\nabla^2 F \,=\, 0$ (far away from the source and in the approximation considered) and in (\[f13\]) for obvious reasons. Then, we come to the conclusion that the conformal coupling is in agreement with the equivalence principle.
Last but no least, we call attention to the fact that we are not claiming that the conformal coupling is the correct coupling for the various scalar particles. The question of which value(s) of $\lambda$ should constitute the correct coupling to gravity depends on the particular field theory used for the scalar field (see, e.g. [@faraoni1] and references therein). Given the current theoretical situation it seems more of an experimental problem to identify which would be the correct $\lambda$ coupling(s) for the various scalar particles.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
A.A. thanks CNPq-Brazil and H. B. to FAPESP-Brazil for financial supports. The authors thank the referee for relevant comments and criticisms.
1 cm
[\*\*]{} R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**34**]{}, 1472 (1975).
U. Bonse and T. Wroblewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **51**]{}, 1401 (1983).
L. L. Foldy and S. A. Wouthuysen, Phys. Rev. [ **[78]{}**]{}, 29 (1950).
K. M. Case, Phys. Rev. [**[95]{}**]{}, 1323 (1954) .
E. Eriksen and M. Kolsrud, Nuovo Cimento [ **[18]{}**]{}, 1 (1960).
M. Moreno, R. Martinez, and A. Zentella, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**[5]{}**]{}, 949 (1990).
A. G. Nikitin, J. Phys. A [**31**]{}, 3297 (1998).
Y. N. Obukhov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 192 (2001). H.Feshbach and F. Villars, Rev. Modern Phys. [ **30**]{}, 24 (1958). R. Guertin, Annals Phys. [ **91**]{}, 386 (1975). N. D. Birrel and P. C. W. Davies, [*Quantum Fields in Curved Space*]{} ( Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994). R. Penrose, [*Relativity, Groups and Topology*]{} (Gordon and Breach, London, 1964).
N. A. Chernikov and E. A. Tagirov, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré [**9**]{}, 109 (1968) . S. Sonego and V. Faraoni, Class. Quantum Grav. [**10**]{}, 1185 (1993). V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D[**53**]{}, 6813 (1996).
A. Grib and E. Poberii, Helv. Phys. acta, [**68**]{}, 380 (1995).
A. Flachi and D.J. Toms, Phys Lett. B[**478**]{}, 280 (2000). The operator $\theta$ enters the second order field equation (\[secondorder\]), $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \phi - \theta \phi = 0 $. Therefore the theory of elliptic diferential operators applies [@fulling]. S. A. Fulling, [*Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space- Time*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991). In fact, a nondegenerate matrix $U$ does the job: $U I^{1/2} U^{-1} = \eta\,\, \rightarrow\,\, (\eta U)^{-1} (\eta U) = I$. For charged spin-0 particles the first relativistic corrections to the Coulomb potential are of order $(p/m)^4$, whereas, in the spin $1/2$ case they appear in $(p/m)^2$ (spin-orbit and Darwin terms)[@feshbach]. A.P. Lightman, W.H. Press, R.H. Price, S.A. Teukolsky, [*Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ (1975), p.85. V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig, P. Nardone, Fund.Cosmic Phys.20 (1999) 121.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose an ultrafast way to generate spin chirality and spin current in a class of multiferroic magnets using a terahertz circularly polarized laser. Using the Floquet formalism for periodically driven systems, we show that it is possible to dynamically control the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction in materials with magnetoelectric coupling. This is supported by numerical calculations, by which additional resonant phenomena are found. Specifically, when a static magnetic field is applied in addition to the circularly polarized laser, a large resonant enhancement of spin chirality is observed resembling the electron spin resonance. Spin current is generated when the laser is spatially modulated by chiral plasmonic structures and could be detected using optospintronic devices.'
author:
- Masahiro Sato
- Shintaro Takayoshi
- Takashi Oka
title: ' Laser-Driven Multiferroics and Ultrafast Spin Current Generation'
---
[*Introduction.*]{}— Control of emergent collective phenomena by external fields is an important problem in condensed matter. Multiferroic magnets (for a review, see Refs. [@Wang09; @Tokura10; @Tokura14]) are opening new possibilities in this direction since the local spins are coupled not only to magnetic fields but to electric fields through the magnetoelectric (ME) coupling. Laser control of materials is attracting interest with a goal of realizing ultrafast and noncontact manipulation [@Kirilyuk10; @Vicario13; @Schellekens14; @Choi14; @Oka09; @Kitagawa11; @Lindner11; @Tsuji08; @Tsuji09; @Jotzu14; @Wang13]. In the research community of magnetic systems, control of magnetism using a laser is being studied in the context of spin-pumping and spintronics [@Kirilyuk10; @Vicario13; @Schellekens14; @Choi14]. On the other hand, in the field of electronic systems, periodically driven quantum systems draw the interest of many researchers. When the Hamiltonian is time periodic, the system can be described by the so-called Floquet states [@Shirley1965; @Sambe1973], a temporal analog of the Bloch states, and it is possible to control their quantum nature. For noninteracting systems, the control of the band topology has been studied theoretically [@Oka09; @Kitagawa11; @Lindner11] and experimentally [@Jotzu14; @Wang13]. It is possible to understand the effect of a laser through a mapping from the time-dependent Hamiltonian to a [*static*]{} effective Hamiltonian using the Floquet theory, and the change of quantum state, e.g., topology and symmetry, is attributed to the emergent terms in the static effective Hamiltonian. This framework can also be applied to quantum magnets. Laser-induced magnetization growth in general quantum magnets [@Takayoshi14-1; @Takayoshi14-2] as well as laser-driven topological spin states [@Takayoshi14-2; @Sato14], a quantum spin versions of Floquet topological insulators, were proposed recently.
In the current work, we apply the Floquet theory to quantum [*multiferroics*]{} and study the synthetic interactions appearing in the effective Floquet Hamiltonian \[see Eq. \]. We show that when elliptically or circularly polarized lasers are applied, an additional Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction [@Dzyaloshinsky58] emerges and its direction (DM vector) can be controlled. The DM interaction generally favors a spiral magnetic order and if its strength is spatially modulated, it is possible to induce spin currents. Through direct numerical calculations, we verify this picture, and then propose a way to generate ultrafast spin currents in a realistic device by optical means.
[*Multiferroics with laser application.*]{}— In multiferroics [@Tokura14; @Tokura10; @Wang09], spin degrees of freedom couple to electromagnetic waves not only through the Zeeman coupling, but also through the ME coupling. This is because the local polarization vector is related to spin degrees of freedom from crystallographic reasons. The Hamiltonian for multiferroics subject to a laser can be expressed as $${\cal H}(t)={\cal H}_{0}+{\cal H}_{\rm E}(t)+{\cal H}_{\rm B}(t),
\label{eq:TimeDepHamil}$$ where ${\cal H}_{0}$ is the spin Hamiltonian, and the laser-driven time-dependent terms ${\cal H}_{\rm E}(t)
=-\boldsymbol{E}(t)\cdot\boldsymbol{P}$ and ${\cal H}_{\rm B}(t)=-g\mu_{\rm B}\boldsymbol{B}(t)
\cdot\boldsymbol{S}$ respectively denote the ME coupling of the total polarization $\boldsymbol{P}$ with electric field $\boldsymbol{E}(t)$, and the Zeeman coupling between the total spin $\boldsymbol{S}$ with the magnetic field $\boldsymbol{B}(t)$ ($g$ is Landé’s $g$ factor and $\mu_{\rm B}$ is Bohr magneton). The polarization $\boldsymbol{P}$ is given by a function of spin operators. Electric and magnetic components of the laser are represented as $\boldsymbol{E}(t)=E_{0}(\cos(\Omega t+\delta),
-\sin(\Omega t),0)$ and $\boldsymbol{B}(t)=E_{0}c^{-1}(-\sin(\Omega t),
-\cos(\Omega t+\delta),0)$, respectively. The value of $\delta$ fixes the helicity of the laser, i.e., $\delta=0$, $\pi$, and $\pi/2$ respectively corresponds to right-circularly, left-circularly, and linearly polarized lasers. Symbols $\Omega$ and $c$ stand for the laser frequency and the speed of light, respectively.
[*Synthetic interactions from Floquet theory.*]{}— We apply the Floquet theory and the $\Omega^{-1}$ expansion to Eq. (\[eq:TimeDepHamil\]). From the discrete Fourier transform of the time-periodic Hamiltonian, ${\cal H}(t)=\sum_{m}e^{-im\Omega t}H_{m}$ ($m$: integer), the static effective Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm eff}=\sum_{i\ge0}\Omega^{-i}{\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{(i)}$ can be expanded in terms of $\Omega^{-1}$ and the leading two terms are given by [@Casas2003; @Mananga2011; @Supple] $${\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{(0)}=H_{0}, \quad
{\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{(1)}=-\sum_{m>0}[H_{+m},H_{-m}]/m.
\label{eq:FloquetHeff}$$ For large enough $\Omega$, we can truncate ${\cal H}_{\rm eff}$ up to the $\Omega^{-1}$ order. In the present multiferroic system, the first correction ${\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{(1)}$, which we call the synthetic interaction, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm syn}&\equiv
\Omega^{-1} {\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{(1)}
=-\frac{i\cos\delta}{2\Omega}\big\{
\alpha^{2}[\tilde P^{x},\tilde P^{y}]\nonumber\\
&+\alpha\beta([\tilde P^{x},S^{x}]+[\tilde P^{y},S^{y}])
+\beta^{2}[S^{x},S^{y}]\big\}
\label{eq:synthetic}\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha=g_{\rm me}E_{0}$, and $\beta=g\mu_{\rm B}E_{0}c^{-1}$. Here, $g_{\rm me}$ is the ME coupling constant \[see Eq. (\[eq:KNB\])\] with $\tilde{\boldsymbol{P}}$ being a dimensionless function of spins, i.e., $\boldsymbol{P}=g_{\rm me} \tilde{\boldsymbol{P}}$. Let us comment on the magnitude of the synthetic terms. The strongest magnetic field $\beta$ of a terahertz (THz) laser attains 1–10 T [@Hirori11; @Pashkin13]. The magnitude of $g_{\rm me}(\Omega)$ can be large in a gigahertz (GHz) to THz region [@Takahashi12; @Cheong09], and from both experimental and theoretical analyses [@Takahashi12; @Cheong09; @Katsura07; @Furukawa10], the value of $\alpha$ is expected to be of the same order as $\beta$. If we use as reference the typical value of exchange coupling $J=0.1$–10 meV ($\sim 1$–100 T) in standard magnets (e.g., XXZ magnets in Eq. ) both $\alpha/J$ and $\beta/J$ can achieve values of 0.1–1.
The precise form of the synthetic interaction depends on the type of the ME coupling. Here we consider the case where the polarization $\boldsymbol{P}=\sum_{\boldsymbol{r}, \boldsymbol{r}'}
\boldsymbol{P}_{\boldsymbol{r}, \boldsymbol{r}'}$ is given by a product of two spin operators on sites ($\boldsymbol{r}$, $\boldsymbol{r}'$). $\boldsymbol{P}_{\boldsymbol{r}, \boldsymbol{r}'}$ is proportional to the exchange interaction (energy density) $\boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}}\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}'}$ in symmetric magnetostriction type multiferroics [@Moriya67], while it is proportional to the vector spin chirality $\boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}}\times\boldsymbol{S}_{\boldsymbol{r}'}$ in the antisymmetric magnetostriction type (also known as the inverse DM effect) [@Tanabe65; @Katsura05; @Katsura07; @Mostovoy06; @Dagotto06]. The term $[\tilde P^x,\tilde P^y]$ thereby yields three spin terms such as the scalar spin chirality. In Ref. , it was shown that a three-spin term related to the scalar spin chirality is generated in the symmetric ME coupling case and can induce a topological gap in spin liquids. In addition, $[\tilde{P}^{a},S^{b}]$ and $[S^{x},S^{y}]$ induce two-spin and single-spin terms, respectively.
[*Two-spin system.*]{}— To illustrate the effect of Eq. (\[eq:synthetic\]), let us first focus on a simple two-spin multiferroic model depicted in Fig. \[fig:Setup\](a). The applied laser travels toward the $-z$ direction, and the two-spin multiferroic magnet is within the $xy$ plane. We assume that the two-spin system $\boldsymbol{S}_{1,2}$ possesses an electric polarization $\boldsymbol{P}$ through the ME coupling as $$\boldsymbol{P}=g_{\rm me}\boldsymbol{e}_{12}\times
(\boldsymbol{S}_{1}\times\boldsymbol{S}_{2}),
\label{eq:KNB}$$ where $\boldsymbol{e}_{12}=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,0)$ is the vector connecting two spins (the distance between spins is set to unity). This ME coupling is known to be responsible for electric polarization in a wide class of spiral ordered (i.e., chirality ordered) multiferroic magnets [@Tokura14; @Tokura10; @Wang09; @Katsura05; @Mostovoy06; @Dagotto06]. Using Eq. (\[eq:synthetic\]), we obtain the synthetic interaction $${\cal H}_{\rm syn}=\frac{\alpha\beta}{2\Omega}\cos\delta
(\boldsymbol{e}_{12}\cdot\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{12})
+\frac{\beta^{2}}{2\Omega}\cos\delta(S_{1}^{z}+S_{2}^{z}),
\label{eq:EffHamil}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{12}=\boldsymbol{S}_{1}
\times\boldsymbol{S}_{2}$ is the vector spin chirality. The first term is the laser-driven DM interaction and generated via the single-photon absorption and emission as shown in Ref. . This DM term is geometrically illustrated by the volume of a parallelepiped as in Fig. \[fig:Setup\](b). The three spin term from $[\tilde P^x,\tilde P^y]$ disappears in Eq. (\[eq:EffHamil\]) since $\boldsymbol{e}_{12}$ is within the polarization plane.
![(a) Schematic picture of a multiferroic system consisting of two spins $\boldsymbol{S}_{1,2}$ in a circularly polarized laser. The vector $\boldsymbol{P}$ represents the electric polarization. (b) Schematic picture for geometric meaning of the synthetic DM interaction in Eq. (\[eq:EffHamil\]). []{data-label="fig:Setup"}](Setup_v20.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The result (\[eq:EffHamil\]) is valid for any spin Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{0}$ with arbitrary spin magnitude $S$. In the original model , the DM vector in $\boldsymbol{E}(t)\cdot\boldsymbol{P}$ is parallel to $z$ axis. On the other hand, Eq. shows that the synthetic DM vector is in the direction of $\boldsymbol{e}_{12}$, which is in the $xy$ plane and perpendicular to the $z$ axis. The coefficient $\alpha\beta$ in Eq. indicates that both ME and Zeeman terms are necessary for emergence of the synthetic DM interaction. It is also significant that the laser should be circularly or elliptically polarized. In fact, ${\cal H}_{\rm syn}$ vanishes when the laser is linearly polarized ($\delta=\pi/2$). We emphasize that the synthetic DM coupling constant and its sign can be controlled by changing the laser helicity.
We comment on the importance of breaking the SU(2) symmetry of the system. If the spin Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{0}$ is spin-rotationally \[i.e., SU(2)\] symmetric, the Zeeman term ${\cal H}_{\rm B}(t)$ commutes with ${\cal H}_{0}$. This means that the laser-driven $\beta$ term plays no role in the growth of spin chirality. Thus, it is important that the system has magnetic anisotropy or spontaneous symmetry breakdown that relaxes the SU(2) symmetry.
[*Many-spin system (spirals and chiral-solitons).*]{}— It is straightforward to extend our result (\[eq:EffHamil\]) to multiferroic magnets consisting of many spins. For instance, the static effective Hamiltonian for an 1D multiferroic spin chain ${\cal H}_{0}^{\rm 1D}$ along the $x$ axis ($\theta=0$) with a circularly polarized laser is given by $${\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{\rm 1D}
={\cal H}_{0}^{\rm 1D}
\pm\sum_{j}\frac{\alpha\beta}{2\Omega}{\cal V}_{j,j+1}^{x}
\pm\sum_{j}\frac{\beta^{2}}{2\Omega}S_{j}^{z},
\label{eq:Eff_chain}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{j,j+1}\equiv\boldsymbol{S}_{j}\times\boldsymbol{S}_{j+1}$, and the sign $\pm$ respectively corresponds to $\delta=0$ and $\pi$. Here we assume that the bond polarization $\boldsymbol{P}_{j,j+1}$ is proportional to the bond chirality $\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{j,j+1}$, and the total polarization is given by $\boldsymbol{P}_{\rm tot}=g_{\rm me}\sum_{j}\boldsymbol{e}_{j,j+1}\times
\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{j,j+1}$ ($\boldsymbol{e}_{j,j+1}$ stands for a vector connecting the spin site $j$ and $j+1$).
![(a) Spin spiral (helical) ordered state and (b) chiral-soliton-lattice state can be laser-induced if the exchange coupling is AF and FM, respectively. []{data-label="fig:Textures"}](SpinTextures_v03.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The effective model (\[eq:Eff\_chain\]) is known to support interesting spin states with spatial modulations if the interaction in ${\cal H}_{0}^{\rm 1D}$ is short ranged. A spin spiral state \[Fig. \[fig:Textures\](a)\] emerges when the exchange is antiferromagnetic (AF) due to the competition between exchange and laser-induced DM interaction. On the other hand, in the case of a ferromagnetic exchange, it is known that competition among exchange, DM and Zeeman couplings can lead to a chiral-soliton-lattice state \[Fig. \[fig:Textures\](b)\] [@Kishine05; @Togawa13] as the classical ground state of ${\cal H}_{\rm eff}^{\rm 1D}$. This indicates that a laser can create several types of spiral spin textures depending on lattices and interactions of the multiferroic system ${\cal H}_{0}$.
[*Numerical analysis.*]{}— The Floquet effective Hamiltonian and the predicted emergence of the synthetic interaction (\[eq:synthetic\]) are the general result and apply to a broad class of multiferroics. However, there are limitations to the theory: (i) The effective Hamiltonian is applicable when the driving frequency (=photon energy) $\Omega$ is much larger than all the other energy scales in the system, and (ii) when many-body interactions are present, the system eventually heats up [@Alessio14; @Lazarides14]. As a complementary test, we use a numerical approach and perform direct time dependent calculations in a laser-driven multiferroic model based on ${\cal H}(t)$ (\[eq:TimeDepHamil\]). Here, we focus on simple multiferroic XXZ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chains aligned in the $x$ direction ($\theta=0$) with an external magnetic field $H$ $${\cal H}_{0}^{\rm 1D}= {\cal H}_{\rm XXZ}=\sum_{j}
(J\boldsymbol{S}_{j}\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_{j+1}
-J\Delta S_{j}^{x}S_{j+1}^{x}-HS_{j}^{x}).
\label{eq:XXZ}$$ In order to break the SU(2) symmetry, we introduced either an Ising anisotropy $-J\Delta S_{j}^{x}S_{j+1}^{x}$ or a static Zeeman term $-HS_{j}^{x}$. In the case of circularly polarized laser with $\delta=0$ ($\delta=\pi$), the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:Eff\_chain\]) predicts the emergence of $x$ component of vector chirality $\langle{\cal V}_{\rm tot}^{x}\rangle<0$ $(>0)$.
![Simulation results of a multiferroic XXZ chain ($\Delta=0.5,\;H/J=0$) in a circularly polarized laser. Time evolutions of (a) vector chirality $\langle\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{\rm tot}(t)\rangle$ and (b) magnetization $\boldsymbol{M}_{\rm tot}(t)$ in an AF XXZ model under a circularly polarized laser ($J>0$ and $\delta=0$). (c) Laser helicity ($\delta$) dependence of $\langle{\cal V}_{\rm tot}^{x}(t)\rangle$. (d) Time evolution of vector chirality in the case of a ferromagnetic exchange ($J<0$).[]{data-label="fig:XXZTimeEvol"}](XXZTimeEvol_v15.eps){width="48.00000%"}
We perform simulations for finite-size systems with $L$ spins. The initial state is set to the ground state of Eq. (\[eq:XXZ\]) obtained by numerical diagonalization. The laser is turned on at $t=0$ and the system evolves according to the time-dependent Hamiltonian ${\cal H}(t)$ (\[eq:TimeDepHamil\]). The time evolution of the state $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ is obtained by integrating the Schrödinger equation $i(d/dt)|\Psi(t)\rangle={\cal H}(t)|\Psi(t)\rangle$ using the fifth order Runge-Kutta method. In the numerical analysis below, we set $\alpha/J=\beta/J=0.2$.
First, consider the case of $\Delta=0.5$ and $H=0$. In Figs. \[fig:XXZTimeEvol\](a) and \[fig:XXZTimeEvol\](b), we plot the typical time evolutions of vector chirality $\langle\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{\rm tot}(t)\rangle=
\langle\sum_{j}\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{j,j+1}(t)\rangle$ and magnetization $\boldsymbol{M}_{\rm tot}(t)
=\langle\sum_{j}{\boldsymbol S}_{j}(t)\rangle$ for an XXZ model with $H=0$ in a circularly polarized laser with $\Omega/J=2$ and $\delta=0$. The vector chirality $\langle{\cal V}_{\rm tot}^{x}(t)\rangle<0$ appears as expected while $\langle{\cal V}_{\rm tot}^{(y,z)}(t)\rangle$ remains small. The dependence of the vector chirality on the laser helicity $\delta$ is depicted in Figs. \[fig:XXZTimeEvol\](c) and \[fig:XXZTimeEvol\](d). We see that $\langle{\cal V}_{\rm tot}^{x}(t)\rangle$ becomes negative (positive) for $\delta=0$ $(\pi)$, while it remains very small for linear polarization $\delta=\pi/2$. These behaviors are consistent with the prediction (\[eq:Eff\_chain\]) from the Floquet theory. However, the vector chirality does not keep on growing but becomes saturated around $t/J^{-1}\sim 400$ in Fig. \[fig:XXZTimeEvol\](c). This may be due to heating; the system’s “effective temperature” exceeds the magnitude of the synthetic term ($\sim \alpha\beta/\Omega$) around this time, and the linear growth of the chirality stops. This is consistent with recent studies on “heating” in closed periodically driven systems that have revealed that the effective Hamiltonian approach, e.g., Eq. (\[eq:Eff\_chain\]), is valid only for finite time, and if the driving is continued the system will approach an infinite temperature state [@Alessio14; @Lazarides14]. When the system is coupled to a heat reservoir, the heating can be stopped and the system can be stabilized [@Tsuji09]. Figure \[fig:XXZTimeEvol\](b) shows that the magnetization $\boldsymbol{M}_{\rm tot}(t)$ does not grow but only exhibits an oscillation with small amplitude.
![$\Omega$ dependence of time average of vector chirality $\overline{\langle{\cal V}_{\rm tot}^{x}\rangle}$ in (a) AF ($J>0$) XXZ model without external magnetic field and (b) Heisenberg model ($\Delta=0$) with external magnetic field. Around $\Omega=H$, we observe a large magnitude of laser-driven chirality due to a resonant behavior. []{data-label="fig:Field"}](Field_v07.eps){width="48.00000%"}
In order to understand how the induced chirality depends on the laser frequency $\Omega$, we define its time average as $$\overline{\langle\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{\rm tot}\rangle}\equiv
\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}dt
\langle\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{\rm tot}(t)\rangle
\label{eq:V_TimeAverage}$$ with $T=1000 J^{-1}$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Field\](a), for the XXZ chain in zero field, the induced chirality is typically negative, which agrees with the prediction from the Floquet effective Hamiltonian (\[eq:Eff\_chain\]), but since Eq. (\[eq:Eff\_chain\]) is based on the high frequency expansion, it fails to explain the detailed structure in the simulation. We find many small peaks in Fig. \[fig:Field\](a) that are presumably due to resonance with many-body excited states.
We also consider laser-driven spin chains in a static magnetic field. Naively, we may expect that the magnetic field will play the same role as the Ising anisotropy, i.e., a source to break the SU(2) symmetry, and no qualitative difference would occur. However, in Fig. \[fig:Field\](b), the result of direct calculation shows a resonant behavior in the generation of a vector chirality around $\Omega\sim H$, which is clearly not described by the effective Hamiltonian (\[eq:Eff\_chain\]). We verified that a similar resonant behavior also occurs in a multiferroic spin-1 chain and a spin-$\frac{1}2$ ladder (see Supplemental Material [@Supple]), which indicates that the resonance around $\Omega\sim H$ is universal in a broad class of multiferroic systems. What happens around $\Omega\sim H$ is analogous to electron spin resonance (ESR). Thus, our calculation implies that by using circularly polarized laser in an ESR setup, it is possible to efficiently generate a vector chirality in multiferroics.
![Setup to detect signatures of laser-driven DM interactions by measuring spin current. The spin current pumped from a spin chain to a metal with a strong spin-orbit coupling is changed into an electric current via inverse spin Hall effect in the metal.[]{data-label="fig:DetectionDM"}](DetectionDM_v07.eps){width="35.00000%"}
[*Detection schemes.*]{}— Finally, we propose schemes to detect the synthetic DM interaction and vector chirality. Detection using pump-probe optical methods is in principle possible by observing nontrivial textures, e.g., spiral states [@Supple]. Another scheme is to utilize optospintronic methods with plasmon resonances proposed in Ref. [@Uchida15]. The underling idea is to apply a [*spatially modulated*]{} circularly polarized laser to a multiferroic magnet (Fig. \[fig:DetectionDM\]). Assuming that the exchange coupling is dominant in the time-dependent Hamiltonian of the spin chain ${\cal H}_{\rm XXZ}+{\cal H}_{\rm E}(t)+{\cal H}_{\rm B}(t)$, the Heisenberg equation of motion shows that $$i(dS_{j}^{x}/dt)
\approx[S_{j}^{x},{\cal H}_{\rm XXZ}]
=iJ({\cal V}_{j-1,j}^{x}-{\cal V}_{j,j+1}^{x}).$$ Similar expressions hold for higher dimensions and therefore a finite spin current $\langle dS_{j}^{x}/dt\rangle$ appears due to a site-dependent vector chirality if the laser is spatially modulated. A circularly polarized laser with large spatial modulation can be realized in the near field of chiral plasmonic structures [@Schaferling16]. Then, in order to detect the spin current, one needs to combine the plasmonic structure with a metallic electrode where the spin current is transformed into an electric current by inverse spin Hall effect [@Saitoh06; @Valenzuela06; @Maekawa12; @Uchida16]. The spin current is injected from the multiferroic magnet to the electrode if $\langle dS_{j}^{x}/dt\rangle$ is nonzero at the interface [@Tserkovnyak02; @Adachi]. Using materials with strong spin-orbit coupling such as Pt [@Uchida16] for the electrode, we can observe the generation of a laser-driven chirality through an electric voltage drop. In the Supplemental Material [@Supple], we numerically show that an inhomogeneous chirality appears when we apply a spatially modulated laser.
Distinction of mechanisms is an important issue. In contrast with other effects of laser such as heating, the laser-driven DM interaction strongly depends on the direction of the laser as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:Setup\] and Eq. (\[eq:KNB\]), and thus systematic measurements with sample rotation are useful for making clear the origin.
[*Summary.*]{}— In conclusion, we proposed a way to generate and control DM interactions and spin currents in multiferroics utilizing elliptically polarized lasers. Our understanding is based on the Floquet theory with the $\Omega^{-1}$ expansion, which captures the general tendency of the numerical results, while we find an additional resonant enhancement of spin chirality when a static magnetic field is applied.
We would like to thank Hidekazu Misawa, Yuichi Ohnuma, Stephan Kaiser, Thomas Weiss and Shin Miyahara for fruitful discussions. M.S. is supported by KAKENHI (Grants No. 26870559, No. 25287088, and No. 15H02117), S.T. by the Swiss NSF under Division II, and T.O. by KAKENHI (Granst No. 23740260 and No. 15H02117). S.T. and T.O. are also supproted by ImPact project (No. 2015-PM12-05-01) from JST.
Y. Tokura, S. Seki, and N. Nagaosa, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**77**]{}, [076501](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/77/7/076501) (2014).
Y. Tokura, and S. Seki, Adv. Mat. [**22**]{}, [1554](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.200901961) (2010).
K. F. Wang, J.-M. Liu, and Z. F. Ren, Adv. Phys. [**58**]{}, [321](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00018730902920554) (2009).
A. Kirilyuk, A. V. Kimel, and T. Rasing, [ Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, [2731](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2731) (2010)]{}.
C. Vicario, C. Ruchert, F. Ardana-Lamas, P. M. Derlet, B. Tudu, J. Luning, and C. P. Hauri, [ Nat. Photon. [**7**]{}, [720](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2013.209) (2013)]{}.
A. J. Schellekens, K.C. Kuiper, R. R. J. C. de Wit, and B. Koopmans, [ Nat. Commun. [**5**]{}, [4333](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5333) (2014)]{}.
G. Choi, B. Min, K. Lee and D. G. Cahill, [ Nat. Commun. [**5**]{}, [4334](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5334) (2014)]{}.
T. Oka and H. Aoki, [ Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, [081406(R)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.081406) (2009)]{}.
T. Kitagawa, T. Oka, A. Brataas, L. Fu, and E. Demler, [ Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, [235108](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235108) (2011)]{}.
N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V. Galitski, [ Nat. Phys. [**7**]{}, [490](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1926) (2011)]{}.
N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, [ Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, [235124](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.78.235124) (2008)]{}.
N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, [047403](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.047403) (2009)]{}.
Y. H. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Science [**342**]{}, [453](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1239834) (2013).
G. Jotzu, M. Messer, Rémi Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, [ Nature (London) [**515**]{}, [237](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13915) (2014)]{}.
J. H. Shirley, Phys. Rev. [**138**]{}, [B979](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.138.B979) (1965).
H. Sambe, [ Phys. Rev. A [**7**]{}, [2203](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.7.2203) (1973)]{}.
S. Takayoshi, H. Aoki, and T. Oka, [ Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, [085150](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.085150) (2014)]{}.
S. Takayoshi, M. Sato, and T. Oka, [ Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, [214413](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.214413) (2014)]{}.
M. Sato, Y. Sasaki, and T. Oka, [arXiv:1404.2010](http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2010).
I. Dzyaloshinsky, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**4**]{}, [241](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(58)90076-3) (1958); T. Moriya, Phys. Rev. [**120**]{}, [91](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.120.91) (1960).
See Supplemental Material.
F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros, J. Phys. A [**34**]{}, [3379](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/34/16/305) (2001).
E. S. Mananga and T. Charpentier, J. Chem. Phys. [**135**]{}, [044109](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3610943) (2011).
H. Hirori, K. Shinokita, M. Shirai, S. Tani, Y. Kadoya, and K. Tanaka, [ Nat. Commun. [**2**]{}, [594](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1598) (2011)]{}.
A. Pashkin, F. Junginger, B. Mayer, C. Schmidt, O. Schubert, D. Brida, R. Huber, and A. Leitenstorfer, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Quant. Electr. [**19**]{}, [8401608](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSTQE.2012.2202216) (2013).
Y. Takahashi, R. Shimano, Y. Kaneko, H. Murakawa, and Y. Tokura, [ Nat. Phys. [**8**]{}, [121](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2161) (2012)]{}.
D. Hüvonen, U. Nagel, T. Rõõm, Y. J. Choi, C. L. Zhang, S. Park, and S.-W. Cheong, [ Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, [100402(R)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.100402) (2009)]{}.
H. Katsura, A. V. Balatsky, and N. Nagaosa, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, [027203](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.027203) (2007)]{}.
S. Furukawa, M. Sato, and S. Onoda, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, [257205](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.257205) (2010)]{}.
T. Moriya, [ J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**23**]{}, [490](http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.23.490) (1967)]{}; J. App. Phys. [**39**]{}, [1042](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1656160) (1968).
Y. Tanabe, T. Moriya, and S. Sugano, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**15**]{}, [1023](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.1023) (1965)]{}.
H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and A. V. Balatsky, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, [057205](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.057205) (2005)]{}.
M. Mostovoy, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, [067601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.067601) (2006)]{}.
I.A. Sergienko and E. Dagotto, [ Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, [094434](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.73.094434) (2006)]{}.
J. Kishine, K. Inoue, and Y. Yoshida, Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. [**159**]{}, [82](http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.159.82) (2005).
Y. Togawa, Y. Kousaka, S. Nishihara, K. Inoue, J. Akimitsu, A. S. Ovchinnikov, and J. Kishine, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, [197204](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.197204) (2013)]{}.
L. D’Alessio and M. Rigol, [ Phys. Rev. X [**4**]{}, [041048](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041048) (2014)]{}.
A. Lazarides, A. Das, and R. Moessner, [ Phys. Rev. E [**90**]{}, [012110](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.012110) (2014)]{}.
K. Uchida, H. Adachi, T. Kikkawa, S. Ito, Z. Qiu, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, [ Nat. Commun. [**6**]{}, [5910](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6910) (2015)]{}.
M. Schäferling, D. Dregely, M. Hentschel, and H. Giessen, [ Phys. Rev. X [**2**]{}, [031010](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.2.031010) (2012)]{}.
E. Saitoh, M. Ueda, H. Miyajima, and G. Tatara, App. Phys. Lett. [**88**]{}, [182509](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2199473) (2006).
S. O. Valenzuela and M. Tinkham, [ Nature (London) [**442**]{}, [176](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04937) (2006)]{}.
, edited by S. Maekawa, S. O. Valenzuela, E. Saitoh and T. Kimura (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2012).
K. Uchida, H. Adachi, T. Kikkawa, A. Kirihara, M. Ishida, S. Yorozu, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Proc. IEEE [**99**]{}, [1](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2016.2535167) (2016).
Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, [117601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.117601) (2002)]{}.
H. Adachi, K. Uchida, E. Saitoh and S. Maekawa, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**76**]{}, [036501](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/76/3/036501) (2013).
**Supplemental Material**
S1. Floquet theorem and $\Omega^{-1}$ expansion
-----------------------------------------------
Here, we explain the Floquet theorem and the $\Omega^{-1}$ expansion scheme of the effective Hamiltonian in relation with Eqs. , , and in the main text. This theorem can be viewed as time version of Bloch theorem [@Kittel] for quantum systems with spatially periodicity (such as crystals).
We consider a time-dependent Schrödinger equation $$i \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\Psi(t)\rangle
= {\cal H}(t)|\Psi(t)\rangle.
\label{eq:Sch}$$ for a time-periodic system ${\cal H}(t)={\cal H}(t+T)$. We perform discrete Fourier transform for the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}(t)=\sum_{m}e^{-im\Omega t}H_{m}$ where the frequency $\Omega$ is $2\pi/T$, and $m$ is an integer running from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. The solution can be written as $|\Psi(t)\rangle={\rm e}^{-i\epsilon t}|\Phi(t)\rangle$ where $|\Phi(t)\rangle$ is the Floquet state, which is periodic in time, i.e., $|\Phi(t)\rangle=|\Phi(t+T)\rangle$, and $\epsilon$ is the Floquet quasienergy. The Floquet state can be expanded as $|\Phi(t)\rangle=\sum_{m}{\rm e}^{-{\rm i}m\Omega t}|\Phi^{m}\rangle$. Substituting this to Eq. (\[eq:Sch\]), we obtain the following eigenvalue equations $$\sum_{m}(H_{n-m}-m\Omega\delta_{mn})|\Phi^{m}\rangle
=\epsilon|\Phi^{n}\rangle.
\label{eq:FloquetEigen}$$ In the model studied in the main text, nonzero components are only time-independent part and terms proportional to $\exp(\pm i\Omega t)$, hence we can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:FloquetEigen\]) in the following matrix form: $$\begin{pmatrix}
\;\ddots&&&&&&\\
&H_{0}-2\Omega&H_{+1}&0&0&0&\\
&H_{-1}&H_{0}-\Omega&H_{+1}&0&0&\\
&0&H_{-1}&H_{0}&H_{+1}&0&\\
&0&0&H_{-1}&H_{0}+\Omega&H_{+1}&\\
&0&0&0&H_{-1}&H_{0}+2\Omega&\\
&&&&&&\ddots\;
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\vdots\\
|\Phi^{ 2}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{ 1}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{ 0}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{-1}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{-2}\rangle\\
\vdots
\end{pmatrix}
=\epsilon
\begin{pmatrix}
\vdots\\
|\Phi^{ 2}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{ 1}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{ 0}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{-1}\rangle\\
|\Phi^{-2}\rangle\\
\vdots
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:FloquetEigenMatrix}$$ The block structure appearing in Eqs. (\[eq:FloquetEigen\]) and (\[eq:FloquetEigenMatrix\]) is understood intuitively as “photon dressed states”. The frequency $\Omega$ is interpreted as a photon energy, and thereby $|\Phi^{-m}\rangle$ is regarded as a state in Hilbert subspace with $m$ photons. This can also be seen from the energy shift $m\Omega$ in the diagonal components of Eq. (\[eq:FloquetEigenMatrix\]). Different subspaces are hybridized by $H_{+1}$ and $H_{-1}$, which correspond to photon emission and absorption processes, respectively. In general, $H_{\pm m}$ represents direct multi-photon processes. Figure \[fig:Floquet\] illustrates the hybridization structure of the Floquet system, where a step in the Floquet direction corresponds to increase or decrease of photon energy.
![ A system with time-periodic perturbation (left) is mapped to the Floquet eigenvalue problem (right). The latter corresponds to a system consisting of subspaces with different photon number (Floquet direction) coupled with each other through the off-diagonal components $H_{m}$ ($m\ne 0$) of the Floquet Hamiltonian. []{data-label="fig:Floquet"}](FloquetConcept_v15.eps){width="70.00000%"}
The infinite-dimensional eigenvalue problem Eq. (\[eq:FloquetEigenMatrix\]) can be reduced to a finite-dimensional problem using a $\Omega^{-1}$ expansion. If we focus on the zero photon subspace $|\Phi^{0}\rangle$, the neighboring subspaces $|\Phi^{\pm 1}\rangle$ become energetically far in the large $\Omega$ limit. The lowest order correction due to the off-diagonal terms $H_{\pm 1}$ is to simply induce virtual photon absorption-emission or emission-absorption processes which result in an effective Hamiltonian [@Kitagawa11S] $${\cal H}_{\rm eff}=H_{0}-[H_{+1},H_{-1}]/\Omega+\mathcal{O}(1/\Omega^2).
\label{eq:Effctive}$$ This corresponds to Eq. in the main text. Beyond the first order correction, either the Floquet-Magnus expansion or the Brillouin-Wigner perturbation can be applied. The comparison of these methods are given in Ref. [@Mikami15].
As for the model considered in the main text, the virtual photon processes can be visualized as in Fig. \[fig:Photon\_Multiferro\]. Let us apply this $\Omega^{-1}$ expansion scheme for our laser-driven system. In the two-spin system in Fig. \[fig:Setup\](a) of the main text, time-dependent laser-driven terms are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm E}(t) =& - \boldsymbol{E}(t)\cdot \boldsymbol{P}
= -\alpha [\sin\theta\cos(\Omega t+\delta){\cal V}_{12}^z
+\cos\theta\sin(\Omega t){\cal V}_{12}^z],\\
{\cal H}_{\rm B}(t) =& -g \mu_{\rm B}\boldsymbol{B}(t)\cdot
(\boldsymbol{S}_1+\boldsymbol{S}_2)
= \beta [\sin(\Omega t)(S_1^x+S_2^x)+\cos(\Omega t+\delta)(S_1^y+S_2^y)],\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=g_{\rm me}E_{0}$ and $\beta=g\mu_{\rm B}E_{0}c^{-1}$. Using this expression, we can easily compute the commutator $[H_{+1},H_{-1}]$ and then we obtain Eq. in the main text, $${\cal H}_{\rm syn}=\frac{\alpha\beta}{2\Omega}\cos\delta
(\boldsymbol{e}_{12}\cdot\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{12})
+\frac{\beta^{2}}{2\Omega}\cos\delta(S_{1}^{z}+S_{2}^{z}).
\label{eq:EffHamilS}$$
![Terms in the effective Hamiltonian (\[eq:EffHamilS\]) is considered as photon absorption-emission and emission-absorption processes. []{data-label="fig:Photon_Multiferro"}](Process_v15.eps){width="50.00000%"}
S2. Resonant-like phenomena in laser-driven multiferroic spin models
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the main text, we showed that a resonant phenomenon occurs in laser-driven multiferroic spin-$\frac{1}2$ chain in a static Zeeman magnetic field $H$ with resonant frequencies around $\Omega=H$ \[Fig. \[fig:Field\](b)\]. In this section, in order to show that this resonance is not a special feature of a particular model, we numerically investigate laser-induced vector chirality in two other models: a spin-1 Heisenberg chain and a two-leg spin-$\frac{1}2$ ladder in circularly polarized laser with $\delta=0$. We assume an antisymmetric magnetostriction type ME coupling in these two models as in the model in the main text. The Hamiltonian of the spin-1 chain is given by the same form as Eq. with replacing spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ operators with spin-1 ones, while that of the spin-$\frac{1}2$ ladder is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm lad}=&J\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}
(\boldsymbol{S}_{n,j}\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_{n,j+1}
-\Delta S_{n,j}^{x}S_{n,j+1}^{x})
+J_\perp\sum_{j}(\boldsymbol{S}_{1,j}\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_{2,j}
-\Delta S_{1,j}^{x}S_{2,j+1}^{x})\nonumber\\
&-H\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}S_{n,j}^{x}\nonumber\\
&-g_{\rm me}\boldsymbol{E}(t)\cdot\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}
\boldsymbol{e}_{j,j+1}\times\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{n,j,j+1}
-g\mu_{\rm B}\boldsymbol{B}(t)\cdot\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}\boldsymbol{S}_{n,j},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ and $j$ denote the leg and rung indices, respectively. The first and second terms are respectively leg ($J$) and rung ($J_{\perp}$) exchange couplings, and third is the Zeeman interaction of static external field $H$. The legs of the ladder are situated along the $x$ direction. The final line ${\cal H}_{\rm laser}(t)$ is the laser-driven time-dependent interaction, and $\boldsymbol{\cal V}_{n,j,j+1}=\boldsymbol{S}_{n,j}\times
\boldsymbol{S}_{n,j+1}$ is the $n$-th chain vector chirality. We assume that the ME coupling exists only on the leg bonds (not rung). The explicit form of the laser-driven term is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm laser}(t)
=&
-g_{\rm me}E_0\sin(\Omega t)\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}{\cal V}^z_{n,j,j+1}
+g\mu_{\rm B}E_0 c^{-1}\Big[
\sin(\Omega t)\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}{S}^x_{n,j}
+\cos(\Omega t)\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}{S}^y_{n,j}\Big]\nonumber\\
=& -\alpha \sin(\Omega t)\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}{\cal V}^z_{n,j,j+1}
+\beta\Big[
\sin(\Omega t)\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}{S}^x_{n,j}
+\cos(\Omega t)\sum_{n=1,2}\sum_{j}{S}^y_{n,j}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Using these Hamiltonians, we numerically solve their time-dependent Schrödinger equations and compute laser-induced vector chirality. The $\Omega$ dependence of time-averaged chirality is summarized in Fig. \[fig:Chirality\], where $\Delta=0$. It shows that resonant peak structure appear just below and above $\Omega\sim H$ in both the spin-1 chain and spin-$\frac{1}2$ ladder as well as the spin-$\frac{1}2$ chain in the main text. These results indicate that the resonant behavior generally takes place in a wide class of 1D Heisenberg-type spin models with antisymmetric ME coupling under static magnetic field.
![Time-averaged vector chirality in laser-driven multiferroic spin-1 chain (a) and spin-$\frac{1}2$ ladder (b). In both the systems, resonant peaks appear just below and above $\Omega=H$. We choose the numerically obtained ground states of the two models as the initial states at $t=0$. We set $\Delta=0$ (no XXZ anisotropy), $H/J=1.6$, and $J_{\perp}/J=0.3$. The system size $L$ means the total number of sites along chain and leg directions. []{data-label="fig:Chirality"}](S1andLadder_v15.eps){width="70.00000%"}
S3. All optical detection scheme for the laser-driven DM interaction and chirality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the main text, we explained a detection scheme of the laser-driven DM interaction and spin vector chirality through generating spin current. Here, we explain detection schemes which can be performed solely by an optical setup. For systems with a ferromagnetic order, time-resolved magnetooptical Kerr effect (MOKE) can be used to study the dynamical change of magnetization. Figures \[fig:Detection\](a) and (b) show setups for measuring laser-driven DM interaction through Faraday and Kerr effects, respectively. As for the pump, THz laser is preferred since the energy scale of excitations in multiferroic magnets typically corresponds to this frequency region. When we apply a suitable THz circularly (or elliptically) polarized laser to multiferroic ferromagnets, its magnetic order is changed from a uniform ferromagnet to a spiral order due to the dynamical DM interaction. This leads to a decrease of the uniform magnetization. Such demagnetization can be detected through the change in the Faraday or Kerr rotation angle before and after the application of pump laser.
A more direct detection scheme is through directional dichroism \[Fig. \[fig:Detection\](c)\]. This is a magnetooptical phenomenon where the light transmission becomes directionally dependent. As we mentioned above, a noncollinear order is generally expected to emerge when circularly (or elliptically) polarized laser is applied to multiferroic, ferro or antiferro-magnets and such a spiral state can lead to directional dichroism [@Miyahara12; @Takahashi14]. Therefore, observing directional dichroism via probe laser would be a smoking gun experiment for laser-driven DM interaction.
Finally, we discuss how to distinguish phenomena induced by synthetic DM interaction from other laser-driven effects. Varying the laser frequency $\Omega$ would provide a way of the distinction. As we mentioned in the main text, since the ME coupling $g_{\rm me}$ is strong within the GHz to THz regime, the synthetic DM interaction cannot emerges in other frequency regimes, e.g., optical regime, while heating effect would not be so sensitive to the laser frequency $\Omega$. A more precise way to distinguish the mechanisms is to change the incident direction of the pump laser. Equation in the main text $$\boldsymbol{P}=g_{\rm me}\boldsymbol{e}_{12}\times
(\boldsymbol{S}_{1}\times\boldsymbol{S}_{2}),$$ shows that the ME interaction between polarization and pump laser strongly depends on the geometric relation between the crystal axis $\parallel {\boldsymbol e}_{12}$ and the laser direction. The strength of laser-driven DM interaction is thereby changed when varying the incident direction of the pump laser and this will be generally different from other laser-driven phenomena including heating effect.
![Schematic images of (a) Faraday effect, (b) Kerr effect, and (c) directional dichroism in the presence of pump laser being circularly polarized. Signatures of laser-driven DM interaction and spin chirality are expected to be detected by measuring these magnetooptical effects. []{data-label="fig:Detection"}](MagnetoOptics_v15.eps){width="70.00000%"}
S4. Spatially modulated laser and spin currents
-----------------------------------------------
In the final part of the main text, we discussed a way of generating spin current by applying spatially modulated laser which can be induced in near field of chiral plasmonic structures. To confirm that a spatial modulation of the laser results in an inhomogeneous chirality and thus to spin current generation, we perform numerical simulations for multiferroic spin-$\frac{1}2$ chains with a spatially modulated laser. The effect of spatial modulation is incorporated by making the field strength parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ site-dependent as $$\alpha_{j,j+1}=\alpha(\sin^{2}(\pi j/L)+\sin^{2}(\pi(j+1)/L))/2, \quad
\beta_{j}=\beta\sin^{2}(\pi j/L),
\label{eq:modulation}$$ respectively. The numerical results are shown in Fig. \[fig:SpaceModulation\]. The driven vector chiralities strongly depend on their site positions, which clearly indicates an emergence of a finite spin current $\langle dS_{j}^{x}/dt\rangle$.
![Time evolution and site dependence of $\langle{\cal V}_{j,j+1}^{x}(t)\rangle$ in (a) AF and (b) ferromagnetic XXZ models under a spatially modulated laser with $\alpha_{j,j+1}$ and $\beta_{j}$.[]{data-label="fig:SpaceModulation"}](SpaceModulation_v06.eps){width="70.00000%"}
C. Kittel, [*Introduction to Solid State Physics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 2004).
T. Kitagawa, T. Oka, A. Brataas, L. Fu, and E. Demler, [ Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, [235108](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235108) (2011)]{}.
T. Mikami, S. Kitamura, K. Yasuda, N. Tsuji, T. Oka, and H. Aoki, [ Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, [144307](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.144307) (2016)]{}.
S. Miyahara and N. Furukawa, [ J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**81**]{}, [023712](http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.81.023712) (2012)]{}.
S. Kibayashi, Y. Takahashi, S. Seki, and Y. Tokura, [ Nat. Commun. [**5**]{}, [4583](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5583) (2014)]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use velocity dispersion measurements of 21 individual cluster members in the core of Abell 383, obtained with MMT Hectospec, to separate the galaxy and the smooth dark halo (DH) lensing contributions. While lensing usually constrains the overall, projected mass density, the innovative use of velocity dispersion measurements as a proxy for masses of individual cluster members breaks inherent degeneracies and allows us to (a) refine the constraints on single galaxy masses and on the galaxy mass-to-light scaling relation and, as a result, (b) refine the constraints on the DM-only map, a high-end goal of lens modelling. The knowledge of cluster member velocity dispersions improves the fit by 17% in terms of the image reproduction $\chi^2$, or 20% in terms of the $rms$. The constraints on the mass parameters improve by $\sim10\%$ for the DH, while for the galaxy component, they are refined correspondingly by $\sim50\%$, including the galaxy halo truncation radius. For an $L^{*}$ galaxy with $M^{*}_{B}=-20.96$, for example, we obtain best fitting truncation radius $r_{\rm tr}^{*}=20.5^{+9.6}_{-6.7}$ kpc and velocity dispersion $\sigma_{*}=324\pm17$ km/s. Moreover, by performing the surface brightness reconstruction of the southern giant arc, we improve the constraints on $r_{\rm tr}$ of two nearby cluster members, which have measured velocity dispersions, by more than $\sim30\%$. We estimate the stripped mass for these two galaxies, getting results that are consistent with numerical simulations. In the future, we plan to apply this analysis to other galaxy clusters for which velocity dispersions of member galaxies are available.'
author:
- '\'
bibliography:
- 'monna\_a383.bib'
title: Constraining the galaxy mass content in the core of A383 using velocity dispersion measurements for individual cluster members
---
\[firstpage\]
dark matter, galaxy cluster, galaxy halos, gravitational lensing.
Introduction
============
Gravitational lensing and its modelling represent reliable and important tools to map the mass distribution of structures in the Universe, from galaxies through galaxy groups and clusters, up to the large-scale structure [e.g., @Schneider2003; @Bartelmann2010; @Kneib2011]. One of the main motivations of using lensing is its ability to map the total projected mass density of the lens and thus shed light on the distribution and properties of the otherwise invisible dark matter (DM).\
Modelling of gravitational lensing is usually performed in two ways. The first, often dubbed ’non-parametric’, elegantly makes no prior assumptions on the underlying mass distribution, but due to the typical low number of constraints usually yields a low-resolution result that lacks predictive power [see, @Abdelsalam1998; @Diego2005; @Coe2008]. Alternatively, ’parametric’ mass models exploits prior knowledge or assumptions regarding the general form of the underlying mass distribution. The mass parameters are obtained by producing many mass models, each with a different set of parameter values, and looking for the solution which best reproduces the observations. Despite their model dependence, these methods allow for a very high spatial resolution, and typically exhibit high predictive power to reproduce additional constraints such as multiple images not used as inputs [see e.g., @Jullo2007; @Zitrin2009b; @Monna2014; @Grillo2014]. In the case of galaxy clusters acting as lenses, the cluster DM component usually follows descriptions obtained from numerical simulations, such as an elliptical NFW halo or alike. The galaxy mass component of the cluster is given by the combination of all the cluster member masses which are typically modelled as power-law profiles, isothermal spheres or their variants [e.g., see @Nat1997; @Kneib2011]. The combination of the baryonic and DM components yields the total projected surface mass density, which is the quantity probed in the lensing analysis. In that respect, it is difficult to properly separate the baryonic and DM galaxy components, as lensing probes only their joint contribution and degeneracies exist between the different parameters which could explain the same set of constraints. To infer the masses of the galaxies directly from the light, typically, luminosity-velocity dispersion-mass scaling relations are used. Physical properties of elliptical galaxies are globally well described by power-law relations which relate them to their observed luminosity, both for galaxies in field and in clusters. The Fundamental Plane [see @Bender1992; @Dressler1987; @Djorgovski1987; @Faber1987] gives the relation between effective radius $r_e$, central velocity dispersion $\sigma_0$ and mean surface brightness $I_e$ within $r_e$ of elliptical galaxies. The central velocity dispersion $\sigma_0$ is related to the galaxy luminosity $L_e$ through the Faber-Jackson relation ($L_e\propto\sigma_0^\alpha$) (Faber & Jackson 1976). However, it has been shown that bright galaxies, like the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), can deviate substantially from the scaling relation [see @Vonderlinden2007; @Postman2012b; @Kormendy2013].\
In [@Eichner2013] we investigated the halo properties of the cluster members of MACS1206.2-0847 through strong lensing analysis. We broke the degeneracy between the halo velocity dispersion $\sigma$ and size $r_{\rm tr}$, improving the constraints on the $\sigma-r_{\rm tr}$ relation through the surface brightness reconstruction of the giant arc in the core of the cluster. However, the large scatter in the Fundamental Plane (or, Faber-Jackson relation) inherently introduces modelling biases in lensing analyses which inevitably assume an analytic scaling relation for the M-L-$\sigma$ planes. Direct velocity dispersion measurements of galaxies (typically, elliptical cluster members) allow a direct estimate of their enclosed mass, through the virial theorem that reduces to $\rho(r)=\frac{\sigma^2}{2\pi Gr}$ for an isothermal sphere, for example. These mass estimates can be used individually for each lens galaxy instead of applying an idealised analytic scaling relation. This will especially be significant for bright and massive cluster galaxies governing the lens, i.e. galaxies within, or close to, the critical curves, as these affect the lensing properties the most. For that reason, we have embarked on an innovative project using Hectospec on the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MMT) to measure the velocity dispersion of individual cluster members in various cluster lenses. We aim to obtain an independent measure of the mass of each relevant cluster galaxy, so that internal degeneracies can be broken and the constraints on the DM-only component improved. We present here the first case-study we perform using these velocity dispersion data, analysing the strong-lensing features in the galaxy cluster Abell 383 (hereafter A383) at $z_{\mathrm{cl}}=0.189$, while examining the extent of improvement obtained by using these additional mass proxies.\
The mass distribution of A383 has been previously traced through gravitational lensing analyses [see @Smith2001; @Smith2005; @Sand2004], also combined with dynamical analyses [see @Sand2008]. @Newman2011 combined strong and weak lensing analyses with galaxy kinematics and X-Ray data to trace the mass distribution of the cluster out to 1.5 Mpc. They disentangled the baryonic and dark matter components in the inner region of the cluster, finding a shallow slope $\beta$ for the density profile $\rho\propto r^{-\beta}$ of the dark matter on small scales. @Geller2014 presented a detailed dynamical analysis of A383 using 2360 new redshift measurements of galaxies in the region around the cluster. They traced the cluster mass distribution up to about 7 Mpc from the cluster centre, obtaining results that are in good agreement with mass profiles derived from weak lensing analyses, in particular at radial distances larger than $R_{200}$. @Zitrin2011 performed a detailed strong lensing reconstruction of the cluster using the well known giant arcs and several newly identified lensed systems using the deep 16-band HST photometric dataset from the CLASH survey [@Postman2012a]. They used 9 lensed systems with a total of 27 multiple images to measure in detail the total mass distribution and profile in the cluster core.
In the work presented here we perform an accurate strong lensing analysis of A383 using velocity dispersion measurements for several cluster members as additional constraints. We investigate the impact of such information on the accuracy of the lensing reconstruction, on the constraints for the individual galaxy masses and on the global $\sigma-L$ relation. In addition, we perform the surface brightness reconstruction of the southern tangential giant arc lensed between several cluster members to set stronger constraints on the mass profiles of these individual galaxies and directly measure their size.\
The paper is organised as follows. In Section \[sec:dataset\] we describe the photometric and spectroscopic dataset. In Section \[sec:catalogs\] we present the photometric catalogues and the cluster member selection. In Section \[sec:lensing\] we describe the strong lensing analysis, the mass components included in the mass model and the lensed systems used as constraints. In Section \[sec:pointlike\_model\] we present the results of the strong lensing analyses performed using as constraints the observed positions of lensed images. In Section \[sec:extended\_image\] we perform the surface brightness reconstruction of the southern giant arc to refine the constraints on the mass profile of cluster members close to the arc. Summary and conclusions are given in Section \[sec:conclusions\]. Throughout the paper we assume a cosmological model with Hubble constant $H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and density parameters $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. Magnitudes are given in the AB system.
Photometric and Spectroscopic Dataset {#sec:dataset}
=====================================
Filter Instrument Exposure time \[s\] 5$\sigma$ Depth
-------- ------------ --------------------- -----------------
F225W WFC3/UVIS 7343 25.76
F275W WFC3/UVIS 7344 25.84
F336W WFC3/UVIS 4868 26.06
F390W WFC3/UVIS 4868 26.68
F435W ACS/WFC 4250 26.47
F475W ACS/WFC 4128 26.81
F606W ACS/WFC 4210 27.06
F625W ACS/WFC 4128 26.55
F775W ACS/WFC 4084 26.46
F814W ACS/WFC 8486 26.79
F850LP ACS/WFC 8428 25.93
F105W WFC3/IR 3620 26.81
F110W WFC3/IR 2515 27.09
F125W WFC3/IR 3320 26.68
F140W WFC3/IR 2412 26.80
F160W WFC3/IR 5935 26.81
: Photometric dataset summary: column (1) filters, column (2) HST instrument, column (3) total exposure time in seconds, column (4) $5\sigma$ magnitude depth within $0.6\arcsec$ aperture (see text).
\[tab:phot\]
As part of the CLASH survey, A383 was observed (between November 2010 and March 2011) in 16 filters covering the UV, optical and NIR range with the HST Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) and the HST Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) with its UVIS and IR cameras. The photometric dataset[^1] is composed of HST mosaic drizzled 65mas/pixel images generated with the `Mosaicdrizzle` pipeline [see @Koekemoer2011]. They cover a field of view (FOV) of $\sim 2.7'\times2.7'$ in the UVIS filters, $\sim 3.4'\times3.4'$ in the ACS and $\sim2'\times2'$ in the WFC3IR images, centred on the cluster core. In Tab. \[tab:phot\] we list the filters, observing times and depths of the photometric data. For each band, we estimate the detection limit by measuring the fluxes within $3000$ random apertures of $0.6\arcsec$ diameter within the image FOV. We generate multi-band photometric catalogues of fluxes extracted within $0.6\arcsec$ diameter aperture using `SExtractor` 2.5.0 [@Bertin1996] in dual image mode. As detection image we use the weighted sum of all WFC3IR images.\
The cluster is also part of the CLASH-VLT Large Program 186.A-0798 (P.I. Rosati P.). This survey aims to follow up the 14 southern clusters of the HST CLASH survey and provide hundreds of redshifts for cluster members, lensing features, high-z magnified galaxies and supernovae hosts. We use preliminary spectroscopic results from the first VIMOS observations of the cluster, taken between October 2010 and March 2011. The observations were performed with the LR-Blue and MR-Red grisms of the VIMOS spectrograph, providing a FOV of $\sim25\arcmin$. These spectroscopic data result in $\sim1000$ redshift measurements in the field of the cluster. They confirm 13 cluster members in the core ($r<1.5'$) of A383 and provide spectroscopic redshift measurements for $4$ multiply lensed systems. One of these strongly lensed systems is a double imaged $z\sim6$ source identified in the HST CLASH data and presented in @Richard2011. The cluster VLT/VIMOS observations have been completed in 2014, and this complete spectroscopic dataset will be published in Rosati et al. (in prep.).\
{width="16cm"}
In addition, we use the sample of galaxies observed within the Hectospec redshift survey [@Geller2014]. @Geller2014 used Hectospec [@Fabricant2005] mounted on the 6.5-meter MMT to measure 2360 redshifts within 50$^\prime$ of the centre of A383. Hectospec is a multi-object fiber-fed spectrograph with 300 fibers with an aperture of $1.5$, deployable over a circular field-of-view with a diameter of 1$^\circ$. The spectra cover the wavelength range 3500 - 9150Å.
During the pipeline processing based on the IRAF cross-correlation package `rvsao` [@Kurtz1998], spectral fits receive a quality flag “Q” for high-quality redshifts, “?" for marginal cases, and “X” for poor fits. All 2360 redshifts published by Geller et al (2014) have quality Q.
To derive a velocity dispersion for a galaxy we follow the procedure outlined by @Fabricant2013. We use an IDL-based software package, `ULySS`, developed by @Koleva2009 to perform direct fitting of Hectospec spectra over the interval 4100 to 5500 Angstroms. The effective resolution of the Hectospec spectra in this interval is 5.0-5.5 Å. There are 70 galaxies in the entire @Geller2014 A383 survey that have velocity dispersions with errors $ < 25$ km s$^{-1}$ and a spectral fit with reduced $\chi^2 < 1.25$. These spectra have a median signal-to-noise of 9.5 over the wavelength 4000-4500 Å. Among these objects, 21 are in the core of the cluster and we report them here in Table \[tab:vel\_gal\].
[@Jorgensen1995] empirically show that the stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_{obs}$ observed with fibers and the central stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_{sp}$ are related by: $$\sigma_{\rm sp}=\sigma_{\rm obs}\left(\frac{\rm R_{eff}}{8\times d/2}\right)^{-0.04}
\label{eq:sigma}$$ where $\rm R_{eff}$ is the galaxy effective radius and $d$ is the fiber aperture. We estimate the effective radii of cluster members using `GALFIT` [@Peng2010], fitting de Vaucouleurs profiles to the 2D surface brightness distribution of the galaxies in the HST/F814W filter. We then correct the central velocity dispersion for our cluster members according to Eq. \[eq:sigma\].\
In Table\[tab:vel\_gal\] we provide the coordinates, spectroscopic redshift $z_{\mathrm{sp}}$ and $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ for the sample of cluster members confirmed in the core of the cluster.
\[tab:vel\_gal\] =0.11cm
ID $\alpha$ $\delta$ $z_{\mathrm{sp}}$ $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ \[km/s\] $\rm R_{eff}$\[kpc\]
------ ------------ ------------- ------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------
GR 02:48:03.6 -03:31:15.7 0.194 $233.1 \pm 12.2$ $5.03 \pm 0.03$
BCG 02:48:03.4 -03:31:45.0 0.189 $377.8 \pm 15.1$ $10.45 \pm 0.15$
G1 02:48:02.4 -03:32:01.9 0.191 $254.9 \pm 12.8$ $3.35 \pm 0.02$
G2 02:48:03.4 -03:32:09.3 0.195 $201.8 \pm 15.4$ $1.59 \pm 0.02$
15 02:48:03.0 -03:30:18.2 0.188 $141.9 \pm 16.0$ $2.11 \pm 0.02$
16 02:48:03.0 -03:30:20.8 0.195 $273.4 \pm 13.5$ $2.35 \pm 0.01$
146 02:48:00.5 -03:31:21.6 0.191 $121.5 \pm 34.5$ $1.25 \pm 0.01$
223 02:48:02.1 -03:30:43.9 0.194 $194.8 \pm 11.1$ $3.67 \pm 0.02$
410 02:48:03.7 -03:31:02.0 0.182 $159.6 \pm 24.8$ $1.73 \pm 0.01$
658 02:48:08.5 -03:31:28.9 0.195 $207.7 \pm 13.4$ $2.49 \pm 0.01$
683 02:48:00.3 -03:31:29.2 0.179 $164.3 \pm 33.1$ $0.62 \pm 0.01$
711 02:48:05.9 -03:31:31.9 0.186 $159.4 \pm 13.7$ $1.78 \pm 0.01$
770 02:48:03.7 -03:31:35.0 0.190 $172.1 \pm 18.3$ $1.16 \pm 0.02$
773 02:48:02.8 -03:31:47.1 0.186 $212.0 \pm 12.3$ $3.16 \pm 0.03$
816 02:48:08.3 -03:31:39.2 0.191 $192.8 \pm 16.2$ $4.21 \pm 0.05$
906 02:48:03.7 -03:31:58.4 0.190 $240.4 \pm 20.5$ $1.74 \pm 0.02$
975 02:48:01.0 -03:31:54.7 0.192 $75.0 \pm 35.4$ $0.97 \pm 0.01$
1034 02:48:07.1 -03:31:46.9 0.184 $81.0 \pm 48.1$ $2.22 \pm 0.01$
1069 02:48:04.5 -03:32:06.5 0.196 $244.6 \pm 16.0$ $3.25 \pm 0.01$
1214 02:48:05.4 -03:32:18.4 0.185 $212.0 \pm 21.8$ $2.0 \pm 0.01$
1479 02:48:04.9 -03:32:36.7 0.183 $108.5 \pm 20.3$ $1.03 \pm 0.01$
208 02:48:02.6 -03:30:37.7 0.184 - -
233 02:48:03.7 -03:30:43.2 0.186 - -
367 02:48:06.8 -03:30:55.3 0.197 - -
496 02:48:05.1 -03:31:10.1 0.191 - -
601 02:48:04.5 -03:31:19.6 0.193 - -
742 02:48:02.8 -03:31:32.8 0.188 - -
792 02:48:04.6 -03:31:34.5 0.184 - -
901 02:48:01.9 -03:31:45.8 0.203 - -
1274 02:48:01.1 -03:32:23.3 0.197 - -
1342 02:48:00.6 -03:32:26.8 0.188 - -
1362 02:48:05.5 -03:32:30.4 0.192 - -
1551 02:48:05.3 -03:32:44.0 0.188 - -
1670 02:48:05.9 -03:32:53.0 0.191 - -
: List of cluster members with measured spectroscopic redshift from the Hectospec and VIMOS/VLT surveys. Col.1 ID; Col.2-3 Ra and Dec; Col.4 spectroscopic redshift; Col.5 measured velocity dispersion corrected according to Eq.\[eq:sigma\]; Col.6 Effective radius.
From the Hectospec Survey
From the VIMOS CLASH-VLT Survey
Cluster members {#sec:catalogs}
===============
In order to define the galaxy component to include in the strong lensing analysis (see Section \[sec:lensing\]), we select cluster members in the core of A383 combining the photometric and spectroscopic datasets. We restrict our analysis to the sources in a FOV of $1.5'\times1.5'$ centred on the cluster. In this FOV we have 34 spectroscopically confirmed cluster members (13 from VLT/VIMOS data and 21 from Hectospec data), which have $|z_{\mathrm{sp}}-z_{\mathrm{cl}}|<0.01$ (see Fig. \[fig:a383rgb\]), where $z_{\mathrm{cl}}=0.189$ is the cluster redshift. To include in our lensing analysis also cluster members which lack spectroscopic data, we select further member candidates combining information from the cluster colour-magnitude diagram and from photometric redshifts. We compute photometric redshifts for the galaxies extracted in our dataset using the spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting code `LePhare`[^2] [@Arnouts1999; @Ilbert2006]. We use the COSMOS template set [@Ilbert2009] as galaxy templates, including 31 galaxy SEDs for elliptical, spiral and starburst galaxies. We apply the Calzetti extinction law [@Calzetti2000] to the starburst templates, and the SMC Prevot law [@Prevot1984] to the Sc and Sd templates, to take into account extinction due to the interstellar medium (ISM). As we did in @Monna2014, in order to account for template mismatch of red SEDs [@Greisel2013], we apply offset corrections to our photometry. We use the sample of spectroscopically confirmed cluster members to estimate these photometric offsets through a colour adaptive method. For each galaxy with known $z_{\mathrm{sp}}$, the tool finds the template which best fits its observed photometry, and thus minimises the offset between the observed and predicted magnitudes in each filter.\
The photometric redshift and spectroscopic measurements for the relatively bright spectroscopically confirmed cluster members present small scatter: all of them fall within $|z_{\mathrm{sp}}-z_{\mathrm{ph}}|<0.02$. However, we use a larger interval of $|z_{\mathrm{ph}}-z_{\mathrm{cl}}|<0.03$ to select candidate cluster members photometrically, since faint galaxies have larger photometric redshift errors in general. In addition, we require candidate cluster members to be brighter than 25 mag in the F625W filter ($ \rm F625W_{auto}<25$) and to lie around the red sequence in the colour$-$magnitude diagram (having $\rm F435W-F625W\in[1.3,2.3]$, see Fig. \[fig:z\_cl\_histo\], \[fig:col\_mag\]).\
Our final cluster member sample in the core of the cluster contains 92 galaxies, 34 spectroscopically confirmed and 58 photometric candidates.
![Redshift distribution of the final cluster member sample, including photometric candidates (green histogram) and spectroscopically confirmed members (red histogram).[]{data-label="fig:z_cl_histo"}](z_histo_cl_new.png){width="8.5cm"}
![Colour magnitude diagram for the sources extracted in the core of A383. We plot the colour from aperture magnitudes in the filters F435W and F625W versus the `SExtractor` mag$\_$auto in the F625W filter. Blue circles are all the sources extracted in the cluster core; in red we plot the spectroscopically confirmed cluster members and in green the photometric cluster member candidates with $z\rm_{ph}\in[0.16,0.22]$.[]{data-label="fig:col_mag"}](col_mag_cl_new1.png){width="8.7cm"}
Strong Lensing recipe {#sec:lensing}
=====================
We perform the strong lensing analysis of A383 using the strong lensing parametric mass modelling software `GLEE` [@Suyu2010; @Suyu2012]. As constraints we use the positions and redshifts (when known) of the multiple images. These directly measure the differences of lensing deflection angles at the position of multiple images. In addition, we also reconstruct the surface brightness distributions of giant arcs, which contain information on higher order derivatives of the deflection angle. We adopt analytic mass models to describe the mass profiles of the cluster dark halo and the galaxy mass components. The best fitting model is found through a simulated annealing minimisation in the image plane. The most probable parameters and uncertainties for the cluster mass model are then obtained from a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) sampling.
Mass components and scaling relations
-------------------------------------
We describe the smooth dark halo (DH) mass component of the cluster with a Pseudo Isothermal Elliptical Mass Distribution (PIEMD) profile [@Kassiola1993]. Its projected surface density is $$\Sigma(R)= \frac{\sigma^2}{2 {\rm G}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{r_{\rm c}^2+R^2}}\right),$$ where $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion of the DH and $r\rm_c$ is its core radius. $R$ is the 2D radius, given by $R^2=x^2/(1+e)^2+y^2/(1-e)^2$ for an elliptical profile with ellipticity $e$. Strong lensing allows to robustly constrain the Einstein radius of a lens. This is the radius of the Einstein ring formed by a point source lensed by a spherical halo, when source and lens are aligned with the observer. For a singular isothermal sphere the Einstein radius $\theta_E$ and velocity dispersion of the halo are related by $$\theta_E=4\pi\left(\frac{\sigma}{c}\right)^2\frac{D_{ds}}{D_s}=\Theta_E\frac{D_{ds}}{D_s}$$ where $\theta_E$ and $\Theta_E$ are in arcseconds, $c$ is the speed of light, $D_s$ is the distance of the lensed source and $D_{ds}$ is the distance between the lens and the source. $\Theta_E$ is the *Einstein parameter*, which corresponds to the Einstein radius for $D_{ds}/D_s=1$. For elliptical mass distribution with core radius, lensing measures the Einstein parameter $\Theta_E$, which corresponds to the Einstein radius when the ellipticity and core radius go to zero $(e, r_{c}\rightarrow0)$. In the following analysis we use the Einstein parameter $\Theta_E$ to describe the mass amplitude of the lens halo.\
The total mass associated with each cluster member is modelled with a dual pseudo isothermal elliptical profile (dPIE) [@Elisa2007]. This model has a core radius $r_c$ and a truncation radius $r_{\rm tr}$, which marks the region where the density slope changes from $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ to $\rho\propto r^{-4}$.\
The projected surface mass density is $$\Sigma(R)= \frac{\sigma^2}{2 {\rm G} R}\frac{r_{\rm tr}^2}{(r_{\rm tr}^2-r_c^2)} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{r_c^2}{R^2}}}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ \frac{r_{\rm tr}^2}{R^2}}}\right)
\label{eq:bbs}$$ where $R^2=x^2/(1+e)^2+y^2/(1-e)^2$, as for the PIEMD mass profile. The total mass is given by $$M_{\rm tot}=\frac{\pi\sigma^2}{G}\frac{r_{\rm tr}^2}{r_{\rm tr}+r_c}\,\,,
\label{eq:m_bbs1}$$ which, for $r_c\rightarrow0$, reduces to $$M_{\rm tot}=\frac{\pi\sigma^2r_{\rm tr}}{G}\,\,.
\label{eq:m_bbs}$$ For vanishing core radius, $r_{\rm tr}$ corresponds to the radius containing half of the total mass of the galaxy [see Appendix A3 in @Elisa2007]. We adopt vanishing core radii for the galaxies (unless stated otherwise), so that we have only 2 free parameters associated with each galaxy, i.e. $\sigma$ and $r_{\rm tr}$. However, we selected 92 cluster members in the cluster core and this would yield $\sim200$ free parameters for the galaxy mass component. To reduce this large number of free parameters, we adopt luminosity scaling relations to relate the velocity dispersion and truncation radius of the cluster members to a fiducial reference galaxy, as in [@Halkola2007] and [@Eichner2013]. In other words, we only optimize $\sigma$ and $r_{\rm tr}$ for a reference galaxy and then scale all the other galaxies’ $\sigma$ and $r_{\rm tr}$ through luminosity scaling relations (i.e. the Faber-Jackson and fundamental plane for $\sigma$ and $r_{\rm tr}$, respectively).\
Given the Faber-Jackson relation, the central velocity dispersion of early type galaxies is proportional to a power law of the luminosity. Thus for the cluster member we adopt $$\sigma=\sigma_{GR}\left(\frac{L}{L_{GR}}\right)^{\delta}
\label{eq:F_J}$$ where the amplitude $\sigma_{GR}$ is the velocity dispersion of a reference galaxy halo with luminosity $L_{GR}$.\
Following @Hoekstra2003, @Halkola2006 [@Halkola2007] and @Limousin2007, we assume that the truncation radius of galaxy halos scales with luminosity as $$r_{\rm tr}=r_{\rm tr,GR}\left(\frac{L}{L_{GR}}\right)^\alpha=r_{\rm tr,GR}\left(\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{GR}}\right)^\frac{\alpha}{\delta}
\label{eq:r_tr}$$ where $r_{\rm tr,GR}$ is the truncation radius for a galaxy with luminosity $L_{GR}$. Given Eq.\[eq:F\_J\] and Eq.\[eq:r\_tr\], once we fix the exponent $\delta$ and $\alpha$, the free parameters, used to tune the galaxy mass contribution to the total cluster mass, are reduced to the velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\rm GR}$ and truncation radius $r_{\rm tr,GR}$ of the reference galaxy.\
The total mass-to-light ratio for a galaxy scales as $$\frac{M_{\rm tot}}{L}\propto L^\epsilon\propto\sigma^{\frac{\epsilon}{\delta}}
\label{eq:ML}$$ and it is constant for $\epsilon=0$. Combining Eq. \[eq:m\_bbs\], \[eq:F\_J\] and \[eq:r\_tr\], the total mass scales as $$M_{\rm tot}\propto\sigma^2 r_{\rm tr}\propto \sigma^{2+\frac{\alpha}{\delta}}\rm .
\label{eq:m1}$$ Therefore, from Eq.\[eq:ML\] and Eq.\[eq:m1\], we obtain the following relation for the exponents $$\alpha=\epsilon -2\delta+1\,,
\label{eq:m2}$$ which means that if we have knowledge of two of them, we can derive the third one. In the following we will go through some considerations which will help us to fix the value of these exponents.\
For elliptical galaxies in clusters, the exponent $\delta$ has measurements between 0.25 and 0.3, depending on the filter in which the photometry is extracted [see @Ziegler1997; @Fritz2009; @Kormendy2013; @Focardi2012]. Measurements from strong and weak lensing analyses yield $\delta=0.3$ [see @Rusin2003; @Brimioulle2013].\
Concerning the truncation radius of galaxies in clusters, theoretical studies predict that in dense environment it scales linearly with the galaxies velocity dispersion [see @Merritt1983] and, given Eq.\[eq:m\_bbs\], this yields $M_{\rm tot}\propto\sigma^3$. However, from Eq.\[eq:ML\], the total galaxy mass can be written as $M_{\rm tot}\propto\sigma^{\frac{\epsilon+1}{\delta}}$, and thus we conclude that $\epsilon=3\delta-1$.\
In summary, we expect $\delta$ to be within $[0.25,0.3]$, which implies $\epsilon$ to be within $[-0.3,0.2]$. The lower limit $\epsilon=-0.3$ is the case in which the galaxy halos mass has a value as expected for completed stripping process [e.g., see @Merritt1983]. On the contrary, $\epsilon=0.2$ is the case in which the galaxies have suffered no stripping at all and fullfill the scaling relations in fields [e.g., see @Brimioulle2013].\
A383 is a relaxed galaxy cluster, thus we expect the galaxy halo stripping process to be completed in the core. However, to take into account still ongoing halo stripping, as we did in [@Eichner2013] we fix the exponents of the mass to light luminosity relations to be $\epsilon=0$. This value is in between the ones expected for not yet started, and already completed halo stripping.\
Using the sample of confirmed cluster members with measured velocity dispersions, we directly measured the exponent $\delta$ of the Faber-Jackson relation in the F814W band. We get $\delta\sim0.296$, thus in the lensing analysis we use $\delta=0.3$.\
Finally, referring to the general relation between the exponents of the scaling relations given in Eq.\[eq:m2\], we obtain that $\alpha=0.4$.\
Once we fix the exponents of the luminosity scaling relations, the only parameters we need to determine to define the galaxy mass component are the amplitudes of the scaling relations, $\sigma_{\rm GR}$ and $r_{\rm tr,GR}$. We use as reference galaxy (GR) the third brightest galaxy of the cluster , which has $\rm F814W\_iso=17.74\pm0.01$, $z_{\mathrm{sp}}=0.194$ and a measured velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\rm GR}=233\pm12$km/s.\
Bright galaxies, as the cluster BCGs, can show a large scatter and likely also a systematic deviation from the scaling relations of cluster luminous red galaxies [see @Postman2012b; @Kormendy2013]. Thus we model the BCG independently to better account for its contribution to the total mass profile. Moreover we independently optimise two further cluster members close to the lensed system 3-4 (see Sec.\[sec:extended\_image\]). These galaxies have measured $\sigma_{\rm sp}$, which, combined with the strong lensing constraints from their nearby arcs, allow to directly measure their halo sizes. We call these two galaxies G1 and G2 (see Fig. \[fig:a383rgb\]). Their redshifts and measured velocity dispersions are $ z_{\rm G1}=0.191$, $z_{\rm G2}=0.195$ and $\sigma_{\rm G1}=255\pm13$km/s, $\sigma_{\rm G2}=202\pm15$km/s, respectively (see Tab.\[tab:vel\_gal\]).\
To scale $\sigma$ and $r_{\rm tr}$ of the cluster members according to Eq. \[eq:F\_J\] and \[eq:r\_tr\], we use the observed isophotal fluxes in the F814W filter. Moreover, assuming that the luminosity of the galaxies traces their dark matter halos, we fix the ellipticity and orientation of each halos to the respective values associated with the galaxy light profile, as extracted with `SExtractor` in the F814W band.\
In addition, we also allow for an external shear component to take into account the large scale environment contribution to the lensing potential.
Multiple images
---------------
We use the 9 systems of multiply lensed sources presented in @Zitrin2011 as constraints for our lens modelling. Four of these systems (system 1 to 4 in Tab. \[tab:multiple images\]) are well known and spectroscopically confirmed and were used in previous lensing analyses [@Newman2011; @Sand2004; @Sand2008; @Smith2005]. System 5 is a double lensed source at z=6, which has been spectroscopically confirmed by @Richard2011. System 6, identified by @Zitrin2011, has been followed up with VIMOS in the spectroscopic CLASH-VLT survey and confirmed to be at $z_{\rm s}=1.83$. Systems 7 to 9 lack spectroscopic data, thus we estimate their photometric redshifts with `LePhare`. For these systems we adopt as source redshift $\rm z_{SL}$ the photometric redshift of the brightest multiple images with photometry uncontaminated by nearby galaxies. Altogether we have 27 multiple images of 9 background sources, of which 6 are spectroscopically confirmed lensed sources (systems 1-6). In Tab. \[tab:multiple images\] we list the positions and redshifts for all the images.\
For the systems with spectroscopic confirmation, we fix the source redshift $\rm z_{SL}$ in the lens model to the spectroscopic value $\rm z_{sp}$. For the other systems the $\rm z_{SL}$ are free parameters. Their photometric predictions are used as starting values for $\rm z_{SL}$ and we optimise them with gaussian priors. As widths of the gaussian priors we adopt 3 times the uncertainties of the photometric redshifts. This is to explore a range of source redshifts $z_{\rm SL}$ larger than the range indicated by the $1\sigma$ uncertainties of the $z_{\rm ph}$.\
Using the HST photometric dataset we can estimate the positions of multiple images with a precision of $0.065\arcsec$. @Host2012 and @D'Aloisio estimated that, on cluster scales, multiple image positions are usually reproduced with an accuracy of $\sim$1-2 arcseconds due to structures along the line of sight. @Grillo2014 show that a higher precision can be reached through a detailed strong lensing analysis of the cluster core. They predict the positions of the observed multiple images in the core of MACS J0416 with a median offset of 0.3. In this work, we adopt errors of $1\arcsec$ on the position of the observed multiple images to account for uncertainties due to density fluctuations along the line of sight.
[|l|c|c|c|c|]{} Id & Ra & Dec & $\rm z_s$ & $\rm z_{SL}$\
1.1 & 02:48:02.33& -03:31:49.7 & 1.01 & 1.01\
1.2 & 02:48:03.52& -03:31:41.8 & “ & ”\
2.1 & 02:48:02.95& -03:31:58.9 & 1.01 & 1.01\
2.2 & 02:48:02.85& -03:31:58.0 & “ & ”\
2.3 & 02:48:02.45& -03:31:52.8 & “ & ”\
3.1 & 02:48:02.43 & -03:31:59.4 & 2.58 & 2.58\
3.2 & 02:48:02.31 & -03:31:59.2 & “ & ”\
3.3 & 02:48:03.03 & -03:32:06.7 & “ & ”\
3.4 & 02:48:02.30 & -03:32:01.7 & “ & ”\
4.1 & 02:48:02.24 &-03:32:02.1 & 2.58 & 2.58\
4.2 & 02:48:02.21 &-03:32:00.2 & “ & ”\
4.3 & 02:48:02.85 &-03:32:06.7 & “ & ”\
5.1 &02:48:03.26 &-03:31:34.8 & 6.03 & 6.03\
5.2 &02:48:04.60 &-03:31:58.5 & “ & ”\
6.1 &02:48:04.27 &-03:31:52.8 & 1.83& 1.83\
6.2 &02:48:03.38 &-03:31:59.3 & “ & ”\
6.3 &02:48:02.15 &-03:31:40.9 & “ & ”\
6.4 &02:48:03.72 &-03:31:35.9 & “ & ”\
7.1 &02:48:04.09 &-03:31:25.5 & 4.46 \[3.71,5.09\] & $4.94^{+0.30}_{-0.28}$\
7.2 &02:48:03.57 &-03:31:22.5 & “& ”\
7.3 &02:48:03.13 &-03:31:22.2 & “& ”\
8.1 & 02:48:03.68&-03:31:24.4 & 2.3 \[1.85,3.38\]& $1.78^{+0.31}_{-0.23}$\
8.2 & 02:48:03.39 &-03:31:23.5 & “&”\
9.1 & 02:48:03.92&-03:32:00.8 & “ & $4.10^{+0.56}_{-0.68}$\
9.2 & 02:48:04.05& -03:31:59.2 &” &“\
9.3 & 02:48:03.87&-03:31:35.0 & ” &“\
9.4 & 02:48:01.92& -03:31:40.2 & 3.45 \[3.30,3.60\]&”\
\
\[tab:multiple images\]
Pointlike models {#sec:pointlike_model}
================
We now carry on with the strong lensing modelling of A383, using as constraints the observed positions and spectroscopic redshifts of the multiple images listed in Table \[tab:multiple images\].\
In this Section we investigate how much the precision of the lens model and the constraints on the $r_{\rm tr}$ of the galaxies improve when we use the velocity dispersion measurements as inputs for the lens model. Thus we construct two parallel models.\
In the first model we scale all the galaxies with respect to GR using Eq. \[eq:F\_J\] and the left side of Eq. \[eq:r\_tr\]. We individually optimise only the BCG, the reference galaxy GR and the two galaxies G1 and G2 close to the lensed system 3-4. Their velocity dispersions and truncation radii are optimised with flat priors in the range of \[100,500\]km/s and \[1,100\]kpc.\
In the second model we fix the velocity dispersions of the 21 cluster members from the Hectospec survey to their measured values. Their truncation radii are then given by the left side of Eq.\[eq:r\_tr\]. All the other cluster members are still scaled with respect to GR according to Eq.\[eq:F\_J\] and Eq.\[eq:r\_tr\]. In the lens modelling we allow for some freedom for the velocity dispersions of the BCG, GR, G1 and G2, which we optimise around their $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ using gaussian priors with width equal to their spectroscopic uncertainties. Also in this case the truncation radii of these four galaxies are optimised with a flat prior within \[1,100\]kpc.\
We will refer to these two models as “pointlike models with and without velocity dispersions” (hereafter “$\rm w/\sigma$” and “$\rm wo/\sigma$” respectively). With “pointlike” we indicate that multiple image constraints are used as points, without accounting, at this stage, for surface brightness constraints.\
{width="18cm"}
![Upper panel: velocity dispersions $\sigma_{\rm SL}$ predicted from the SL analysis versus measured velocity dispersions $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ for the 21 cluster members from the Hectospec survey. Lower panel: ratio of $\sigma_{\rm SL}$ and $\sigma_{\rm sp}$. The $\sigma_{\rm SL}$ are predicted using the scaling luminosity relation, except for the four galaxies individually optimised, GR, BCG, G1 and G2. The values predicted in the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$” are globally in agreement with the measured $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ at the $1\sigma$ level, except at low velocity dispersions where they are slightly overestimated by a factor of $\sim1.5$. We label in red the data for the galaxies individually optimised: these show an excellent agreement between the $\sigma_{\rm SL}$ and the measured $\sigma_{\rm sp}$.[]{data-label="fig:sigma_sl_sp"}](sigma_sl_sp_ratio3.png){width="9cm"}
In both cases, we optimise all the DH parameters using flat priors: the DH centre is optimised within 3 arcsec from the BCG position, ellipticity within \[0,1\], the position angle (PA) is free to vary within $180^\circ$ and the core radius within \[0,60\]kpc. The Einstein parameter $\Theta_E$ is optimised within $[4.5,65]$ arcseconds, which correspond to the velocity dispersion range \[400,1500\]km/s for a singular isothermal sphere. For each galaxy we fix its position, ellipticity $\epsilon$ and position angle PA to the value measured from the photometry in the ACS/F814W filter. Only for the BCG we optimise the values of $\epsilon$ and PA measured in the ACS/F814W filter with a gaussian prior with width of 0.25 and $10^\circ$ respectively. The two models have 18 free parameters associated with the mass components. In Tab. \[tab:lensing\_models\] we list the results on the galaxy and DH parameters for both models and in the appendix (Fig. \[fig:mcmc\_dh\_sig\],\[fig:mcmc\_gal\_no\_sig\]) we provide the plots of the MCMC sampling.\
Here we summarise the main results.\
The final best model $\rm wo/\sigma$ reproduces the positions of the observed multiple images to an accuracy of 0.5, with $\rm\chi^2=0.6$ in the image plane. The cluster dark halo has a core radius of $\sim37.5_{-7.7}^{+5.6}$ kpc and Einstein parameter $\Theta_E=13.3_{-2.2}^{+2.6}$ arcsec, which corresponds to the fiducial Einstein radius $\theta_E=11.6_{-1.9}^{+2.3}$ arcsec for a source at $z_{\rm s}=2.58$. It gives a central velocity dispersion of $\rm\sigma= 680_{-57}^{+67}$km/s for a singular isothermal sphere. The BCG has a velocity dispersion of $\rm \sigma_{BCG}=395_{-44}^{+39}$km/s and truncation radius of $r_{\rm tr}=53.1_{-25.0}^{+15.6}$ kpc. The predicted velocity dispersion and radii for GR, G1 and G2 are $\rm \sigma_{GR}=214_{-32}^{+40}$km/s, $\rm \sigma_{G1}=253\pm23$km/s, $\rm \sigma_{G2}=194_{-45}^{+54}$km/s and $r_{\rm tr,GR}=23.1_{-12.8}^{+29.4}$ kpc, $r_{\rm tr,G1}=47.8\pm20.9$ kpc, $r_{\rm tr,G2}=32.2_{-23.4}^{+31.5}$ kpc. The total mass of the cluster within the Einstein radius $\theta_E$=$11.6_{-1.9}^{+2.3}$ arcsec is $M_{\rm tot}=9.72\pm0.23\times10^{12}M_\odot$.
Including the measured velocity dispersions in the strong lensing analysis leads to a final best model with $\rm\chi^2=0.5$ in the image plane, which reproduces the multiple images positions with a mean accuracy of 0.4. The smooth dark halo has core radius of $39.5_{-5.7}^{+5.3}$kpc, and $\theta_E$=$11.1_{-1.6}^{+2.1}$ arcsec for a source at $z_{\rm s}=2.58$, from which we get $\rm\sigma= 667_{-47}^{+62}$km/s for a singular isothermal sphere. The measured velocity dispersions of GR, BCG, G1 and G2 are optimised within their uncertainties. The final values for these parameters are $\rm \sigma_{GR}=238\pm15$km/s, $\rm \sigma_{BCG}=379\pm21\,$km/s, $\rm \sigma_{G1}=252\pm14$km/s and $\rm \sigma_{G2}=201\pm20$km/s. The predicted radii for GR, BCG, G1 and G2 are $r_{\rm tr,GR}=13.2_{-4.3}^{+6.2}$ kpc, $r_{\rm tr,BCG}=58.4_{-33.2}^{+24.9}$ kpc, $r_{\rm tr,G1}=73.1_{-35.5}^{+38.7}$ kpc, $r_{\rm tr,G2}=53.2_{-36.3}^{+49.2}$ kpc. The total mass of the cluster is $M_{\rm tot}=9.70\pm0.22\times10^{12}M_\odot$ within the Einstein radius $\theta_E$=$11.1_{-1.6}^{+2.1}$ arcsec for a source at $z_{\rm s}=2.58$.\
The results for the two pointlike models are globally in agreement within their $1\sigma$ errors.
Param “$\rm wo/\sigma$” “$\rm w/\sigma$”
----------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------
External shear
$\gamma$ $0.07\pm0.03$ $0.04\pm0.02$
$\theta [^{\circ}]$ $51^{+17}_{-11}$ $37^{+17}_{-26}$
Dark Halo
$\delta x$ \[\] $0.7\pm0.5$ $1.0\pm0.4$
$\delta y$ \[\] $1.0\pm0.8$ $2.4_{-0.6}^{+0.4}$
PA $[^{\circ}]$ $88^{+10}_{-14}$ $111\pm20$
b/a $0.8\pm0.1$ $0.90\pm0.06$
$\theta_{\rm E}$ \[\] $11.6_{-1.9}^{+2.3}$ $11.1_{-1.6}^{+2.1}$
$r_{c}$ \[kpc\] $37.5_{-7.7}^{+5.6}$ $39.5_{-5.7}^{+5.3}$
BCG
PA $[^{\circ}]$ $94^{\circ}\pm23^{\circ}$ $98^{\circ}\pm9^{\circ}$
b/a $ 0.61_{-0.15}^{+0.18}$ $0.60_{-0.13}^{+0.17}$
$\sigma$ \[km/s\] $395_{-44}^{+39}$ $379\pm21$
$r_{\rm tr}$ \[kpc\] $53.1_{-25.0}^{+15.6}$ $58.4_{-33.2}^{+24.9}$
GR
$\sigma$ \[km/s\] $ 214_{-32}^{+40}$ $238\pm15$
$r_{\rm tr}$ \[kpc\] $23.1_{-12.8}^{+29.4}$ $13.2_{-4.3}^{+6.2}$
G1
$\sigma$ \[km/s\] $253\pm23$ $252\pm14$
$r_{\rm tr}$ \[kpc\] $47.8\pm20.9$ $73.1_{-35.5}^{+38.7}$
G2
$\sigma$ \[km/s\] $194_{-45}^{+54}$ $201\pm20$
$r_{\rm tr}$ \[kpc\] $32.2_{-23.4}^{+31.5}$ $53.2_{-36.3}^{+49.2}$
: Most probable mass profiles parameters with the respective $1\sigma$ uncertainties for the smooth dark halo, the BCG, GR, G1 and G2 from strong lensing models of A383. In column (1) we give the results for the model without measured velocity dispersions and in column (2) for the model with velocity dispersions.
\[tab:lensing\_models\]
In Fig. \[fig:a383\_SL\] we show the critical lines for a source at $z=2.58$ for both the models overplotted on the colour composite image of the cluster core. The global models are in agreement, however using the spectroscopically measured velocity dispersions of cluster members locally affects the mass distribution reconstruction. In Fig.\[fig:sigma\_sl\_sp\] we plot the measured velocity dispersions $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ versus the predicted ones from SL for the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$”, and in the lower panel their ratio. They are in overall agreement within the $1\sigma$ uncertainties. Only few galaxies present a larger deviation from the measured velocity dispersions, but they are anyhow consistent at the $2\sigma$ level. These are faint galaxies ($\rm F814W\_auto\_mag >18.6$) which have spectroscopic velocity dispersion with uncertainties of $\gtrsim30\%$.
![Probability Contours of the GR velocity dispersions versus the truncation radius from the MCMC sampling for the the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$” (in blue) and “$\rm w/\sigma$” (in red). The knowledge of the galaxies velocity dispersions improves the constraint on the global scaling relation, tightening the constraints on the galaxy truncation radii by $\sim50\%$.[]{data-label="fig:GR_w_wo"}](GR_w_wo-new1.png){width="9cm"}
The velocity dispersions predicted from SL for the 4 galaxies optimised individually are in good agreement with the measured values, in particular for G1 and G2, which are well constrained through the lensed system 3-4. The velocity dispersion predicted for the reference galaxy, $\rm \sigma_{SL,GR}=214^{+40}_{-32}$km/s, is slightly lower than the measured $\sigma_{\rm sp,GR}=233\pm12$km/s, but still consistent within the 1$\sigma$ errors.\
From the comparison of the two pointlike models we find that lensing predictions for galaxies velocity dispersions are overall in good agreement with spectroscopic measurements. We reached a similar results in @Eichner2013, where the velocity dispersions predicted from strong lensing for cluster members in the core of MACS1206 were in great agreement with the $\sigma$ estimated from the Faber-Jackson relation. In Fig. \[fig:GR\_w\_wo\], we plot the probability contours from the MCMC sampling for the truncation radius and velocity dispersion of the GR. The results from the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$” show a clear degeneracy between these two parameters (see also Eq. \[eq:m\_bbs\]), which is broken only in the analysis “$\rm w/\sigma$”. The inclusion of velocity dispersion measurements allows us to improve the constraints on the galaxy sizes by $\sim50\%$ reaching uncertainties of a few kpc on the truncation radii. The truncation radius scaling relations are $$r_{\rm tr,``wo/\sigma"}=23.1_{-12.8}^{+29.4} \rm kpc \left(\frac{\sigma}{214_{-32}^{+40}\,km/s}\right)^\frac{4}{3}
\label{eq:scal_law_nosigma}$$ $$r_{\rm tr,``w/\sigma"}=13.2_{-4.3}^{+6.2} \rm kpc \left(\frac{\sigma}{238\pm15\,km/s}\right)^\frac{4}{3}
\label{eq:scal_law_wsigma}$$ for the models “$\rm wo/\sigma$” and “$\rm w/\sigma$” respectively. In Fig. \[fig:scaling\_law\] we plot Eq.\[eq:scal\_law\_nosigma\] and Eq.\[eq:scal\_law\_wsigma\] with their 68% confidence levels. In the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$”, all the galaxies individually optimised lie within the 68% confidence levels of the scaling relation.\
When we include the measured velocity dispersions in the analysis, the reference galaxy GR gets a smaller $r_{\rm tr}$ which is better constrained by a factor of 3 to 4. However, we get no improvement on measuring the halo size of the other galaxies individually optimised. These galaxies show a large deviation from the scaling relation. However, their truncation radii have large errors, such that these galaxies are consistent with the scaling law within $1-2\sigma$ errors. The truncation radius of all the other galaxies with measured $\sigma_{\rm sp}$, are scaled with the light according to Eq. \[eq:r\_tr\]. They are all in agreement with the scaling relation at the $1\sigma$ level. The scaling law “$\rm w/\sigma$” is consistent at the 1$\sigma$ level with the law obtained from the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$”, and now constraints on the truncation radii are improved by a factor of 50%.\
The smooth DH parameters are consistent within the $1\sigma$ errors for both models (see Tab. \[tab:lensing\_models\]). Including the velocity dispersions helps to constrain more tightly all the DH parameters, except for the PA, where the uncertainty rises by $6\%$. The external shear is low for both models ($\rm \gamma_{``wo/\sigma"}=0.07\pm0.03$ and $\rm \gamma_{``w/\sigma"}=0.04\pm0.02$) and in agreement within the $1\sigma$ errors. In the appendix \[appendix\] we present the MCMC sampling of the DH parameters for both models.\
Strong lensing analyses allow high precision measurements of the projected mass profile of the lens within the observed lensing features. For both the pointlike models we obtain the same projected mass $M(<50\,\rm kpc)=1.7\pm0.03\times10^{13}M_{\odot}$ enclosed within a radius of 50 kpc, which is the distance of the giant radial arcs (system 1-2) from the cluster centre. This result is in agreement with previous analyses, e.g. with @Newman2011 and @Zitrin2011, who find a total projected mass within r=50kpc of $M(<50\,\rm kpc)=2\times10^{13}M_{\odot}$ and $M(<50\,\rm kpc)=2.2\times10^{13}M_{\odot}$, respectively (both masses are provided without errors). The global models present differences in the mass components parameters due to the different constraints and mass components used in the different analyses, but they show agreement on the total mass predictions probed by strong lensing.
Surface Brightness reconstruction {#sec:extended_image}
=================================
In this section we perform the surface brightness reconstruction of the southern giant arc corresponding to the lensed systems 3-4 in the pointlike models (see Fig.\[fig:a383rgb\]). This is a lensed source at redshift $z_{\mathrm{sp}}=2.58$ which bends between several cluster members. For two of these galaxies, G1 and G2, we have measured velocity dispersions. By performing the surface brightness reconstruction of these arcs we aim to directly measure the truncation radius of these two cluster members, which are the only unknown parameters of the profiles adopted to describe their mass.\
To perform the surface brightness reconstruction, `GLEE` uses a linear inversion method [see @Warren2003]. It reconstructs the pixellated brightness distribution of the source, with regularisation of the source intensity through a Bayesian analysis [see @Suyu2006 for a detailed description of this technique].\
We reconstruct system 3-4 in the HST/ACS/F775W filter, in which the arcs are bright and at the same time the light contamination from the close cluster members is still low. In order to reconstruct only the light from the arcs and avoid contamination from nearby galaxies, we subtract the galaxies close to system 3-4 using the SNUC[^3] isophote fitting routine, which is part of the XVISTA image processing system. Within CLASH, we apply SNUC to derive two-dimensional models of early-type galaxies in the CLASH clusters since it is capable of simultaneously obtaining the best non-linear least-squares fits to the two-dimensional surface brightness distributions in multiple, overlapping galaxies (see @Lauer1986).\
{width="18cm"}
We perform the surface brightness reconstruction of the arcs where $S/N > 0.5$. In Fig.\[fig:arc\] we show the arcs in the F775W filter with the bright nearby galaxies subtracted, and we show in black the contours of the area we mask for reconstruction.
![Cutout of the system 3-4 in the HST/ACS/F775W filter. In this images the three galaxies close to the system, G1, G2 and G3, are subtracted using the SNUC routine. In black we trace the contours of the area we reconstruct in the surface brightness reconstruction of this system. []{data-label="fig:arc"}](arc.png){width="8.5cm"}
When performing the surface brightness reconstruction of systems 3-4, we fix the mass profile parameters of the smooth dark halo, GR and BCG to the values obtained from the model “$\rm w/\sigma$”. Then we only optimise the mass profile parameters associated with the three cluster members G1, G2 and G3 close to the arcs (see Fig.\[fig:arc\] ). As before, position and shape parameters of these three galaxies are estimated using the values traced by the light. For G1 and G2 we optimise the PA and b/a with gaussian prior using their 10% error as width. We also optimise their measured velocity dispersions within their uncertainties using a gaussian prior. For G3 we have no measured $\sigma_{\rm sp}$, so we use the $\sigma_{\rm G3}$ resulting from the model “$\rm w/\sigma$”, and optimise it within the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties with a gaussian prior. Finally we optimise the truncation radii of these three galaxies (G1 to G3) within the wide range of \[1,100\]kpc with a flat prior and we also allow for a core radius for G1 and G2.\
The final best model has a reduced $\chi^2_{\rm img}=1.4$ from all images positions. In Fig.\[fig:esource\_im\] we show the arc reconstructed, the original image, and the residual between these two images. The $\chi^2$ from the pixellated surface brightness reconstruction of the southern arcs is $\chi^2_{\rm SB}=0.78$. In Fig\[fig:esource\_sr\] we present the reconstruction of the unlensed source. It shows an irregular light distribution which consists of 5 clumps. The clumps A-B corresponds to the system 3 in the pointlike models, while the clumps C-D-E to system 4. Irregular light distribution seems to be common to galaxies at redshift $z>2$. The Hubble morphological sequence applies to galaxy population from the local Universe up to intermediate redshifts $z\sim1-2$ [e.g., see @Glazebrook1995; @Stanford2004]. At higher redshifts the majority of galaxies shows irregular and clumpy morphology [e.g., see @Dickinson2000; @Conselice2005; @Talia2014]. The source reconstructed has a size of $\sim0.5\arcsec$, which corresponds to $\sim4$kpc at $z_s=2.58$. Galaxies in the redshift range $z\sim2-3.5$ typically have radius ranging between 1-5 kpc [e.g., see @Bouwens2004; @Oesch2009]. Thus the size of the source we reconstruct at $z_s=2.58$ is consistent with value expected for galaxies at high redshift.\
![Surface brightness reconstruction of the giant southern arcs ($20\times10$ arcsec cutout, which corresponds to $\sim60\times30$ kpc at the cluster redshift). Upper panel show the arcs in the HST/ACS/F775W filter, the central panel shows the reconstruction of the arc in this filter, and the lower panel shows the residuals. []{data-label="fig:esource_im"}](esource_im1.png){width="8.5cm"}
![Source reconstruction of the southern arc ($1.3\times1.0$ arcsec cutout, which corresponds to $\sim10\times8$ kpc at the redshift of the source). The gray lines are the caustics. The reconstructed source is composed of 5 clumps (red dashed contours). The clumps A-B corresponds to the system 3 in the pointlike models, while C-D-E are the light reconstruction of system 4.[]{data-label="fig:esource_sr"}](esource_caustics2_fin.png){width="8cm"}
In Table \[tab:masses\] we list the most probable mass parameters and their respective $1\sigma$ uncertainties for G1, G2 and G3. Here we focus on the parameters for G1 and G2, to compare them with results from the pointlike models. The ellipticity and PA are stable relative to the values extracted from the light profiles for both galaxies. G1 gets a velocity dispersion of $\sigma=239\pm2$km/s, which is consistent with previous results within the $1\sigma$ uncertainties. The core radius is $1.3\pm0.1$kpc and the truncation radius is $50.5^{+3.6}_{-4.6}$kpc. For G2 we get $\sigma=186^{+4}_{-7}$km/s, $r_{c}=0.3_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$kpc (consistent with zero) and $r_{\rm tr}=68.8_{-10.9}^{+10.0}$kpc. In Fig. \[fig:scaling\_law\] we plot the results for G1 and G2 to compare them with the prediction from the scaling relations obtained from the pointlike modelling. In the previous models these two galaxies get truncation radii which are several times larger than the predictions from the respective luminosity scaling laws in Eq. \[eq:scal\_law\_nosigma\] and \[eq:scal\_law\_wsigma\]. The surface brightness reconstruction of the southern arcs leads to similar results. Both the galaxies have truncation radius larger than the respective predictions from the global scaling law. However, comparing the $r_{\rm tr}$ prediction of these two galaxies from the three analyses performed in this work, they are all consistent with each others within the $1\sigma$ errors. In the Appendix \[appendix\] we plot the Monte Carlo Markov Chain sampling of the dark halo parameters for both G1 and G2. The total masses associated with the two galaxies (see Eq. \[eq:m\_bbs1\]) are $M_{G1}=2.1\pm0.2\times 10^{12}M_\odot$ and $M_{G2}=1.7\pm1.3\times10^{12}M_\odot$, which are consistent with the mass estimations from the pointlike models. See Tab. \[tab:masses\] for a summary of the mass profile parameters.\
To infer the amount of stripped dark matter for galaxies in cluster cores we can estimate the total mass that G1 and G2 would have if they were in underdense environments, and compare them to their total mass estimated with lensing in the cluster core. [@Brimioulle2013] estimated the $r_{\rm tr}$-$\sigma$ scaling law for early type field galaxies, getting $\mathrm{r_{tr,field}}=~245^{+64}_{-52}h^{-1}_{100}$kpc for a reference galaxy with $\sigma=~144$km/s, assuming that $r_{\rm tr}\propto\sigma^2$ in fields. Using this relation and Eq.\[eq:m\_bbs1\] we can derive the mass that G1 and G2 would have in the field. Assuming that the velocity dispersion of the halo does not change when a galaxy infalls in cluster and during the stripping process, we get that $\rm M_{tot,SL}^{G1}/M_{tot,fields}^{G1}=0.07$ and $\rm M_{tot,SL}^{G2}/M_{tot,fields}^{G2}=0.17$, which imply that 93% and 83% of the mass has been stripped respectively for G1 and G2. This results is in agreement with numerical simulations of tidal stripping processes [see @Warnick2008; @Limousin2009] which estimate that $\sim90\%$ of the mass is lost for galaxies in cluster cores.
Galaxy $\rm ``wo/\sigma"$ $\rm ``w/\sigma"$ $\rm Ext\_model$
--------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
**G1**
b/a 0.8 0.8 $0.82\pm0.01$
PA 151 151 $150.7\pm0.6$
$\sigma$ \[km/s\] $253\pm23$ $252\pm14$ $239\pm2$
$r_{core}$ \[kpc\] 0. 0. $1.3\pm0.1$
$r_{\rm tr}$ \[kpc\] $47.8\pm20.9$ $56.8^{+24.8}_{-25.6}$ $50.5_{-4.6}^{+3.6}$
$M_{}\,[10^{12}M_\odot]$ $ 2.2\pm1.4$ $ 2.6_{-1.5}^{+1.4}$ $2.1\pm0.2$
**G2**
b/a 0.58 0.58 $0.57\pm0.01$
PA 63 63 $63\pm1$
$\sigma$ \[km/s\] $194^{+54}_{-45}$ $201\pm20$ $186_{-7}^{+4}$
$r_{core}$ \[kpc\] 0. 0. $0.3_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$
$r_{\rm tr}$ \[kpc\] $32.2^{+31.5}_{-23.4}$ $53.2^{+49.2}_{-36.3}$ $68.8^{+10.0}_{-10.9}$
$M_{\rm tot}\,[10^{12}M_\odot]$ $ 0.9^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$ $ 1.6_{-1.4}^{+1.8}$ $1.7\pm1.3$
**G3**
b/a 0.93 0.93 $0.57\pm0.01$
PA 65 65 $65$
$\sigma$ \[km/s\] $109^{+20}_{-16}$ $120\pm7$ $128\pm2$
$r_{core}$ \[kpc\] 0. 0. $0.$
$r_{\rm tr}$ \[kpc\] $9.6^{+12.2}_{-5.3}$ $4.1^{+2.5}_{-1.7}$ $2.9\pm0.4$
$M_{\rm tot}\,[10^{12}M_\odot]$ $ 0.08^{+0.14}_{-0.07}$ $ 0.04_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ $0.04\pm0.01$
: Most probable parameters with the respective $1\sigma$ errors for the dPIE mass distribution of the cluster members close to the reconstructed giant arcs. The total mass is estimated according to Eq.\[eq:m\_bbs\]
\[tab:masses\]
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
==========================
In this paper we measured the mass distribution in the core of A383 using pointlike lensing constraints and by reconstructing the surface brightness distribution of giant arcs. For the first time we include in the lensing analyses the measurements of velocity dispersions for 21 cluster members. These allow us to refine individually the constraints on the galaxy mass component and on the smooth dark halo mass profile.\
In Sec.\[sec:pointlike\_model\] we constructed two parallel models, one in which we include the measured $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ and the other in which do not use such information. We find that the $\sigma_{\rm SL}$ values are globally in agreement with the measured values at the $1\sigma$ level (see Fig.\[fig:sigma\_sl\_sp\]). Only few galaxies have $\sigma_{\rm SL}$ slightly different from the measured velocity dispersions, which are faint galaxies with large errors on the measured velocity dispersions. However they agree at the $2\sigma$ level with the spectroscopic measurements.\
In particular, when we optimise the mass profiles of cluster members individually, taking advantage of stronger constraints from lensing, the $\sigma_{\rm SL}$ predictions are in great agreement with the $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ measurements.
The galaxy chosen as reference for the luminosity scaling relations has measured velocity dispersion. Thus, once we fix the exponents of the scaling relations (Eq. \[eq:F\_J\] and Eq. \[eq:r\_tr\]), the only parameter we need to constrain to estimate the global scaling laws is the truncation radius $r_{\rm tr,GR}$. The results of the pointlike models show that the knowledge of the cluster members velocity dispersions allows to improve the constraints on the $r_{\rm tr,GR}$ and on the scaling relation by 50%. @Faber2007 investigated the luminosity function for red and blue galaxies in several redshift bins up to $z\sim1$. For the red galaxy sample with redshift $0.2\leqq z<0.4$, a typical $L^*$ galaxy has $M^{*}_{B}=-20.95^{+0.16}_{-0.17}$ in AB system. According to our final scaling relation $``w/\sigma"$ (Eq. \[eq:scal\_law\_wsigma\]), such a typical $L^*$ red galaxy at $z\sim0.2$ has a truncation radius of $r_{\rm tr}^{*}=20.5^{+9.6}_{-6.7}$kpc, velocity dispersion of $\sigma_{*}=324\pm17$ km/s and total mass $M_{\rm tot}^*=1.57_{-0.54}^{+0.75}\times10^{12}\rm M_{\odot}$.\
[@Nat2009], combining strong and weak lensing analyses, investigated the dark halo of galaxies in the core of CL 0024+16 at $z=0.39$ for early and late type galaxies as a function of their distance from the cluster centre. They found that the dark halo mass of a fiducial $L^*$ early type galaxy increases with the distance from the cluster centre, from $M^*=6.3_{-2.0}^{+2.7}\times 10^{11}\,M_{\odot}$ in the core ($r<0.6$Mpc) to $M^*=3.7_{-1.1}^{+1.4}\times 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ in the outskirts. This is consistent with our results for a $L^*$ galaxy in the core of A383 at the $2\sigma$ level.\
[@Limousin2009], using N-boby hydrodynamical simulations, probed the tidal stripping of galaxy dark halos in clusters in the redshift range $z_{\rm cl}=[0,0.7]$. They used the half mass radii $r_{1/2}$ of galaxies to quantify the extent of their dark halos, which correspond to our $r_{\rm tr}$ for dPIE profile with vanishing core radius. They found that the $r_{1/2}$ and the total dark halo mass of the galaxies decrease moving from the outskirts to the core of the clusters, showing that galaxies in the core experience stronger stripping than the ones in the outer regions. In particular, galaxies in the core ($r<0.6$Mpc) are expected to have $r_{1/2}<20$kpc. In this work we analysed the halo properties of galaxies in the core of A383, with projected radial distance $R<1.5'=0.3$Mpc. Our results from the model $''w/\sigma"$ are in great agreement with the predictions of @Limousin2009, confirming that the sample of cluster members we investigated in the core of A383 experienced strong tidal stripping.\
In Fig.\[fig:scaling\_law\_lit\] we compare our results for the scaling law between the truncation radius and velocity dispersion with results from previous analyses. In [@Eichner2013] we measured the galaxies’ scaling relation in the cluster MACS1206 at $z=0.439$ performing an analysis similar to the one presented here for A383, but without the knowledge of cluster members’ velocity dispersions. For MACS1206 we obtained $r_{\rm tr}=35\pm8\,\rm kpc (\sigma/186\,km/s)^{4/3}$, which is consistent with the result for A383 from the pointlike model “$\rm wo/\sigma$”, but it is not in agreement at the 1$\sigma$ level with the tighter scaling relation we get from the model “$\rm w/\sigma$”. This is also the case when we compare our results with the ones presented in [@Halkola2007], where strong lensing is used to derive the size of galaxy halos in the core of Abell 1689. They tested the assumption of two different exponents for the $r_{\rm tr}$-$\sigma$ relation, using $\alpha/\delta=1,2$ (see Eq.\[eq:r\_tr\]). The reference truncation radii resulting from their two models are consistent and they conclude that galaxies in the core of the cluster are strongly truncated. For simplicity in Fig.\[fig:scaling\_law\_lit\] we plot only their results for $\alpha/\delta=1$, which is closer to the exponent assumed in our analyses. The scaling relations from @Eichner2013 and [@Halkola2007] deviate from our relations. This can be a result of the different clusters analysed. Another reason could be that, by scaling all the cluster members (including the brighter ones) with the same law, the resulting sizes are overestimated. Bright cluster members, which have been central galaxies before accretion to the cluster, have not yet been strongly stripped as fainter galaxies which have been satellites for a long time. Indeed one expects that the dispersion of halo mass is larger for bright galaxies than for fainter ones, depending on whether they have been a satellite or central galaxy at accretion of the cluster. In our analysis several brighter central galaxies (GR, BCG, G1, G2) are individually optimised, and the scaling laws mainly applies to galaxies which have been satellites for a long time.\
[@Suyu2010] derived the size for a satellite halo in a galaxy group at $z=0.35$, which has a projected distance from the centre of galaxy group of $R\sim26$kpc. The truncation radii and velocity dispersion estimated for this satellite are $r_{\rm tr}=6.0_{-2.0}^{+2.9}$kpc for $\sigma_{sat}=127_{-12}^{+22}$km/s respectively. This is in good agreement with predictions from our scaling law $``w/\sigma"$ at low velocity dispersions, and support that our scaling law is representative for satellite galaxies.\
[@Nat2002], combining strong and weak lensing analyses, investigated properties of galaxies in 6 massive clusters spanning the redshift range $z=0.17-0.58$, using archival HST data. They found that galaxies are tidally truncated in clusters, and in particular their results for 3 clusters of the sample (A2390, AC114, CL0054-27) are in good agreement with our results from the modelling “$\rm w/\sigma$”.\
[@Limousin2007] used weak lensing to measure the size of galaxies in 5 clusters at $z\sim0.2$, including A383, covering a wide FOV with $R<2$Mpc. Globally they find that galaxies with velocity dispersion within $[150,250]$km/s have truncation radii lower than 50 kpc, with mean value of 13 kpc, which is consistent with predictions from our scaling laws. In particular for A383 they predicted $\rm r_{\rm tr}=13_{-12}^{+37}$kpc for a galaxy with $\sigma=175_{-143}^{+66}$km/s (in agreement with our results).\
Finally [@Richard2010] and [@Donnarumma2011] measured the halo size of individual galaxies in the core of Abell 370 ($z=0.375$) and Abell 611 ($z=0.288$) respectively, taking advantage of direct strong lensing constraints on the galaxies. Their analyses predict larger truncation radii for these galaxies when compared to our “$\rm w/\sigma$” scaling law, but they are consistent with our results from the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$” at the $1\sigma$ level (see Fig.\[fig:scaling\_law\_lit\]).\
The estimates from these previous works are still degenerate with the velocity dispersions they used. Here in this work, for the first time we broke this degeneracy using measurements of cluster members velocity dispersions.\
To improve the constraints on the halo size of individual galaxies in the core of the cluster, we performed the surface brightness reconstruction of the southern giant arcs. This allowed us to measure the $r_{\rm tr}$ of two close cluster members, G1 and G2, for which we have measured velocity dispersions. With this analysis we improve the constraints by more than 30% on the halo size of these two galaxies. The results are also plotted in Fig.\[fig:scaling\_law\_lit\], which shows that these two galaxies deviate from the global scaling law derived for the cluster. This could mean that G1 and G2 have been central galaxies before accretion to the cluster and suffered less stripping than fainter galaxies which have been satellites. However, using Eq.\[eq:m\_bbs\] we estimated the total mass associated with the dark halo for G1 and G2 and compared these values with the mass they would have without suffering any stripping for the interaction with the cluster dark halo and the other galaxies. It results that 93% and 83% of the mass has been stripped respectively for G1 and G2, in agreement with results from numerical simulations which predict that galaxies in cluster cores loose 90% of their mass due to tidal stripping.\
In this paper we have shown that the degeneracy in the analytic scaling relation, adopted for cluster members in lens modelling, can be broken using measured velocity dispersions of individual cluster galaxies. The knowledge of cluster members $\sigma_{\rm sp}$ yields to improvements both on the fit and on the constraints on the mass shape and composition. We found that galaxies in cluster cores are strongly truncated, which is overall in agreement with previous measurements and also with prediction from numerical simulations. High resolution photometric and spectroscopic data, combined with galaxy kinematics, allow us to constrain to a higher level the galaxy scaling law in core of clusters, and also to individually identify cluster members which deviate from the global scaling law measured for the cluster, as G1 and G2.\
This was a first case study on a well studied lensing cluster, A383. In the near future we plan to apply this new technique to a larger sample of clusters, and explore further the treasury of using cluster members measured velocity dispersions in lensing analysis.
{width="18cm"}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by the Transregional Collaborative Research Centre TRR 33 - The Dark Universe and the DFG cluster of excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe". The CLASH Multi-Cycle Treasury Program (GO-12065) is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The Space Telescope Science Institute is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. The Dark Cosmology Centre is funded by the DNRF. Support for AZ is provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant \#HST-HF-51334.01-A awarded by STScI. The Smithsonian Institution supports the research of DGF, MJG, and HSH. We thank Daniel Gruen for his contribution to the improvement of the text.
MCMC Sampling of the pointlike models {#appendix}
=====================================
We show here the Monte Carlo Markov Chain sampling of the parameters describing the cluster dark halo and the physical parameters for the galaxies that we optimised individually through our analyses. The gray scales correspond to 68.3% (black), 95.5% (dark gray) and 99.7% (light gray). In Fig.\[fig:mcmc\_dh\_sig\] we show the MCMC sampling of the parameters of the smooth dark halo mass profile of the cluster, both for the pointlike model “$\rm wo/\sigma$” (upper panel) and “$\rm w/\sigma$”. In Fig.\[fig:mcmc\_gal\_no\_sig\] we show the sampling of the mass parameters for the 4 galaxies individually optimised in the pointlike models. The upper panel shows the results for the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$” and the lower one the results for the model “$\rm w/\sigma$”. The galaxies truncation radii present large errors in the model “$\rm wo/\sigma$”, and including the measured velocity dispersions of the 21 cluster members allows us to improve the constraints on the halo size of the reference galaxy by 50%. Performing the surface brightness reconstruction of the southern arcs improves the constraints also on the individual galaxies G1 and G2 close to the arcs, as can be seen from the MCMC sampling of this model presented in Fig.\[fig:sb\_mcmc\].
{width="10.5cm"}
{width="10.5cm"}
{width="14cm"}
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: available at http://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/clash/
[^2]: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/ arnouts/lephare.html
[^3]: see http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/holtz/xvista/index.html and @Lauer1986
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We give an algorithm with complexity $O(f(R)^{k^2} k^3 n)$ for the integer multiflow problem on instances $(G,H,r,c)$ with $G$ an acyclic planar digraph and $r+c$ Eulerian. Here, $f$ is a polynomial function, $n = |V(G)|$, $k = |E(H)|$ and $R$ is the maximum request $\max_{h \in E(H)} r(h)$. When $k$ is fixed, this gives a polynomial algorithm for the arc-disjoint paths problem under the same hypothesis.'
author:
- Guyslain Naves
bibliography:
- 'these.bib'
title: On disjoint paths in acyclic planar graphs
---
Introduction
============
Given a *demand* graph $G$ and a *supply* graph $H$ with $V(H) \subseteq V(G)$, capacities $c : E(G) \to \mathbb{N}$ and requests $r : E(H) \to \mathbb{N}$, the *integer multicommodity flow problem* consists of deciding if there is a multiset $\mathcal{C}$ of cycles in $G+H$ satisfying the following three conditions:
- for each $C \in \mathcal{C}$, $|C \cap E(H)| = 1$,
- for each $e \in E(G)$, at most $c(e)$ cycles of $\mathcal{C}$ contain $e$,
- for each $h \in E(H)$, exactly $r(h)$ cycles of $\mathcal{C}$ contain $h$.
This definition holds both for directed and undirected graphs. When the capacity function $c$ is equal to $1$ on every edge (or arc), the problem is called as the *edge-disjoint paths problem*, or the *arc-disjoint paths problem* in the directed case. We call the arcs of $H$ *commodities*. We say that $r+c$ is Eulerian if:
- $\sum_{e \in \delta^+_G(v)} c(e) + \sum_{e \in \delta^+_H} r(e) - \sum_{e \in \delta^-_G(v)} c(e) - \sum_{e \in \delta^-_H(v)} r(e) = 0$ for each vertex $v$, if $G$ and $H$ are directed,
- $\sum_{e \in \delta_G(v)} c(e) + \sum_{e \in \delta_H(v)} r(e)$ is even for each vertex $v$, if $G$ and $H$ are undirected.
The undirected edge-disjoint paths problem is well-known to be NP-hard even with strong restrictions on the instances, like imposing that $G$ is planar (Kramer and van Leeuwen [@kramer1984cwr]), or that $|E(H)| = 2$ (Even, Itai and Shamir [@eis76]). In [@naves2008mfa], A. Sebő and the author gave a survey of the integer multiflow problem with some natural restrictions. It appeared that some combinations of additional constraints define problems that are still open. Among them, the complexity of the integer multiflow problem with $G$ planar, $r+c$ Eulerian and $|E(H)|$ bounded is unknown, in both the directed and undirected cases. In this paper, we address the directed acyclic case.
When $G$ is an acyclic digraph and $|E(H)|$ is bounded, the problem is still NP-hard when $r+c$ is Eulerian (Vygen [@vygen1995ncs]), or when $G$ is planar [@naves08]. When $G+H$ is planar, the polynomiality of the integer multiflow problem follows from the theorem of Lucchesi-Younger [@lucchesi1978mtd] on directed cuts packing. When $G$ is a planar acyclic digraph, $r+c$ is Eulerian but $|E(H)|$ is arbitrary, the problem is NP-hard (Marx [@marx2004edp]). An example of an instance where there is a half-integral solution but no integral solution is given in Figure \[fig:half-integral\]. In contrast, if $r(E(H))$ is bounded, it is polynomially solvable (Fortune, Hopcroft and Wyllie [@ForHopWyl80]), even without the planarity assumption. The following theorem states a pseudo-polynomiality result when $|E(H)|$ is bounded but not $r(E(H))$.
\[theorem\] The arc-disjoint paths problem when $G$ is a planar acyclic digraph and $G+H$ is Eulerian, is decidable in time $O(f(R)^{k^2} k^3 n)$ where $f$ is a polynomial, $n = |V(G)|$, $k = |E(H)|$ and $R = \max_{h \in E(H)} r(h)$.
(nx32y19) at (32,19) ; (nx32y11) at (32,11) ; (nx24y11) at (24,11) ; (nx24y19) at (24,19) ; (nx16y19) at (16,19) ; (nx16y11) at (16,11) ; (nx8y11) at (8,11) ; (nx8y19) at (8,19) ; (nx34y15) at (34,15) ; (nx30y15) at (30,15) ; (nx26y15) at (26,15) ; (nx22y15) at (22,15) ; (nx18y15) at (18,15) ; (nx14y15) at (14,15) ; (nx10y15) at (10,15) ; (nx6y15) at (6,15) ; (nx8y11) .. controls (12,7) and (28,7) .. (nx32y11); (nx8y19) .. controls (12,23) and (28,23) .. (nx32y19); (nx32y11) – (nx34y15); (nx32y11) – (nx30y15); (nx32y19) – (nx34y15); (nx32y19) – (nx30y15); (nx24y19) – (nx32y19); (nx24y11) – (nx32y11); (nx26y15) – (nx24y11); (nx22y15) – (nx24y11); (nx26y15) – (nx24y19); (nx22y15) – (nx24y19); (nx8y19) – (nx16y19); (nx24y11) – (nx16y11); (nx24y19) – (nx16y19); (nx16y19) – (nx18y15); (nx16y19) – (nx14y15); (nx16y11) – (nx14y15); (nx16y11) – (nx18y15); (nx8y11) – (nx16y11); (nx10y15) – (nx8y11); (nx6y15) – (nx8y11); (nx10y15) – (nx8y19); (nx6y15) – (nx8y19); (34,15) node\[anchor = north west\] [$8'$]{}; (26,15) node\[anchor = north west\] [$8$]{}; (18,15) node\[anchor = north west\] [$6'$]{}; (10,15) node\[anchor = north west\] [$4$]{}; (34,15) node\[anchor = south west\] [$4'$]{}; (26,15) node\[anchor = south west\] [$5$]{}; (18,15) node\[anchor = south west\] [$2'$]{}; (10,15) node\[anchor = south west\] [$2$]{}; (30,15) node\[anchor = north east\] [$7'$]{}; (22,15) node\[anchor = north east\] [$7$]{}; (14,15) node\[anchor = north east\] [$5'$]{}; (6,15) node\[anchor = north east\] [$3$]{}; (30,15) node\[anchor = south east\] [$3'$]{}; (22,15) node\[anchor = south east\] [$6$]{}; (14,15) node\[anchor = south east\] [$1'$]{}; (6,15) node\[anchor = south east\] [$1$]{};
This result is partly inspired by Schrijver’s work [@schrijver1990hrm], [@schrijver1993cdp] on vertex-disjoint paths problems in graphs embedded on surfaces. Vertex-disjoints paths on a surface can be represented as non-intersecting curves on the same surface. Schrijver’s main idea is to guess the homotopies of those curves, and then solve the vertex-disjoint paths problem with these additional topologic constraints. As we are working with arc-disjoint paths, these can intersect in vertices, and the homotopic routing method does not work in our case. Nevertheless, we show that there is a canonical way for paths to relate to one another, and acyclicity restricts the number of guesses one has to provide in order to have a correct one among them.
Theorem \[theorem\] can also be compared to a theorem of Ibaraki and Nagamochi [@nagamochi1990multicommodity], stating the polynomiality of the integer multiflow problem when $G$ is a planar acyclic digraph, $G+H$ is Eulerian, all the sources of $G$ and the tails of demand arcs are on the outer boundary of $G$. Their algorithm obeys a fully polynomial time bound and does not fix the number of demand arcs, at the price of a stronger assumption on $G$.
Outline of the proof
====================
We now sketch the proof of Theorem \[theorem\], before giving a more formal proof. Let $(G,H,r,c)$ be an Eulerian instance with $G$ planar acyclic. Our algorithm first guesses, for any pair of paths in the solution, what their behaviour is at their common vertices. Suppose that $P$ and $Q$ intersect at vertex $v$. Because we are dealing with planar graphs, we can describe the behaviour of $P$ in the following way: either $P$ crosses $Q$, or $P$ turns to the left, or $P$ turns to the right of $Q$. Considering every vertex and every pair of paths, this gives a behaviour pattern. We show that the behaviour pattern uniquely determines the solution to the arc-disjoint paths problem. In order to prove that, note that because $G+H$ is Eulerian and $G$ is acyclic, every arc is saturated by a solution (because the residual capacities define an Eulerian acyclic digraph, that is a graph with no arc). The following lemma is the key to the uniqueness:
\[lemma:unique-routing\] Let $v$ be a vertex of $G$ with $n$ incoming arcs and $n$ outgoing arcs, and $\mathcal{P}$ a set of $n$ arc-disjoint paths containing $v$. Then the outgoing arc of each path is uniquely determined by the incoming arcs of each path going through $v$ and the relative behaviours of paths at $v$.
\(o) at (0,0) ; (o) – (0:3);(0:3.5) node [$2$]{}; (o) – (30:3);(30:3.5) node [$3$]{}; (o) – (60:3);(60:3.5) node [$L$]{}; (o) – (90:3);(90:3.5) node [$4$]{}; (o) – (120:3);(120:3.5) node [$5$]{}; (o) – (150:3);(150:3.5) node [$C$]{}; (o) – (180:3);(180:3.5) node [$R$]{}; (o) – (210:3);(210:3.5) node [$C$]{}; (o) – (240:3);(240:3.5) node [$6$]{}; (o) – (270:3);(270:3.5) node [$P$]{}; (o) – (300:3);(300:3.5) node [$L$]{}; (o) – (330:3);(330:3.5) node [$1$]{};
Before proving the lemma, we explain what happens on the example of Figure \[fig:routing-a-vertex\]. Suppose the path $P$ (whose entering arc is indicated) must go to the left of the paths using arcs $L$, to the right of the one coming from $R$, and cross the paths from $C$. It cannot leave by arcs $1$, $2$ and $3$, without violating the condition on paths from $L$ arcs. It cannot leave by arc $6$ because of path $R$. If it leaves by arc $4$, then the two paths $L$ and the two paths $C$ must leave by arcs $1$, $2$ and $3$. Hence $P$ can only leave by arc $5$.
Let $P$ be a path entering $v$. Let $C$, $L$ and $R$ be respectively the sets of paths crossing $P$, going to the left of $P$ and to the right of $P$ at $v$. Let $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{2k-1}$ be the arcs incident to $v$, occurring in that order around $v$, with $a_0$ being the incoming arc of $P$.
Let $i$ be such that $P$ leaves $v$ by $a_i$. The paths in $L$ must have their arcs incident to $v$ in $I_1 + \{a_1,\ldots,a_{i-1}\}$ by definition of left. Similarly, the paths in $R$ use arcs in $I_2 = \{a_{i+1},\ldots,a_{2k-1}\}$. The paths in $C$ have one arc in $I_1$ and one in $I_2$. Thus $i = 2 |L| + |C| + 1$ is the unique possible candidate.
By repeating the argument for each path, the solution is unique.
Note that to be feasible, for each path we must have that $a_i$ is a leaving arc that is between the last incoming arc of a path in $L$ and the first incoming arc of a path in $R$.
To get the uniqueness for the whole graph, it is then sufficient to consider the vertices in an acyclic ordering, and route them consecutively (see the end of Section \[sec:proof\] for the detailed algorithm). It proves that we only need to know the relative behaviour of the paths. Guessing naively the behaviour pattern would lead to an exponential algorithm. The main part of the proof is then to show how we can drastically reduce the quantity of information needed to guess the behaviours of paths. We prove the following lemma:
\[lemma:routing-schemes\] There is a function $F : {\mathbb{N}}\times {\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ such that for every network $(G,H,r,c)$ with $G$ planar acyclic and $G+H$ Eulerian, it is sufficient to consider only $O(F(R,k))$ behaviour patterns, where $R = \max_{h \in E(H)} r(h)$, $k = |E(H)|$.
Here, the important fact is that the number of routing schemes does not depend on $G$. We will also show that these patterns can be enumerated. The rest of the paper is dedicated to the proof of this lemma.
Notations and terminology
=========================
Recall that $G$ is a planar acyclic supply digraph, $H$ is a demand graph, and $G+H$ is Eulerian. We assume that an embedding of $G$ on the sphere is given. The capacity of every arc is $1$. This can be achieved by replicating each arc in as many copies as its capacity. Without loss of generality, the tail of each demand arc is a sink and its head is a source of $G$; for a demand arc $vu$, add two new terminals $s_{uv}$ and $t_{uv}$, $r(vu)$ supply arcs $s_{uv}u$ and $vt_{uv}$, and a demand arc $t_{uv}s_{uv}$ with request $r(vu)$. So $H$ can be supposed to be a matching.
A *path* $P$ is a sequence of distinct arcs such that the head of an arc is the tail of the following arc. The *origin* of the path is the tail of the first arc, and the *destination* is the head of the last arc. Since we work with acyclic digraphs, our paths are always simple. We denote $E(P)$ the arcs of $P$, and $V(P)$ the vertices incident to $E(P)$. The origin and the destination of a path are its *endpoints*, all the other vertices of $V(P)$ are said to be *internal* If $P$ is a path with destination $u$, and $Q$ is a path arc-disjoint form $P$ with origin $u$, we denote $PQ$ the concatenation of the two paths, that is the path $R$ with the same origin as $P$, the same destination as $Q$, and $E(R) = E(P) \cup E(Q)$. $P^{-1}$ is the path obtained by reversing each arc of $P$ (this notation is abusive, as $P^{-1}$ is not a path in $G$ but in a graph obtained from $G$ by reversing some arcs, but we will use this notation only for defining undirected cycle of $G$). If $u$ and $v$ are in $V(P)$, we denote $P_{uv}$ the subpath of $P$ with origin $u$ and destination $v$, $P_{\bot{}u}$ the subpath with the same origin as $P$ and destination $u$, and $P_{u\top}$ the subpath with origin $u$ and the same destination as $P$. A path with origin $s$ and destination $t$ is called an $(s,t)$-path.
We introduce basic tools to work on the topology of paths in the plane. Let $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ be any family indexed by the interval $\llbracket 1; n\rrbracket$. Elements $(e_i, e_j)$ are said to be *consecutive* if $j = i+1$, or $i=n$ and $j=1$, thus defining a *cyclic order*. Let $a$, $b$ and $c$ be three elements in this family, $b$ is *between* $a$ and $c$ if $b$ appears in the sequence of consecutive elements $a = u_1, u_2,\ldots ,u_k=c$, and *strictly between* if $b \notin \{a,c\}$. If $b$ is strictly between $a$ and $c$, $b$ is not between $c$ and $a$. An *interval* of a cyclic order is either the empty set, or the set of elements between a given pair of elements which are then called the *extremities* of the interval. Note that any pair defines two distinct intervals, depending on their order. The complement of an interval is an interval. We say that $b$ is *before* $c$ in the interval of extremities $(a,d)$ if $b$ and $c$ are between $a$ and $d$ and $b$ is between $a$ and $c$.
In a planar digraph, the order of appearance of the arcs incident to a vertex $v$ induces a cyclic order; $y$ is between $x$ and $z$ if $x$, $y$ and $z$ appears in that order around $v$ in the positive (anticlockwise) orientation. Two consecutive arcs are adjacent to a common face. This order induces two cycle orders on the incoming and on the outgoing arcs of $v$. Hence we have three orders, for $\delta(v)$, $\delta^+(v)$ and $\delta^-(v)$ respectively. Any set of arc-disjoint paths sharing the same endpoints will be considered with the cyclic order defined by their first arcs leaving their common source. All the indices in the following will be chosen with respect to these cyclic orders, and will be considered modulo the cardinality of the family.
For any path $P$ and any vertex $v \in V(P)$, we denote $P_v^-$ and $P_v^+$ the arcs of $P$ entering and leaving $v$, when they exist. Let $P$ and $Q$ be two distinct paths, and $v$ be an inner vertex of both $P$ and $Q$. We say that (see Figure \[fig:crossing\]):
- $P$ and $Q$ *cross at* $v$ if $P_v^-$ and $P_v^+$ are not in the same interval with extremities $Q_v^-$ and $Q_v^+$ (in the cyclic order induced by $\delta(v)$),
- $P$ *goes to the right* of $Q$ at $v$ if $P_v^-$ and $P_v^+$ are in the same interval with extremities $Q_v^-$ and $Q_v^+$, and $P_v^-$ is before $P_v^+$ in this interval.
- $P$ *goes to the left* of $Q$ at $v$ if $P_v^-$ and $P_v^+$ are in the same interval with extremities $Q_v^-$ and $Q_v^+$, and $P_v^+$ is before $P_v^-$ in this interval.
(nx23y18) at (23,18) ; (nx23y14) at (23,14) ; (nx19y18) at (19,18) ; (nx19y14) at (19,14) ; (nx16y14) at (16,14) ; (nx16y18) at (16,18) ; (nx12y18) at (12,18) ; (nx12y14) at (12,14) ; (nx9y14) at (9,14) ; (nx5y18) at (5,18) ; (nx5y14) at (5,14) ; (nx9y18) at (9,18) ;
(nx7y16) at (7,16) ; (nx21y16) at (21,16) ; (nx14y16) at (14,16) ;
(7,16) node\[anchor=south\] [$v$]{}; (14,16) node\[anchor=south\] [$v$]{}; (21,16) node\[anchor=south\] [$v$]{};
(nx14y16) – (nx12y14); (nx16y14) – (nx14y16); (nx21y16) – (nx23y18); (nx19y18) – (nx21y16); (nx14y16) – (nx16y18); (nx12y18) – (nx14y16); (nx21y16) – (nx23y14); (nx19y14) – (nx21y16); (nx9y14) – (nx7y16); (nx7y16) – (nx5y18); (nx5y14) – (nx7y16); (nx7y16) – (nx9y18); (21,12) node [To the right]{}; (14,12) node [To the left]{}; (7,12) node [Crossing]{}; (9,18) node\[anchor = south west\] [$P^+_v$]{}; (23,14) node\[anchor = north west\] [$P^+_v$]{}; (16,14) node\[anchor = north west\] [$P^-_v$]{}; (19,14) node\[anchor = north east\] [$P^-_v$]{}; (12,14) node\[anchor = north east\] [$P^+_v$]{}; (5,14) node\[anchor = north east\] [$P^-_v$]{}; (22,18) node [$Q$]{}; (15,18) node [$Q$]{}; (5,18) node\[anchor = south east\] [$Q^+_v$]{}; (9,14) node\[anchor = north west\] [$Q^+_v$]{};
$P$ and $Q$ *cross* if they cross at $v$ for some vertex $v$, otherwise they are *uncrossed*. From the definition, the following statements are equivalent:
- $P$ goes to the left of $Q$ at $v$,
- $P$ goes to the left of $Q^{-1}$ at $v$,
- $P^{-1}$ goes to the right of $Q$ at $v$.
The knowledge of whether $P$ crosses, goes to the left or to the right of $Q$ at $v$ will be called the *behaviour* of $P$ relative to $Q$ at $v$. One of the main ideas of our proof is that the solutions are determined by the relative behaviours of each pair of paths at each node.
An *acyclic* (or *topological*) order for $G$ is a linear order of the vertices such that for all arcs $uv \in E(G)$, $v$ is greater than $u$. A digraph admits an acyclic order if and only if it is acyclic. We assume that we are given an acyclic order $<$ for $G$. We call the *first common vertex* of $P$ and $Q$ the smallest vertex of $V(P) \cap V(Q)$.
Proof of the theorem {#sec:proof}
====================
\[lemma:uncrossing\] Let $G$ be a planar acyclic digraph and $\mathcal{P}$ be a set of arc-disjoint paths in $G$. Then there is a set $\mathcal{P}'$ of arc-disjoint paths satisfying the same demands as $\mathcal{P}$, such that:
- two paths of $\mathcal{P}'$ sharing a common endpoint do not cross,
- two crossed paths of $\mathcal{P}'$ cross at a unique vertex, their first common vertex.
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two paths of $\mathcal{P}$, and $u < v$ be two vertices in $V(P) \cap V(Q)$. Suppose that $P$ and $Q$ cross at $v$, or cross at $u$ and $v$ is their common destination (if there are no $P$ and $Q$ with these properties, we choose $\mathcal{P}' = \mathcal{P}$).
We define $P'=P_{\bot{}u}Q_{uv}P_{v\top}$ and $Q'=Q_{\bot{}u}P_{uv}Q_{v\top}$. Let $\mathcal{P}' = (\mathcal{P} \setminus \{P,Q\}) \cup \{P',Q'\}$. Note that $\mathcal{P'}$ satisfies the same demands as $\mathcal{P}$. For any vertex $w$ different from $u$ and $v$, the number of pairs of paths that cross at $w$ does not change. if $P$ and $Q$ cross at $v$ and not at $u$, then the number of crossings at $v$ is decreased by at least $1$. Otherwise, the number of crossing at $u$ is decreased by at least $1$, while the number of crossing at $v$ is not increased. Consider for a set of arc-disjoint paths $\mathcal{Q}$ the vector $\operatorname{cr}(\mathcal{Q}) \in \mathbb{N}^{|V|}$, whose $i$th coordinate is the number of crossings in $\mathcal{Q}$ at the $i^{\textrm{th}}$ greatest vertex. Then this vector is lexicographically decreased by the transformation, $\operatorname{cr}(\mathcal{P'}) < \operatorname{cr}(\mathcal{P})$. By induction on this vector, the lemma is proved.
We remark that Ibaraki and Nagamochi’s theorem [@nagamochi1990multicommodity] (discussed at the end of the introduction) is a consequence of this lemma. Let’s state their theorem.
There is a polynomial-time algorithm to solve the arc-disjoint paths problem when $G$ is a planar directed acyclic graph, $r+c$ is Eulerian, the tails of the demand arcs and the sources of $G$ are on the boundary of the outer face of $G$.
Take a source $s$ on the outer boundary of $G$. Because $G+H$ is Eulerian, we have $|\delta^+(s)|$ demand arcs with destination $s$. The corresponding paths, if they exists, can be chosen uncrossed by Lemma \[lemma:uncrossing\]. Now we can order the demand arcs depending on the order of their tails on the outer boundary of $G$, this determines the order used by the corresponding paths to leave $s$. Then, we can reduce the original problem to a new problem on $G \setminus \{v\}$, satisfying the same assumptions (new sources are also on the outer boundary). Deriving a polynomial-time is then straightforward.
A set of arc-disjoint paths is said to be *uncrossed* if it satisfies the two conditions of Lemma \[lemma:uncrossing\]. We only consider uncrossed sets.
Recall that $G$ is embedded on the sphere, and that two disjoint-paths with the same extremities are consecutive if their first arcs are consecutive. Let $P$ and $Q$ be two uncrossed arc-disjoint $(s,t)$-paths. Because $P$ and $Q$ are arc-disjoint, $PQ^{-1}$ defines a closed curve on the sphere, which is simple within an arbitrarily small continuous deformation (because of the potential common inner vertices). By Jordan’s theorem, this simple curve separates the sphere in two connected components. We call *inside* (or *interior*) the component for which $PQ^{-1}$ runs positively along its boundary, and *outside* the other component. If $P$ and $Q$ are consecutive, any other $(s,t)$-path lies on the outside of $PQ^{-1}$. Thus, given a solution, for any demand arc $h = ts$, we can partition the sphere in $r(h)$ disjoint parts, called *regions*, which are the interiors of two consecutive $(s,t)$-paths. We denote $\mathcal{K}_i^h$ the region defined by the $P_iP^{-1}_{i+1}$. The regions associated with a demand are considered in the cyclic order induced by their indices. Figure \[fig:regions\] shows the region $\mathcal{K}_1^{st}$ associated with the four paths of a commodity $st$.
(nx13y16) at (13,16) ; (nx14y15) at (14,15) ; (nx18y20) at (18,20) ; (nx15y18) at (15,18) ; (nx16y25) at (16,25) ; (nx18y25) at (18,25) ; (nx20y23) at (20,23) ; (nx11y28) at (11,28) ; (nx14y24) at (14,24) ; (nx13y24) at (13,24) ; (nx19y27) at (19,27) ; (nx23y21) at (23,21) ; (nx22y16) at (22,16) ; (nx20y7) at (20,7) ; (nx22y11) at (22,11) ; (nx19y13) at (19,13) ; (nx17y16) at (17,16) ; (nx19y15) at (19,15) ; (nx18y12) at (18,12) ; (nx18y9) at (18,9) ; (nx12y20) at (12,20) ; (nx15y20) at (15,20) ; (nx12y18) at (12,18) ; (nx13y17) at (13,17) ; (nx13y13) at (13,13) ; (nx13y12) at (13,12) ; (nx15y10) at (15,10) ; (nx12y23) at (12,23) ; (nx10y18) at (10,18) ; (nx10y12) at (10,12) ; (nx14y22) at (14,22) ; (nx13y22) at (13,22) ; (nx9y24) at (9,24) ; (nx8y21) at (8,21) ; (nx7y18) at (7,18) ; (nx6y14) at (6,14) ; (nx8y9) at (8,9) ; (nx12y6) at (12,6) ;
(nx15y23) at (15,23) ; (nx15y7) at (15,7) ; (15,7) node\[anchor=west\] [$s$]{}; (15,23) node\[anchor=south\] [$t$]{};
(15,7) .. controls (18,9) and (18,12) .. (19,13) .. controls (19,15) and (17,16) .. (13,16) .. controls (15,18) and (18,20) .. (20,23) .. controls (18,25) and (16,25) .. (15,23) .. controls (14,24) and (13,24) .. (12,23) .. controls (11,28) and (19,27) .. (20,23) .. controls (23,21) and (22,16) .. (19,13) .. controls (22,11) and (20,7) .. (15,7); (18,18) node [$\mathcal{K}_1^{st}$]{};
(nx12y23) .. controls (nx13y24) and (nx14y24) .. (nx15y23); (nx20y23) .. controls (nx19y27) and (nx11y28) .. (nx12y23); (nx19y13) .. controls (nx22y16) and (nx23y21) .. (nx20y23); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx20y7) and (nx22y11) .. (nx19y13) node\[midway,above\] [$P_1$]{};
(nx20y23) .. controls (nx18y25) and (nx16y25) .. (nx15y23); (nx13y16) .. controls (nx15y18) and (nx18y20) .. (nx20y23); (nx19y13) .. controls (nx19y15) and (nx17y16) .. (nx13y16); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx18y9) and (nx18y12) .. (nx19y13) node\[midway,above\] [$P_2$]{};
(nx10y18) .. controls (nx12y20) and (nx15y20) .. (nx15y23); (nx13y16) .. controls (nx13y17) and (nx12y18) .. (nx10y18); (nx10y12) .. controls (nx13y13) and (nx14y15) .. (nx13y16); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx15y10) and (nx13y12) .. (nx10y12) node\[midway,above\] [$P_3$]{};
(nx12y23) .. controls (nx13y22) and (nx14y22) .. (nx15y23); (nx10y18) .. controls (nx8y21) and (nx9y24) .. (nx12y23); (nx10y12) .. controls (nx6y14) and (nx7y18) .. (nx10y18); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx12y6) and (nx8y9) .. (nx10y12) node\[midway,left\] [$P_4$]{};
\[lemma:crossing-intervals\] Let $t_1s_1, t_2s_2$ be two distinct demand arcs, with respective requests $r_1$ and $r_2$, and $\mathcal{P}$ be an uncrossed solution. Then there is an interval $\mathcal{I}_1$ of $(s_1,t_1)$-paths and an interval $\mathcal{I}_2$ of $(s_2,t_2)$-paths in $\mathcal{P}$, such that for any $(s_1,t_1)$-path $P$ and any $(s_2,t_2)$-path $Q$ in $\mathcal{P}$, $P$ and $Q$ are crossed if and only if either $P \in \mathcal{I}_1$ and $Q \in \mathcal{I}_2$, or $P \notin \mathcal{I}_1$ and $Q \notin \mathcal{I}_2$.
Figure \[fig:intervals\] illustrates this lemma. The two intervals are given by the dashed paths.Two paths from two distinct commodities cross each other if and only if they are both dashed, or both plain.
Let $P_1,\ldots,P_{r_1}$ be the paths satisfying the demand $t_1s_1$. $s_2$ and $t_2$ are contained in $\mathcal{K}_i^{t_1s_1}$ and $\mathcal{K}_j^{t_1s_1}$ respectively. Because $s_1$ and $t_1$ are a source and a sink of $G$, any $(s_2,t_2)$-path must intersect consecutive regions of $t_1s_1$. As two consecutive regions are separated by a $(s_1,t_1)$-path, a path going from region $\mathcal{K}_i^{t_1s_1}$ to $\mathcal{K}_{i+1}^{t_1s_1}$ crosses $P_i$. Because the solution is uncrossed, an $(s_2,t_2)$-path must go through a monotonic sequence of regions, either $\mathcal{K}_i^{t_1s_1},\mathcal{K}_{i+1}^{t_1s_1},\ldots,\mathcal{K}_j^{t_1s_1}$ or $\mathcal{K}_i^{t_1s_1},\mathcal{K}_{i-1}^{t_1s_1},\ldots,\mathcal{K}_j^{t_1s_1}$.This defines $\mathcal{I}_1 = P_{i+1} \cup P_{i+2} \cup \ldots \cup P_j$, and $\mathcal{I}_2$ the sets of paths crossing the paths in $\mathcal{I}_1$. By symmetry, $\mathcal{I}_2$ is also an interval.
(nx13y16) at (13,16) ; (nx14y15) at (14,15) ; (nx18y20) at (18,20) ; (nx15y18) at (15,18) ; (nx16y25) at (16,25) ; (nx18y25) at (18,25) ; (nx20y23) at (20,23) ; (nx11y28) at (11,28) ; (nx14y24) at (14,24) ; (nx13y24) at (13,24) ; (nx19y27) at (19,27) ; (nx23y21) at (23,21) ; (nx22y16) at (22,16) ; (nx20y7) at (20,7) ; (nx22y11) at (22,11) ; (nx19y13) at (19,13) ; (nx17y16) at (17,16) ; (nx19y15) at (19,15) ; (nx18y12) at (18,12) ; (nx18y9) at (18,9) ; (nx12y20) at (12,20) ; (nx15y20) at (15,20) ; (nx12y18) at (12,18) ; (nx13y17) at (13,17) ; (nx13y13) at (13,13) ; (nx13y12) at (13,12) ; (nx15y10) at (15,10) ; (nx12y23) at (12,23) ; (nx10y18) at (10,18) ; (nx10y12) at (10,12) ; (nx14y22) at (14,22) ; (nx13y22) at (13,22) ; (nx9y24) at (9,24) ; (nx8y21) at (8,21) ; (nx7y18) at (7,18) ; (nx6y14) at (6,14) ; (nx8y9) at (8,9) ; (nx12y6) at (12,6) ;
(nx15y23) at (15,23) ; (nx15y7) at (15,7) ; (15,23) node\[anchor=south\] [$s_1$]{}; (15,7) node\[anchor=west\] [$t_1$]{};
(15,7) .. controls (18,9) and (18,12) .. (19,13) .. controls (19,15) and (17,16) .. (13,16) .. controls (15,18) and (18,20) .. (20,23) .. controls (18,25) and (16,25) .. (15,23) .. controls (14,24) and (13,24) .. (12,23) .. controls (11,28) and (19,27) .. (20,23) .. controls (23,21) and (22,16) .. (19,13) .. controls (22,11) and (20,7) .. (15,7); (15,7) .. controls (12,6) and (8,9) .. (10,12) .. controls (6,14) and (7,18) .. (10,18) .. controls (8,21) and (9,24) .. (12,23) .. controls (13,22) and (14,22) .. (15,23) .. controls (15,20) and (12,20) .. (10,18) .. controls (12,18) and (13,17) .. (13,16) .. controls (14,15) and (13,13) .. (10,12) .. controls (13,12) and (15,10) .. (15,7);
(nx12y23) .. controls (nx13y24) and (nx14y24) .. (nx15y23); (nx20y23) .. controls (nx19y27) and (nx11y28) .. (nx12y23); (nx19y13) .. controls (nx22y16) and (nx23y21) .. (nx20y23); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx20y7) and (nx22y11) .. (nx19y13);
(nx20y23) .. controls (nx18y25) and (nx16y25) .. (nx15y23); (nx13y16) .. controls (nx15y18) and (nx18y20) .. (nx20y23); (nx19y13) .. controls (nx19y15) and (nx17y16) .. (nx13y16); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx18y9) and (nx18y12) .. (nx19y13);
(nx10y18) .. controls (nx12y20) and (nx15y20) .. (nx15y23); (nx13y16) .. controls (nx13y17) and (nx12y18) .. (nx10y18); (nx10y12) .. controls (nx13y13) and (nx14y15) .. (nx13y16); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx15y10) and (nx13y12) .. (nx10y12);
(nx12y23) .. controls (nx13y22) and (nx14y22) .. (nx15y23); (nx10y18) .. controls (nx8y21) and (nx9y24) .. (nx12y23); (nx10y12) .. controls (nx6y14) and (nx7y18) .. (nx10y18); (nx15y7) .. controls (nx12y6) and (nx8y9) .. (nx10y12);
(nx21y19) at (21,19) ;(21,19) node\[anchor=north west\] [$s_2$]{}; (nx9y15) at (9,15) ;(9,15) node\[anchor=north west\] [$t_2$]{};
(nx19y13) .. controls (21,16) and (21,18) .. (nx21y19); (nx9y15) .. controls (11,13) and (16,12) .. (nx19y13);
(nx13y16) .. controls (14,19) and (16,20) .. (nx21y19); (nx9y15) .. controls (10,16) and (12,15) .. (nx13y16);
(nx10y18) .. controls (10,21) and (17,22) .. (nx21y19); (nx9y15) .. controls (9,16) and (9,17) .. (nx10y18);
(22,28) .. controls (23,26) and (23,22) .. (nx21y19); (13,32) .. controls (17,32) and (21,30) .. (22,28); (4,23) .. controls (4,27) and (9,32) .. (13,32); (nx9y15) .. controls (7,15) and (4,19) .. (4,23);
(nx20y23) .. controls (21,21) and (21,20) .. (nx21y19); (10,29) .. controls (13,31) and (19,29) .. (nx20y23); (nx9y15) .. controls (6,21) and (7,27) .. (10,29);
(16,4) .. controls (20,4) and (25,12) .. (nx21y19); (nx10y12) .. controls (6,9) and (12,4) .. (16,4); (nx9y15) .. controls (10,14) and (10,13) .. (nx10y12);
\[lemma:second-intersection\] Let $P$ and $Q$ be two paths of an uncrossed solution, $u < v$ be two vertices in $V(P) \cap V(Q)$. $P$ goes to the left of $Q$ at $v$ if and only if the destination of $P$ is inside $P_{uv}Q^{-1}_{uv}$.
Note that $P$ and $Q$ do not cross at $v$. $P_{v\top}$ cannot intersect $P_{uv}Q_{uv}^{-1}$ by acyclicity, it is contained in the interior or the outside of $P_{uv}Q_{uv}^{-1}$. Thus the position of the destination of $P$ determines the behaviour of $P$ relatively to $Q$ at $v$ (see Figure \[fig:second\]).
(nx18y23) at (18,23) ; (nx15y20) at (15,20) ; (nx10y17) at (10,17) ; (nx7y15) at (7,15) ; (nx16y12) at (16,12) ; (nx12y9) at (12,9) ; (nx24y18) at (24,18) ; (nx20y15) at (20,15) ;
(nx20y19) at (20,19) ;(20,19) node\[anchor=east\] [$t_2$]{}; (nx6y7) at (6,7) ;(6,7) node\[anchor=east\] [$s_2$]{};
(nx23y22) at (23,22) ;(23,22) node\[anchor=north west\] [$w$]{}; (nx15y15) at (15,15) ;(15,15) node\[anchor=east\] [$v$]{}; (nx8y11) at (8,11) ;(8,11) node\[anchor=west\] [$u$]{};
(nx26y25) at (26,25) ;(26,25) node\[anchor=west\] [$t_1$]{}; (nx3y12) at (3,12) ;(3,12) node\[anchor=east\] [$s_1$]{};
(nx23y22) – (nx20y19); (nx15y15) .. controls (nx15y20) and (nx18y23) .. (nx23y22); (nx8y11) .. controls (nx7y15) and (nx10y17) .. (nx15y15); (nx6y7) – (nx8y11);
(8,11) .. controls (7,15) and (10,17) .. (15,15) .. controls (16,12) and (12,9) .. (8,11); (15,15) .. controls (15,20) and (18,23) .. (23,22) .. controls (24,18) and (20,15) .. (15,15);
(nx23y22) – (nx26y25); (nx15y15) .. controls (nx20y15) and (nx24y18) .. (nx23y22); (nx8y11) .. controls (nx12y9) and (nx16y12) .. (nx15y15); (nx3y12) – (nx8y11);
Thus, the relative behaviours of two paths at a vertex that is not their first common vertex depends only on the position of their terminals and the subpaths from their origin to the given vertex.
\[lemma:two-cycles\] Let $C$ and $D$ be two cycles of a planar graph with disjoint interiors, and $v \in V(C)$ be a vertex that appears exactly once in $D$. Then $D$ goes to the left of $C$ at $v$.
If $D$ goes to the right of $C$ at $v$, $C$ meets the interior of $D$, contradiction.
\[lemma:non-crossing-intervals\] Let $P_1,\ldots,P_n$ be the $(s,t)$-paths of a solution, $Q$ and $R$ two paths for another request, and consider the cycle $C = QR^{-1}$. The set of $(s,t)$-paths that go to the left (resp. right) of $C$ on their first common vertex is an interval.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(-2,-3) .. controls (0,-2) .. (260:1); (-2,-3) .. controls (-2.5,-1.5) .. (-1,0); (260:1) – (-1,0) – (-2,-3) (260:1) .. controls (220:1.5) .. (-1,0) – cycle ; (-2,-3) .. controls (-0.7,-2) .. (-1,0); (-2,-3) .. controls (-2.5,-1.5) .. (-1,0);
(0,0) circle (1); (0,0) circle (1);
(1,0) arc (0:120:1); (120:1) arc (120:240:1); (240:1) arc (240:360:1); (v) at (-1,0) ; (u) at (260:1) ; (s) at (-2,-3) ; (t) at (-3,3) ; (-1,0) .. controls (-1,2) .. (-3,3) .. controls (-3,1) .. (-1,0);
(0,0) node [$C$]{}; (-1,-1.7) node [$D$]{}; (260:1) node\[anchor=north west\] [$u$]{}; (-1,0) node\[anchor=west\] [$v$]{}; (s) node\[anchor=north\] [$s$]{}; (t) node\[anchor=east\] [$t$]{}; (-2.5,-1) node [$P_j$]{}; (0,-2.5) node [$P_i$]{}; (1,0) arc (0:120:1); (120:1) arc (120:240:1); (240:1) arc (240:360:1); (v) at (-1,0) ; (u) at (260:1) ; (s) at (-2,-3) ; (t) at (-3,3) ;
\(s) .. controls (0,-2) .. (u); (u) .. controls (220:1.5) .. (v); (v) .. controls (-1,2) .. (t); (0,0) node [$C$]{}; (-1.4,-1.7) node [$D$]{}; (-2,1.5) node [$D'$]{}; (-1,0) node\[anchor=west\] [$v$]{}; (s) node\[anchor=north\] [$s$]{}; (t) node\[anchor=east\] [$t$]{}; (-2.5,-1) node [$P_j$]{}; (-0.7,-2.5) node [$P_i$]{};
\(s) .. controls (-2.5,-1.5) .. (v); (v) .. controls (-3,1) .. (t); \(s) .. controls (-0.7,-2) .. (v); (v) .. controls (-1,2) .. (t);
\(s) .. controls (-2.5,-1.5) .. (v); (v) .. controls (-3,1) .. (t);
$(a)$ $(b)$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without loss of generality, we index the $(s,t)$-paths such that the interior of $C$ is contained in $\mathcal{K}_k^{ts} \cup \ldots \cup \mathcal{K}_n^{ts}$ with $k$ maximal (thus $P_l$ goes inside $C$ if and only if $k < l \leq n$). Let $1 \leq i < j \leq k$ be such that $P_j$ goes to the left of $C$ at their first common vertex $v$. The interior of $P_iP_j^{-1}$ is $\mathcal{K}_i^{ts} \cup \ldots \cup \mathcal{K}_{j-1}^{ts}$, which is disjoint from the interior of $C$. Then $P_i$ contains $v$, otherwise, by Lemma \[lemma:two-cycles\] applied to $P_iP_j^{-1}$ and $C$ at $v$, $P_j$ would go to the right of $C$ at $v$. Let $u$ be the first common vertex between $P_i$ and $C$.
If $u \neq v$ (Figure \[fig:left-paths\], $(a)$), then as the interior of $D = (P_i)_{\bot{}v}(P_j)_{\bot{}v}^{-1}$ is disjoint from the interior of $C$, by applying Lemma \[lemma:two-cycles\] at $u$, $P_i$ goes to the left of $C$ at $u$.
If $u = v$ (Figure \[fig:left-paths\], $(b)$), we apply Lemma \[lemma:two-cycles\] to the cycles $D, C$ and $D' = (P_i)_{v\top}(P_j)_{v\top}, C$ at $v$, we get that the following sequences of arcs appear in that order around $v$ (where $b^-_v$, $b^+_v$, $c_v^-$ and $c_v^+$ are arcs of $C$, occurring in that order around $v$):
- $b_v^-, (P_j)_v^-, (P_i)_v^-, b_v^+$,
- $c_v^-, (P_i)_v^+, (P_j)_v^+, c_v^+$ (then, because $P_i$ and $P_j$ do not cross $D$, $b^-_v = c_v^-$ and $b^+_v = c_v^+$),
- and $c_v^-, P_j^+, P_j^-, c_v^+$ because $P_j$ goes to the left of $C$ at $v$.
Then, $P_i$ goes to the left of $C$ at $v$.
Thus, the paths that go to the left of $C$ at their first common vertices are of the form $P_1, \ldots, P_j$ for some $j$. The right case is symmetrical.
We call a *routing scheme* a function from $\mathcal{P}^2$ which gives the relative behaviour of each pair of paths at their first common vertex. A routing scheme is *feasible* if there is an uncrossed solution respecting it. We denote $R := \max_{h \in E(H)} r(h) + 1$ and $k := |E(H)|$.
\[lemma:routing-schemes\] For every network $(G,H,r,c)$ (with $G$ planar acyclic, $G+H$ Eulerian), there is a subset of at most $R^{4k^2}$ routing schemes that contains all the feasible routing schemes. Moreover, this subset can be polynomially enumerated.
By Lemmas \[lemma:crossing-intervals\] and \[lemma:non-crossing-intervals\], for each pair of demand arcs, it is sufficient to partition the paths for each demand arc into four intervals $A_1, B_1, C_1, D_1$ and $A_2, B_2, C_2, D_2$, where the relative behaviours of two paths are given by the following matrix : $$\begin{array}{c|cccc}
& A_2 & B_2 & C_2 & D_2 \\
\hline
A_1 & C & C & L/L & L/R \\
B_1 & C & C & R/L & R/R \\
C_1 & L/L & L/R & C & C \\
D_1 & R/L & R/R & C & C \\
\end{array}$$ Here, $L/R$ means that the path $P_1$ for the first demand goes to the left of the path for the second $P_2$, while $P_2$ goes to the right of $P_1$. $C$ means they cross each other, and the others are defined similarly. Hence for each pair of demands, we have $R^8$ possible division in intervals, and as there are $\binom{k}{2}$ possible pairs, this gives an upper bound of $R^{4k(k-1)}$.
From this, we derive an algorithm that tries every possible routing scheme. Given a routing scheme , we want to decide if it is feasible, and then to find an uncrossed solution. This is done by routing each vertex in increasing acyclic order, and making the paths grows from their origin. As $G+H$ is Eulerian and $G$ is acyclic, we have the property that in any solution, all the edges of the supply graphs are used by the solution. Thus, by routing in increasing acyclic order, when considering a vertex, every incoming arc is contained in a partial path already built. All we need to show is that, given a routing scheme, there is at most one way to grow the paths coming in the current vertex while respecting the routing scheme, which is the content of Lemma \[lemma:unique-routing\].
(of Theorem \[theorem\])
For each possible routing scheme determined by Lemma \[lemma:routing-schemes\], we run the following algorithm: starting with empty paths, route every vertex by increasing order. By routing a vertex, we mean adding one arc to each path entering this vertex, while respecting the routing scheme, following Lemma \[lemma:unique-routing\]. For a given routing scheme, there are two possible failures:
- it is not possible to route some vertex,
- the computed paths are not a solution, some demand is not satisfied.
The pseudo-polynomiality follows from the number of routing schemes, and the fact that routing a vertex $u$ can easily be done in polynomial time. First, we compute the relative behaviours, given either by the routing scheme, or by Lemma \[lemma:second-intersection\] (for that case, we need to precompute for each destination the set of vertices from which this destination is reachable), taking $O(d(u)^3)$. Then, we make the paths grow up in $O(d(u)^2)$. Note that $d(u) \leq Rk$, so the total complexity is $O(R^{4k^2 + 3} k^3 n)$.
Conclusion
==========
This result does not completely solve the planar acyclic arc-disjoint paths problem with the Eulerian condition, as the algorithm is only pseudo-polynomial. Finding an improvement to arbitrary requests would then be a next possible step. One could also try to extend this result to undirected graphs, or to directed graphs without the acyclicity condition on $G$, as both problems are open.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Banks, Douglas, Horowitz and Martinec [@bdhm:adscft] recently argued that in the microcanonical ensemble for string theory on AdS$_m\times$S$^n$, there is a phase transition between a black hole solution extended over the S$^n$ and a solution localized on the S$^n$. If we think of this AdS$_m\times$S$^n$ geometry as arising from the near-horizon limit of a black $m-2$ brane, the existence of this phase transition is puzzling. We present a resolution of this puzzle, and discuss its significance from the point of view of the dual $m-1$ dimensional field theory. We also discuss multi-black hole solutions in AdS.'
---
UCSBTH-98-7\
NSF-ITP-98-093\
hep-th/9810200
[**Microcanonical Phases of String Theory on AdS$_m\times$S$^n$**]{}
[Amanda W. Peet[^1]]{}
Institute for Theoretical Physics,\
University of California,\
Santa Barbara, CA 93106\
[Simon F. Ross[^2]]{}
Department of Physics\
University of California,\
Santa Barbara, CA 93106\
1.5cm
Introduction
============
The recently discovered AdS/CFT duality [@juan:N1; @witten:eucl; @gub:corr] between string theory in the bulk of anti-de Sitter spaces (times spheres) and large-$N$ conformal field theories gives new insights into both the gauge theory and the nature of the bulk theory. In an early application, Witten [@witten:therm] used this duality to relate the thermodynamics of asymptotically anti-de Sitter spaces [@hawk:adstherm] to the expected thermodynamics of the gauge theory. Recently, Banks, Douglas, Horowitz and Martinec [@bdhm:adscft] studied the microcanonical ensemble to determine the spectrum of string theory on these backgrounds in more detail. At high energies, the typical state is a Schwarzschild-AdS black hole. They argued that at lower energies, where the horizon radius is smaller than the cosmological scale, $r_+
< b$, the black hole will localize on the sphere due to the Gregory-Laflamme instability[@greg:unstable]. The typical state at lower energies will then be a $D$ dimensional Schwarzschild black hole.
Certain D$p$-branes have AdS$_{p+2}\times$S$^{D-p-2}$ spacetimes as their near-horizon geometries: the D3-brane, D1+D5 system, M2, and M5-branes have $(p,D)=(5,10), (1,6), (2,11), (5,11)$ respectively. The existence of the above localization instability in the near-horizon region should then imply some instability of these D$p$-branes. However, as the S$^{D-p-2}$ corresponds to a sphere surrounding the D$p$-brane, this is [*not*]{} the usual localization instability in the direction along the brane. Rather, it would imply that the stable solution is one in which the geometry is not spherically symmetric. This conclusion runs counter to the black hole no-hair theorems. We would also expect that any such asphericity would be radiated away. Thus there is apparently a puzzling contradiction between the expectations from the near-horizon region and the full asymptotically flat solution.
To understand the resolution of this puzzle, we consider the thermodynamics in more detail, especially the question of how it is affected by the asymptotic boundary conditions. In [@witten:therm], Witten considered two sets of asymptotic boundary conditions. The conformal boundary was taken to be either $S^p \times
S^1$ or ${\rm\bf R}^p \times S^1$.[^3] The discussion in [@bdhm:adscft] corresponds to the microcanonical version of the former choice, whereas the near-horizon limit of a D$p$-brane corresponds to the latter [@witten:therm; @hor:resol]. If we compactify the directions along the D$p$-brane, the conformal boundary is $T^p \times S^1$.
In section \[sec2\], we consider the conformal branes, in particular the D3-brane, for which the near-horizon limit is AdS$_5\times$S$^5$. We show that for a conformal boundary where the spatial part is $T^3$ (or ${\bf R}^3$), there is no localization instability on the S$^{5}$ in the microcanonical ensemble. The discussion is entirely similar for the M2- and M5-branes, and we state the results for these cases as well. We discuss the D1+D5-brane system, i.e., AdS$_3$, separately in section \[sec3\], as in this case, the distinction between different boundary conditions is more subtle. The spatial boundary is just a circle, but the six dimensional Schwarzschild black hole could be embedded in either an AdS$_3$ background, or in the $M=0$ BTZ black hole. We give a physical argument for preferring the latter. In section \[sec4\] we discuss multi-black hole solutions in AdS backgrounds, and argue that the toroidal black holes cannot split up into multi-black holes. We conclude with a brief discussion.
Localization on S$^{D-p-2}$ versus boundary conditions
======================================================
\[sec2\]
In this section, we consider the asymptotically AdS$_{p+2}\times$S$^{D-p-2}$ spacetimes, which are related to D3-, D1+D5-, M2- and M5-branes for $(p,D)=(3,10),(1,6),(2,11),(5,11)$ respectively. We will begin by reviewing the case of a spacetime with spherical boundary conditions, which was discussed in [@bdhm:adscft] for $p=3,1$. For high energies, the dominant contribution comes from the Schwarzschild-AdS black hole (times an S$^{D-p-2}$) [@witten:therm]. The metric of the asymptotically AdS factor is[^4] $$\label{sads}
ds^2 = \left({{r^2}\over{b^2}} +1 - {{w_{p+2} M}\over{r^{p-1}}}\right)
d\tau^2 + \left({{r^2}\over{b^2}} +1 - {{w_{p+2}
M}\over{r^{p-1}}}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_p ,$$ where $w_{p+2} = 16\pi G_{p+2}/[p {\rm Vol}(S^p)] \sim G_D/b^{D-p-2}$, and $G_d$ is the $d$-dimensional Newton constant. The radius $b$ of the AdS factor depends on the brane: $$\label{bdefs}
b_{D3} \sim (g_s N)^{1/4} \ell_s , \quad
b_{M2} \sim \ell_{11} N^{1/6}, \quad
b_{M5} \sim \ell_{11} N^{1/3}, \quad
b_{D1+D5} \sim (g_6 N_1 N_5)^{1/4} \ell_s,$$ where $\ell_s$ is the string length and $\ell_{11}=\ell_s g_s^{1/3}$ is the eleven-dimensional Planck length. The event horizon of this asymptotically AdS black hole is at $r=r_+$, where $r_+$ solves the equation $$\label{srp}
{{r_+^2}\over{b^2}} +1 - {{w_{p+2} M}\over{r_+^{p-1}}} = 0.$$ As shown in [@hawk:adstherm], the entropy is given by an expression familiar from asymptotically flat spaces, $$\label{sent}
S = {1 \over 4G_{p+2}} r_+^p {\rm Vol}(S^p).$$ There is no elementary expression for the entropy as a function of mass. If we rewrite the horizon position relation (\[srp\]) as an expression for the mass, $$M = {{p{\rm Vol}(S^p)}\over{16\pi G_{p+2}}}
\left({{r_+^{p+1}}\over{b^2}}+r_+^{p-1}\right),$$ we see that there are two limits of the parameter $r_+/b$ in which there is a simple approximate expression for the entropy. Black holes whose horizon is large by comparison to the radius of curvature of the AdS$_{p+2}$ have $r_+/b \gg 1$. In this case, the first term in the mass dominates, and hence $S \sim
(b^{D-2}/G_D)\,(G_DM/b^{D-3})^{p/(p+1)}$. For small black holes, $r_+/b \ll 1$, the second term dominates, and so $$\label{entmass}
S \sim {1 \over G_{p+2}} \left(G_{p+2} M\right)^{p/(p-1)} =
{{b^p}\over{G_{p+2}}}\left({{G_{p+2}M}\over{b^{p-1}}}\right)^{p/(p-1)}
\sim
{{b^{D-2}}\over{G_D}}\left({{G_DM}\over{b^{D-3}}}\right)^{p/(p-1)}.$$ In the canonical ensemble, these small black holes have negative specific heat, and are unstable. However, we work in the microcanonical ensemble, where the energy (rather than the temperature of the heat bath) is fixed and this instability is absent. Instead, a different kind of instability is present.
On scales much less than the radius of curvature of the AdS$_{p+2}$, the spacetime away from the black hole horizon looks approximately like flat $D$-dimensional spacetime. The entropy $S'$ of $D$-dimensional Schwarzschild black holes has a different dependence on mass than that for the small Schwarzschild-AdS$_{p+2}$ black holes: $$\label{fsent}
S' \sim {{1}\over{G_D}} \left(G_DM\right)^{(D-2)/(D-3)} =
{{b^{D-2}}\over{G_D}}\left({{G_DM}\over{b^{D-3}}}\right)^{(D-2)/(D-3)}.$$ By comparing this with (\[entmass\]), we see that the small Schwarzschild-AdS black holes are entropically unstable, and will undergo a localization transition leading to a $D$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole in this approximately flat region. The crossover happens when $r_+/b \sim 1$, and the entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole is larger for $r_+/b < 1$.
These properties of Schwarzschild-AdS black holes are of course all dependent on the form of the metric, which is in turn crucially dependent on the boundary conditions. We now turn to near-horizon limits of conformal branes in order to see if the puzzle persists in these geometries. The dominant contribution to the physics at high energies will come from a black hole with a toroidal horizon [@mann:top; @hor:resol; @witten:therm]. This black hole metric is obtained directly as the near-horizon limit of the brane metric. For the purposes of illustration we will specialize to the D3-brane case, and comment on the M-branes at the end of the section. The toroidal black hole metric is then $$\label{tor}
ds^2 = {\ell_s^4 U^2 \over b^2}
\left[ \left( 1 - {U_0^4 \over U^4} \right) d\tau^2
+ dy^i dy_i \right] + {b^2 \over U^2} \left( 1 - {U_0^4 \over
U^4} \right)^{-1} dU^2.$$ We take the $y_i$ to be periodic, $y_i \equiv y_i +L$. We can of course change the periodicity in $y_i$ and the value of $U_0$ by a coordinate transformation, but the combination $$\label{rho0d3}
\rho_{0\,(D3)}\equiv {{\ell_s^2 U_0 L}\over{b}}$$ is coordinate-invariant. This is the proper length of the compactified directions at the event horizon.
To calculate the entropy, we use the canonical ensemble. The conformal boundary is $T^3 \times S^1$, rather than $S^3 \times S^1$, and $\rho_{0}$ determines the ratio of the size of the $T^3$ to the size $\beta$ of the $S^1$, which is the only conformally invariant boundary datum. In particular, in direct analogy with the analysis [@witten:therm] of the $S^3$ case, we calculate the entropy by varying with respect to the invariant quantity $$\label{gamrho0}
\gamma \equiv {{b\,\beta}\over{L}} = {{\pi b^2}\over{\rho_0}}$$ rather than the temperature $\beta$. The evaluation of the action follows the same lines as in [@hawk:adstherm]. We find $$\label{action}
I = -\ {1 \over 16 G_5} \rho_0^3 .$$ As in [@witten:therm], we use this action to approximate the partition function, and obtain the mass and then the entropy by varying with respect to $\gamma$. The mass of this toroidal black hole is then $$\label{t3m}
M = {{1}\over{b}} {{3 b^3}\over{16\pi G_5}}
\left({{\rho_0}\over{b}}\right)^4
\sim {{b^7}\over{G_{10}}} \left({{\rho_0}\over{b}}\right)^4 .$$ Note that this differs from the excess energy over extremality by a dimensionless factor $(L/b)$. The entropy is then calculated via $$S = \gamma M - I =
\left(\gamma{{\partial}\over{\partial\gamma}}-1\right) I,$$ which yields $$\label{tent}
S = {{b^3}\over{4G_5}} \left({\rho_0\over{b}}\right)^3
\sim {{b^8}\over{G_{10}}}\left({{G_{10}M}\over{b^7}}\right)^{3/4}.$$ From this we see the essential difference between the toroidal and spherical conformal boundaries: here the entropy as a function of mass is the same power law, $S\sim M^{3/4}$, for all horizon sizes. This difference results directly from the different form of the metric (\[tor\]) as compared to (\[sads\]). With our definition of mass, it is also consistent with the observation in [@witten:therm] that this black hole (without the periodic identifications, i.e., $L\rightarrow\infty$) can be obtained from Schwarzschild-AdS by taking the large-mass limit of the latter. It also implies that the specific heat of these toroidal black holes is positive.
To see if there is a localization instability in the microcanonical ensemble of the type found for the spherical boundary conditions, we compare the toroidal solution to the $D=10$ Schwarzschild black hole. Substituting $D=10$ into the expression (\[fsent\]) for the Schwarzschild entropy, we find $S'\sim(b^8/G_{10})(G_{10}M/b^7)^{8/7}$. This is comparable to the toroidal black hole entropy (\[tent\]) when $(G_{10}M/b^7)\sim{1}$, and using the mass formula (\[t3m\]) we see that this happens when $\rho_0\sim{b}$, i.e., when the horizon size is of order the cosmological scale. But while the entropy of the $D=10$ Schwarzschild black hole varies more slowly with energy (mass) than Schwarzschild-AdS, it varies more rapidly than the entropy of the toroidal black hole. Therefore, even though the entropies agree when the horizon size is of order the cosmological scale, the $D=10$ Schwarzschild entropy is lower at smaller energies and so there is [*no*]{} localization instability. (This also applies for ${\bf R}^3$, i.e., the $L\rightarrow\infty$ limit.) Of course, the fact that the $D=10$ Schwarzschild entropy is larger for larger black holes does not make the large toroidal black holes entropically unstable either, because the transition to a $D=10$ Schwarzschild black hole was possible only for black holes smaller than $b$, i.e., where we could not “see” the cosmological constant.
Although we have explicitly analyzed only the D3-brane, we can easily extend this to the M2- and M5-branes. In the case of the M2-brane, the nonextremality is parameterized by the function $(1-U_0^3/U^3)$, because the variable $U$ in which the asymptotic AdS$_4\times$S$^7$ structure is manifest is related to the radial variable $r$ by $r=U^{1/2}\ell_{11}^{3/2}$, rather than the more familiar D-brane relation $U=r/\ell_s^2$. In this case, the proper size of the horizon is given by $$\rho_{0\,(M2)} \sim {{\ell_{11}^3 U_0 L}\over{b^2}} .$$ For the M5-brane, nonextremality is parameterized by the function $(1-U_0^6/U^6)$, because $r=U^2\ell_{11}^3$, and $$\rho_{0\,(M5)} \sim {{\ell_{11}^{3/2} U_0 L}\over{b^{1/2}}} .$$ For both M-branes, the inverse temperature scales as $\beta\sim\sqrt{N}/U_0$, and the conformally invariant boundary datum scales as $\gamma=\beta(b/L)\sim b^2/\rho_0$, as was the case for the D3-brane in (\[gamrho0\]). Then using the equations (\[bdefs\]) for the radius $b$ of the AdS, we find that the mass scales as $M\sim(1/b)(b^p/G_{p+2})(\rho_0/b)^{p+1}\sim(b^8/G_{11})(\rho_0/b)^{p+1}$, and the entropy as $S\sim(b^p/G_{p+2})(\rho_0/b)^p\sim(b^9/G_{11})(G_{11}M/b^8)^{p/(p+1)}$. Again, by comparing with the Schwarzschild entropy (\[fsent\]), which for $D=11$ scales as $S'\sim (b^9/G_{11})(G_{11}M/b^8)^{9/8}$, we see that there is [*no*]{} S$^{D-p-2}$ localization instability with a toroidal boundary, because the entropy of these small toroidal black holes dominates that of the eleven dimensional Schwarzschild black holes.
AdS$_3$ and two notions of mass
===============================
\[sec3\]
For the AdS$_3\times$S$^3$ spacetimes, which arise in the near-horizon limit of the D1+D5-brane system, the spherical and toroidal boundary conditions degenerate to a single case, where the spatial boundary is just a circle. The dominant contribution at high energies comes from the BTZ black hole [@ban:2+1], $$\label{BTZ}
ds^2 = (r^2/b^2 - G_3 M) d\tau^2 + {dr^2 \over (r^2/b^2-G_3 M)} + r^2
d\phi^2,$$ where $M$ is the ADM mass, and the entropy is $$\label{3S}
S = {\pi r_+ \over 2 G_3} = {\pi b \sqrt{G_3 M} \over 2 G_3} \sim
{b^{5/2} \sqrt{G_6 M} \over G_6}.$$ Pure AdS$_3$ is given by the BTZ black hole (\[BTZ\]) with $G_3
M=-1$. In the Euclidean approach to the calculation of this entropy, the action is calculated using the $M=0$ black hole as a background.
We want to compare this to the entropy for a $D=6$ Schwarzschild black hole, which is $$\label{6S}
S' \sim {{1}\over{G_6}} (M' G_6)^{4/3} .$$ If we consider this black hole inserted into a pure AdS$_3$ ($\times
$S$^3$) background, then we should take $M' = M + 1/G_3$, so that the ADM mass conjugate to time $t$ is $M$. Alternatively, if the background geometry should be the $M=0$ BTZ black hole ($\times
$S$^3$), then $M' = M$. In [@bdhm:adscft], the former alternative was implicitly taken. There is then a localization transition at $M \sim 1/G_3$ between the BTZ black hole and a $D=6$ Schwarzschild black hole embedded in AdS$_3$.
The BTZ black hole (\[BTZ\]) is the near-horizon limit of a compactified black string; the compactified direction along the string becomes the angular direction in the BTZ solution. Pure AdS$_3$ cannot be obtained as the near-horizon limit of some regular string solution[^5]; the mass parameter $M$ in (\[BTZ\]) is proportional to the energy above extremality of the string, which cannot be negative. We therefore argue that if we are considering this $M>0$ BTZ spacetime as the near-horizon limit of a D1+D5-brane system, then we should compare to a $D=6$ Schwarzschild black hole in an $M=0$ BTZ background, not the AdS$_3$ background. In this case, the entropies are still comparable when $M \sim 1/G_3$, but as we lower $M$, the entropy of the $D=6$ Schwarzschild black hole decreases more quickly than that of the BTZ black hole. Therefore, in the near-horizon limit of the D1+D5-brane system, there is [*no*]{} localization instability on S$^3$.
Multi-black hole instability
============================
\[sec4\]
The black hole solutions (\[tor\],\[BTZ\]) which appear when the boundary at infinity has topology $T^p \times S^1$ have the unusual property that the entropy grows less than linearly in the mass. It might appear that it would therefore be entropically favorable for these solutions to fragment into a number of smaller black holes of the same type. This would constitute a new instability for these solutions. This instability is also cause for concern, as we might be able to violate the Bekenstein bound if we had enough small black holes in a finite region.
For the BTZ black hole, there is an elegant proof that such an instability is in fact impossible: any pair of black holes in an asymptotically AdS$_3$ spacetime is always contained within a larger black hole [@steif:multi-BTZ; @brill:multi-BTZ]. In any attempt to construct initial data describing a pair of black holes, if the separation between them is small, the spatial section is closed and there is no asymptotic region, while if the separation is larger, there is extra energy from separating the black holes and the radius of the resulting black hole is greater than the separation. This answer accords well with our intuition about the Bekenstein bound; whenever we try to violate the bound by packing a lot into a small volume, we find that the energy is so large that the whole system already lies inside a larger black hole.
In general, for any asymptotically AdS$_{p+2}$ solution, we do not expect to be able to separate black holes which are large compared to the cosmological scale. What this means is that if we initially have a pair of large separated black holes, we expect they will merge after a time of order $b$, which is short compared with the characteristic evolution time $\sim \rho_0$ associated with the black holes. We therefore cannot treat the black holes as separate thermodynamic systems. In particular, we cannot apply the formula (\[tent\]) for the entropy of a static black hole in this case. Note that this also explains why we should not be worried about such an instability for large black holes in the case with spherical boundary conditions, even though they also have an entropy which grows less than linearly in the mass.
In the case of the higher-dimensional toroidal black holes, we still have to worry about black holes with horizons smaller than the cosmological scale. As $\rho_0 < b$, the characteristic evolution timescale of the black holes is short, and the entropy should be well-approximated by adding the entropies (\[tent\]) for the individual black holes.
We should try to construct initial data corresponding to such multi-black hole solutions. To simplify the problem, we assume that the solution remains independent of all but one of the $y_i$; that is, we just separate the black holes in say the $U,y_1$ plane. The general form of the initial data is then $$\label{idat}
ds^2 = f(U,y_1) dU^2 + g(U,y_1) U^2 dy_1^2 + h(U,y_1) dy_i^2.$$ Since we assume the solutions are independent of $p-1$ of the $y_i$, we can eliminate these dimensions by Kaluza-Klein reduction to obtain an equivalent three-dimensional problem. The $p+2$ dimensional black holes have non-constant curvature, so this three-dimensional problem is not equivalent to the BTZ case. From the three-dimensional point of view, this is because these black hole solutions involve a non-trivial value for the scalar field arising from the $dy_i^2$ part of the metric.
If we consider the initial data for the black hole (\[tor\]) coming from the near-horizon limit of the D3-brane, then the $U, y_1$ part of the metric is the initial data for the three-dimensional metric. This two-dimensional surface has curvature $$R = -{2 \over b^2} \left( 1 + {U_0^4 \over U^4} \right).$$ In the special case $U_0=0$, the curvature is constant; the three-dimensional solution obtained by reduction of (\[tor\]) is then the $M=0$ BTZ black hole. We might have expected to get AdS$_3$ instead, as $U_0=0$ is supposed to be pure anti-de Sitter space. However, because we are taking toroidal boundary conditions at infinity, the $U_0=0$ solution is actually AdS space with a discrete set of identifications. In general, the non-constant part of the curvature is important only near the horizon of the black hole. If we consider a black hole which is much smaller than the cosmological scale, the proper size of the $y_1$ direction becomes small compared to the cosmological scale, signaling the presence of a black hole, long before we get to the region where the curvature due to the black hole becomes important. Thus, outside of a small region near the horizon, the initial data surface looks like the initial data for the $M=0$ BTZ black hole.
For initial data describing more than one small black hole, there is a region away from the horizon, but still on scales small compared to the cosmological scale, where we can argue that the metric looks like the $M=0$ BTZ black hole. Thus, the full initial data surface (apart from the small region around each horizon) should be well-approximated by the multi-BTZ case. But we know from [@steif:multi-BTZ; @brill:multi-BTZ] that in that case, there is a larger black hole horizon encompassing the others. Thus, it seems reasonable to conjecture that for black holes small compared to the cosmological scale in the higher-dimensional case, the same is true. That is, we conjecture that there is no such instability for these black holes either.
There is no contradiction between this conjecture and the fact that we can separate branes. The near-horizon geometry of two groups of conformal branes with a small separation between them is not a direct product of the form AdS$_m \times$S$^n$, so it is not included in this discussion, where we have been considering just the AdS part.
Discussion
==========
Our main point is that the S$^{D-p-2}$ localization phase transition observed in [@bdhm:adscft], which was seen when the horizon size gets down to the cosmological scale, does not occur for the spacetimes which arise in the near-horizon limit of D$p$- or M-branes. This transition arises for $S^p$ spatial boundary conditions, but the near-horizon limit gives $T^p$ boundary conditions (or the large-radius limit ${\bf R}^p$). Thus, this localization transition does [*not*]{} imply an instability of the D$p$- or M-brane solutions, in agreement with the general expectation that there is no such instability.
We also considered a potential instability for AdS black holes to break up into smaller black holes, and argued that it does not occur either. In any initial data which describes several small black holes in an asymptotically AdS spacetime, there should be a larger black hole horizon which encompasses them. This is consistent with the fact that a group of D$p$-branes can break up into smaller ones, because the near-horizon geometry does not retain the simple direct product form when the D$p$-branes break up.
For the case with $S^p$ spatial boundary, the black hole correspondence principle tells us that there are further distinct phases as the mass of the system gets even lower. As discussed in [@bdhm:adscft], when the horizon size of the $D$ dimensional Schwarzschild black hole gets down to the string scale, the system goes into a Hagedorn, or long string, phase. At still lower energies, we see a gas of supergravitons.
For the $T^p \times S^1$ case, there are further phases at energies below that of the toroidal black hole, but the structure is rather different, and neither the long string or AdS supergraviton gas phases will appear. For the $T^3$ case, the additional phases were analyzed in [@Barbon:torDp]. The key is that there is a torus with a $U$-dependent size. At low temperature, the horizon scale $\rho_0$ is smaller than the string scale, so we must T-dualize at some $U>U_0$, resulting in a “smeared” D0-brane spacetime. Note that this transition is at a gauge theory temperature which is higher than that at which D3-brane finite-size effects kick in, taking into account D3-brane fractionation [@Banks:matrix8dbh]. At low enough temperature, there is a localization to a D0-brane spacetime at smaller $U$. Note that in this phase, the $D=10$ black hole carries Ramond-Ramond charge, unlike the $D=10$ Schwarzschild black hole which arises for the $S^3$ boundary conditions. At even lower temperatures, there are further phases with more eleven-dimensional structure. For the other $T^p$ cases, there should similarly be additional phases which appear when $\rho_0$ is less than the relevant length scale.
From the gauge theory point of view, the localized black hole phase is particularly interesting. This phase appears only for gauge theory on the $p$-sphere at strong coupling. It breaks the $SO(6)$ R-symmetry, but without breaking spherical symmetry on the $S^p$. This is similar to the Coulomb phase which appears for toroidal boundary conditions, but the two are otherwise very different. The most interesting aspect of the localized black hole phase is that the Schwarzschild black hole has a negative specific heat. This is the only instance of which we are aware in which a black hole with negative specific heat is represented in the gauge theory. It would be interesting to investigate this further.
1truein
**Acknowledgments**
It is a pleasure to thank Gary Horowitz for discussions. [A.W.P.]{} wishes to thank the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality during early stages of this work. The work of [S.F.R.]{} was supported in part by NSF grant PHY95-07065, and that of [A.W.P.]{} by NSF grant PHY94-07194.
[10]{}
T. Banks, M. R. Douglas, G. T. Horowitz, and E. Martinec, “[AdS]{} dynamics from conformal field theory,” hep-th/9808016.
J. Maldacena, “The large [N]{} limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” hep-th/9711200.
E. Witten, “Anti-de [S]{}itter space and holography,” hep-th/9802150.
S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. [**B428**]{}, 105 (1998), hep-th/9802109.
E. Witten, “Anti-de [S]{}itter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,” hep-th/9803131.
S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, “Thermodynamics of black holes in anti-de [S]{}itter space,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**87**]{}, 577 (1983).
R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, “Black strings and p-branes are unstable,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2837 (1993), hep-th/9301052.
G. T. Horowitz and S. F. Ross, “Possible resolution of black hole singularities from large [N]{} gauge theory,” J. High Energy Phys. [**04**]{}, 015 (1998), hep-th/9803085.
R. B. Mann, “Pair production of topological anti-de [S]{}itter black holes,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**14**]{}, L109 (1997), gr-qc/9607071.
M. Banados, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, “The black hole in three-dimensional space-time,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1849 (1992), hep-th/9204099.
A. R. Steif, “Time symmetric initial data for multibody solutions in three-dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 5527 (1996), gr-qc/9511053.
D. R. Brill, “Multi - black hole geometries in (2+1)-dimensional gravity,” Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{}, 4133 (1996), gr-qc/9511022.
J. L. F. Barbon, I. I. Kogan, and E. Rabinovici, “On stringy thresholds in [SYM / AdS]{} thermodynamics,” hep-th/9809033.
T. Banks, W. Fischler, I. R. Klebanov, and L. Susskind, “Schwarzschild black holes from matrix theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 226 (1998), hep-th/9709091.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: For pure AdS$_{p+2}$, the boundary is $S^{p+1}$, which is conformally equivalent to ${\rm\bf R}^{p+1}$. $S^p \times S^1$ and ${\rm\bf R}^p \times S^1$ are, however, not conformally equivalent; for instance, the former has a conformally invariant parameter, the ratio of the two radii, while the latter does not.
[^4]: We will write metrics in Euclidean signature, and use the canonical ensemble as a “trick” to calculate the entropy, but our physical interest is in the microcanonical ensemble.
[^5]: In this solution, the direction along the string must also be compact, if the compactified black string is to decay into it. AdS$_3$ is of course the near-horizon limit if this direction is not compactified.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'To an $r$-dimensional subshift of finite type satisfying certain special properties we associate a $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. This algebra is a higher rank version of a Cuntz-Krieger algebra. In particular, it is simple, purely infinite and nuclear. We study an example: if ${{\Gamma}}$ is a group acting freely on the vertices of an ${\widetilde}A_2$ building, with finitely many orbits, and if $\Omega$ is the boundary of that building, then $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ is the algebra associated to a certain two dimensional subshift.'
address:
- 'Mathematics Department, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia'
- 'Istituto Di Matematica e Fisica, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Via Vienna 2, 07100 Sassari, Italia'
author:
- Guyan Robertson
- Tim Steger
date: 'February 2, 1999'
title: 'Affine buildings, tiling systems and higher rank Cuntz-Krieger algebras'
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
This paper falls into two parts. The self-contained first part develops the theory of a class of $C^*$-algebras which are higher rank generalizations of the Cuntz-Krieger algebras [@ck; @c; @c']. We start with a set of $r$-dimensional words, based on an alphabet $A$, we define transition matrices $M_j$ in each of $r$ directions, satisfying certain conditions (H0)-(H3). The $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is then the unique $C^*$-algebra generated by a family of partial isometries $s_{u,v}$ indexed by compatible $r$-dimensional words $u,v$ and satisfying relations (\[rel1\*\]) below. If $r=1$ then ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a Cuntz–Krieger algebra. We prove that the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is simple, purely infinite and stably isomorphic to the crossed product of an AF-algebra by a ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$-action.
The last part of the paper (Section \[boundary-algebra\]) studies in detail one particularly interesting example. This example was the authors’ motivation for introducing these algebras. Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be an affine building of type ${\widetilde}A_2$. Let ${{\Gamma}}$ be a group of type rotating automorphisms of ${{\mathcal B}}$ which acts freely on the vertex set with finitely many orbits. There is a natural action of ${{\Gamma}}$ on the boundary $\Omega$ of ${{\mathcal B}}$, and we can form the universal crossed product algebra $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$. This algebra is isomorphic to an algebra of the form ${{\mathcal A}}$ obtained by the preceding construction. In the case where ${{\Gamma}}$ also acts transitively on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$ the algebra $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ was previously studied in [@rs], where simplicity was proved. In a sequel to this paper [@rs'] we explicitly compute the K-theory of some of these algebras.
In [@s] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Spielberg</span> treated an analogous example in rank $1$: ${{\Gamma}}$ is a free group, the building is a tree, and $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ is isomorphic to an ordinary Cuntz-Krieger algebra. In fact [@s] deals more generally with the case where ${{\Gamma}}$ is a free product of cyclic groups. The generalizations in this paper are motivated by Spielberg’s work.
We now introduce some basic notation and terminology. Let ${{\mathbb Z}}_+$ denote the set of nonnegative integers. Let $[m,n]$ denote $\{m,m+1, \dots , n\}$, where $m \le n$ are integers. If $m,n \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$, say that $m \le n$ if $m_j \le n_j$ for $1 \le j \le r$, and when $m \le n$, let $[m,n] = [m_1,n_1] \times \dots \times [m_r,n_r]$. In ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$, let $0$ denote the zero vector and let $e_j$ denote the $j^{th}$ standard unit basis vector. We fix a finite set $A$ (an “alphabet”).
A *$\{0,1\}$-matrix* is a matrix with entries in $\{0,1\}$. Choose nonzero $\{0,1\}$-matrices $M_1, M_2,\dots, M_r$ and denote their elements by $M_j(b,a) \in \{0,1\}$ for $a,b \in A$. If $m,n \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ with $m \le n$, let $$W_{[m,n]} = \{ w: [m,n] \to A ;\ M_j(w(l+e_j),w(l)) = 1\ \text{whenever}\ l,l+e_j\in [m,n] \}.$$ Put $W_m=W_{[0,m]}$ if $m \ge 0$. Say that an element $w \in W_m$ has *shape* $m$, and write ${{\sigma}}(w) = m$. Thus $W_m$ is the set of words of shape $m$, and we identify $A$ with $W_0$ in the natural way. Define the initial and final maps $o: W_m \to A$ and $t: W_m \to A$ by $o(w) = w(0)$ and $t(w) = w(m)$. Fix a nonempty finite or countable set $D$ (whose elements are “decorations”), and a map $\delta : D \to A$. Let $\overline W_m = \{ (d,w) \in D \times W_m ;\ o(w) = \delta (d) \}$, the set of “decorated words” of shape $m$, and identify $D$ with $\overline W_0$ via the map $d \mapsto (d,\delta(d))$. Let $W = \bigcup_m W_m$ and $\overline W = \bigcup_m \overline W_m$, the sets of all words and all decorated words respectively. Define $o: \overline W_m \to D$ and $t: \overline W_m \to A$ by $o(d,w) = d$ and $t(d,w) = t(w)$. Likewise extend the definition of shape to $\overline W$ by setting ${{\sigma}}((d,w))={{\sigma}}(w)$.
Given $j \le k\le l \le m$ and a function $w :[j,m] \to A$, define $w \vert _{[k,l]} \in W_{l-k}$ by $w \vert _{[k,l]} = w'$ where $w'(i) = w(i+k)$ for $0 \le i \le l-k$. If $\overline w = (d,w) \in \overline W_m$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\overline w \vert_{[k,l]}& = w\vert_{[k,l]} \in W_{l-k} \ \text{if}\ k \ne 0, \\
\text{and} \qquad
{{\overline w}}\vert_{[0,l]}& = (d, w\vert_{[0,l]}) \in \overline W_l.\end{aligned}$$ If $w\in W_l$ and $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$, define $\tau_kw:[k,k+l] \to A$ by $(\tau_kw)(k+j)=w(j)$. If $w \in W_l$ where $l \ge 0$ and if $p \ne 0$, say that $w$ is [*$p$-periodic*]{} if its $p$-translate, $\tau_pw$, satisfies $\tau_pw\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]} = w\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]}$.
Assume that the matrices $M_i$ have been chosen so that the following conditions hold.
(H0)
: Each $M_i$ is a nonzero [[$\{0,1\}$-matrix]{}]{}.
(H1)
: Let $u\in W_m$ and $v \in W_n$. If $t(u) =o(v)$ then there exists a unique $w\in W_{m+n}$ such that $$w\vert_{[0,m]}=u \qquad \text{and} \qquad w\vert_{[m,m+n]}=v.$$
(H2)
: Consider the directed graph which has a vertex for each $a \in A$ and a directed edge from $a$ to $b$ for each $i$ such that $M_i(b,a) =1$. This graph is irreducible.
(H3)
: Let $p\in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$, $p \ne 0$. There exists some $w \in W$ which is not $p$-periodic.
\[word-prod\] In the situation of (H1) we write $w=uv$ and say that the product $uv$ exists. This product is clearly associative.
The $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is defined as the universal $C^*$-algebra generated by a family of partial isometries $\{s_{u,v};\ u,v \in \overline W \ \text{and} \ t(u) = t(v) \}$ satisfying the relations
\[rel1\*\] $$\begin{aligned}
{s_{u,v}}^* &=& s_{v,u} \label{rel1a*}\\
s_{u,v}s_{v,w}&=&s_{u,w} \label{rel1b*}\\
s_{u,v}&=&\displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{w\in W;{{\sigma}}(w)=e_j,\\
o(w)=t(u)=t(v)}}
s_{uw,vw} ,\ \text{for} \ 1 \le j \le r
\label{rel1c*}\\
s_{u,u}s_{v,v}&=&0 ,\ \text{for} \ u,v \in \overline W_0, u \ne v. \label{rel1d*}\end{aligned}$$
Products of higher rank words
=============================
Condition (H1) is fundamental to all that follows. How then, does one verify (H1)? Given [[[$\{0,1\}$-matrices]{}]{}]{} $M_i$, $1\le i\le r$, the following three simple conditions will be seen to be sufficient.
(H1a)
: $M_iM_j=M_jM_i$.
(H1b)
: For $i<j$, $M_iM_j$ is a [[[$\{0,1\}$-matrix]{}]{}]{}.
(H1c)
: For $i<j<k$, $M_iM_jM_k$ is a [[[$\{0,1\}$-matrix]{}]{}]{}.
Indeed, the first two conditions are also necessary.
Fix [[[$\{0,1\}$-matrices]{}]{}]{} $M_i$, $1\le i\le r$. Then [(H1)]{} implies [(H1a)]{} and [(H1b)]{}.
Suppose $(M_iM_j)(b,a)>0$. Then there exists $c\in A$ so that $M_j(c,a)=1=M_i(b,c)$. Let $u\in W_{e_j}$ and $v\in W_{e_i}$ be given by $$u(0)=a\qquad u(e_j)=c\qquad \qquad \qquad v(0)=c\qquad v(e_i)=b.\qquad$$ According to (H1) there is a unique $w\in W_{e_i+e_j}$ with $w(0)=a, w(e_j)=c, w(e_i+e_j)=b$. There must then be a unique $d\in A$ which can be used for the missing value of $w$, $w(e_i)$. That is, there must be a unique $d\in A$ satisfying $M_i(d,a)=1=M_j(b,d)$. Hence $(M_jM_i)(b,a)=1$.
We have seen that if $(M_iM_j)(b,a)>0$, then $(M_jM_i)(b,a)=1$. Likewise, if $(M_jM_i)(b,a)>0$, then $(M_iM_j)(b,a)=1$. It follows that $M_iM_j$ and $M_jM_i$ are equal and have entries in $\{0,1\}$.
\[1\] Fix [[[$\{0,1\}$-matrices]{}]{}]{} $M_i$ satisfying [(H1a),(H1b)]{}, and [(H1c)]{}. Let $1 \le j \le r$. Let $w \in W_m$ and choose $a \in A$ so that $M_j(a,t(w)) =1$. Then there exists a unique word $v \in W_{m+e_j}$ such that $v\vert_{[0,m]} =w$ and $t(v) = a$.
In the case $r=2$ this follows from conditions (H1a) and (H1b) alone. The situation is illustrated in Figure \[extension\], for $j=2$. The assertion is that there is a unique word $v$ defined on the outer rectangle $[0,m+e_2]$ with final letter $v(m+e_2)=a$. The hypothesis is that there is a transition from $w(m)$ to $a$, in the sense that $M_2(a,w(m)) =1$. Define $v(m+e_2)=a$. For notational convenience, let $n=m-e_1$. We have $M_1(w(m),w(n)) =1$, and the product matrix $M_2M_1$ defines a transition $w(n) \to w(m) \to a$. The conditions (H1a) and (H1b) assert that the product $M_1M_2$ defines a unique transition $w(n) \to b \to a$, for some $b \in A$. Define $v(n+e_2)=b$. Continue the process inductively until $v$ is defined uniquely on the whole of $[0,m+e_2]$. This completes the proof if $r=2$.
\[extension\]
units <1cm, 1cm> x from -6 to 6, y from -1 to 2.2 from -3 -1 to 2 -1 from -3 1 to 2 1 from -3 -1 to -3 1 from 2 -1 to 2 2 from -3 2 to 2 2 from -3 2 to -3 1 from 1 2 to 1 1 at -0.5 0 \[l\] at 2.2 1 \[r\] at -3.2 -1 \[l\] at 2.2 2 \[t\] at 1 0.8 \[b\] at 1 2.2 at 2 1 at 2 2 at 1 1 at 1 2 \[l\] at 2.2 1.5
Now consider the case $r=3$. Proceeding by induction as in the case $r=2$, the extension problem reduces to that for a single cube. Consider therefore without loss of generality the unit cube based at $0$ with $m=e_1+e_2$ and $j=3$, as illustrated in Figure \[extension3\]. Then $w$ is defined on the base of the cube $[0,m]$ and it is required to extend $w$ to a function $v$ on the whole cube taking the value $a$ at $m+e_3$, under the assumption that there is a valid transition from $w(m)$ to $a$. Now use the case $r=2$ on successive faces of the cube. Working on the right hand face there is a unique possible value $b$ for $v(e_1+e_3)$. Then, using this value for $v(e_1+e_3)$ on the near face we obtain the value $c$ for $v(e_3)$. Similarly, working respectively on the back and left faces we obtain a value $v(e_2+e_3)=d$ and a second value, $c'$, for $v(e_3)$.
Now suppose that $c \ne c'$. Working on the top face and using the values $a$, $d$, and $c'$, we obtain another value, $b'$ for $v(e_1+e_3)$. There are two possible transitions along the directed path $0 \to e_3 \to e_1+e_3 \to m+e_3$, namely $$w(0) \to c' \to b' \to a \quad \text{and} \quad w(0) \to c \to b \to a.$$ This contradicts the assumption that $(M_2M_1M_3)(a,w(0)) \in \{0,1\}$.
\[extension3\]
units <1cm, 1cm> x from -6 to 6, y from -2 to 1 from -3 0 to 3 0 from -3 0 to -3 -2 from 3 0 to 3 -2 from -3 -2 to 3 -2 from -2 0.5 to 2 0.5 -2 0.5 -3 0 / 2 0.5 3 0 / from -2 0.5 to -2 0.1 from -2 -0.1 to -2 -0.8 from 2 0.5 to 2 0.1 from 2 -0.1 to 2 -0.8 from -2 -0.8 to 2 -0.8 -2 -0.8 -3 -2 / 2 -0.8 3 -2 / at -3 0 \[r\] at -3.2 0 at 3 0 at -3 -2 \[r\] at -3.2 -2 at 3 -2 \[l\] at 3.2 -2 at -2 0.5 at 2 0.5 at -2 -0.8 \[l,t\] at -1.99 -0.9 at 2 -0.8 \[t,r\] at 1.99 -0.9
The proof for general $r$ now follows by induction. The uniqueness of the extension follows from the two dimensional considerations embodied in Figure \[extension\]. All the compatibility conditions required for existence follow from the three dimensional considerations of Figure \[extension3\].
The next result follows by induction from Lemma \[1\].
\[2\] Fix [[[$\{0,1\}$-matrices]{}]{}]{} $M_i$, $1\le i\le r$, satisfying [(H1a), (H1b)]{}, and [(H1c)]{}. Let $1\le j_1,\dots ,j_p\le r$, let $a_0,\dots,a_p\in A$ and suppose that $M_{j_i}(a_i,a_{i-1})=1$ for $1\le i\le p$. Then there exists a unique word $w\in W$ with $\sigma(w)=e_{j_1}+\dots+e_{j_p}$, such that $w(0)=a_0$ and $w(e_{j_1}+\dots +e_{j_i})=a_i$ for $1\le i\le p$.
As a consequence we have
\[3\] Fix [[[$\{0,1\}$-matrices]{}]{}]{} $M_i$, $1\le i\le r$. If [(H1a), (H1b)]{}, and [(H1c)]{} hold, then [(H1)]{} holds.
Let $u\in W_m$ and $v\in W_n$. Suppose $t(u)=o(v)$. Choose $j_1,\dots,j_p$ as in Lemma \[2\] so that $$e_{j_1}+\dots+e_{j_q}=m \qquad e_{j_{q+1}}+\dots+e_{j_p}=n$$ for some $q$, $0\le q\le p$. Choose $a_i$, $0\le i\le q$ so as to force the $w$ of Lemma \[2\] to satisfy $w|_{[0,m]}=u$. Thus $a_q=t(u)=o(v)$. Choose $a_i$, $q\le i\le p$ so as to force $w$ to satisfy $w|_{[m,m+n]}=v$. The existence and uniqueness in (H1) follow from the existence and uniqueness in Lemma \[2\].
\[4\] If $\overline u=(d,u) \in \overline W_m$ and $v \in W_n$ with $t({{\overline u}}) = o(v)$, then there exists a unique ${{\overline w}}\in \overline W_{m+n}$ such that $${{\overline w}}\vert_{[0,m]}={{\overline u}}\ \text{and} \ {{\overline w}}\vert_{[m,m+n]}=v.$$ In these circumstances we write ${{\overline w}}={{\overline u}}v$, and say that the product ${{\overline u}}v$ exists.
This is immediate, with ${{\overline u}}v =(d,uv)$.
For the next two lemmas, and for the rest of the paper, suppose that matrices $M_i$ have been chosen so that (H0)–(H2) hold.
\[ends\] Let $a,b \in A$ and $n \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$. There exists $w \in W$ with ${{\sigma}}(w) \ge n$ such that $o(w)=a$ and $t(w)=b$.
By condition (H0), the matrix $M_j$ is nonzero, so there exists at least one word of shape $e_j$. Using this, choose words $w_1,\dots,w_q$ so that ${{\sigma}}(w_1)+\dots +{{\sigma}}(w_q)\ge n$. Using conditions (H1) and (H2), one can always find a word with a given origin and terminus. So choose $s_0 \in W$ with $o(s_0)=a$, $t(s_0)=o(w_1)$, choose $s_k\in W$ with $o(s_k)=t(w_k)$, $t(s_k)=o(w_{k+1})$ for $1\le k \le q-1$, and choose $s_q\in W$ with $o(s_q)=t(w_q)$, $t(s_q)=b$. Let $w=s_0w_1s_1w_2\dots w_{q-1}s_{q-1}w_qs_q$.
\[f1\] Given ${{\overline u}}\in {{\overline W}}$ and $b \in A$, there exists $v \in W$ such that ${{\overline u}}v$ exists, ${{\sigma}}(v)\ne0$ and $$t(v)=t({{\overline u}}v)=b.$$
This follows immediately Lemma \[ends\].
nonperiodicity {#nonperiodicitysection}
==============
Assume that $M_i$, $1\le i\le r$, have been chosen and that (H0)–(H2) hold. In the large class of examples associated to affine buildings it is fairly easy to verify the nonperiodicity condition, (H3). However, in general it is hard to see how one can start with the matrices $M_i$ and check (H3). In this section we present a condition which implies (H3), and show how it can in principle be checked. This material is not used in the remainder of the paper.
(H3\*)
: Fix $j$, $1\le j\le r$. Let $m\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+^r$ with $m_j=0$. Let $w\in W_m$. Then there exist $u, u' \in W_{m+e_j}$ such that $u|_{[0,m]}=u'|_{[0,m]}=w$ but $u(e_j)\ne u'(e_j)$.
For $l,m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$, define $$l \wedge m=(l_1 \wedge m_1, \dots, l_r \wedge m_r),$$ $$l \vee m=(l_1 \vee m_1, \dots, l_r \vee m_r),$$ $$|l|=l \vee (-l).$$
If $w \in W_l$ where $l \ge 0$ and if $p \ne 0$, recall that $w$ is [*$p$-periodic*]{} if its $p$-translate, $\tau_pw$, satisfies $\tau_pw\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]} = w\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]}$.
\[intersection\]
units <1cm, 1cm> x from -6 to 6, y from -1 to 2 span <4pt> corners at -3 2 and 0 0 corners at -2 1 and 1 -1 corners at -2 1 and 0 0 \[r\] at -3.1 0 \[l\] at 0.1 2 \[r\] at -2.1 -1 \[l\] at 1.1 1
\[a1\] Conditions [(H0)–(H2)]{} and [(H3\*)]{} imply condition [(H3)]{}.
Observe that $p$-periodicity is invariant under replacement of $p$ by $-p$. We may therefore assume that $p$ has at least one positive component which we may take to be $p_1$. Let $p_{+}=p\vee 0$ and $p_{-}=(-p)\vee 0$. We will construct $w\in W_{|p|}$. In this case $w$ is defined on $[0,|p|]$, $\tau_pw$ is defined on $[p,|p|+p]$, and $\tau_pw$ and $w$ are both defined on $[p\vee 0,|p|\wedge (|p|+p)]=[p_+,p_+]$, a single point. The word $w$ is $p$-periodic if and only if $w(p_+)=(\tau_pw)(p_+)=w(p_+-p)=w(p_-)$. The situation is illustrated in Figure \[proofa1\]. Choose any $v$ in $W_{|p|-e_1}$ and let $u=v\vert_{[p_+-e_1,|p|-e_1]} \in W_{p_-}$. By condition (H3\*), there exist two different words $x,x' \in W_{p_-+e_1}$ such that $x\vert_{[0,p_-]}=x'\vert_{[0,p_-]}$ but $x(e_1)\ne x'(e_1)$. At least one of $x(e_1)$ and $x'(e_1)$ differs from $v(p_-)$; we may assume that $x(e_1)\ne v(p_-)$. Let $w$ be defined by $w\vert_{[0,|p|-e_1]}=u$, $w\vert_{[p_+-e_1,|p|]}=x$. Then $w(p_+)=x(e_1)\ne v(p_-)=w(p_-)$, so $w$ is not $p$-periodic.
\[proofa1\]
units <1cm, 1cm> x from -3 to 3, y from -1.1 to 1.1 span <4pt> corners at -3 1 and 0 0 corners at 0 0 and 3 -1 corners at -1 1 and 0 0 at 0 0 \[r\] at -3.2 1.1 \[r\] at -3.2 -0.1 \[l\] at 0.2 1.1 \[l,t\] at 0.2 -0.2 \[r\] at -0.2 -1.1 \[l\] at 3.2 0.1 \[b\] at -1 1.2 \[t\] at -1 -0.2 at -2 0.5 at -0.5 0.5
Now we discuss the checkability of (H3\*). Fix $j$, $1\le j\le r$. For $w\in W_m$ with ${{\sigma}}(w)_j=0$ let $$A(j,w)=\{u(e_j) ; u\in W_{m+e_j}\quad \text{and}\quad u|_{[0,m]}=w\}.$$ Given $w$, one can calculate $A(j,w)$ by considering, one at a time, the possible values of $u(m+e_j)$, and working back to find the possible values of $u(e_j)$ as in the proof of Lemma \[1\]. The assertion of (H3\*) is that $\# A(j,w)\ge 2$ for any $w$ with ${{\sigma}}(w)_j=0$.
Let $v,w \in W$ with ${{\sigma}}(v)=e_k$, $k\ne j$, ${{\sigma}}(w)_j=0$, and suppose that $vw$ is defined. Then $$A(j,vw)=\{a\in A ;\text{$M_j(a,o(v))=1$ and $M_k(b,a)=1$ for some $b\in A(j,w)$}\}.$$ Thus one can calculate $A(j,vw)$ from the knowledge of $v$ and $A(j,w)$.
To check (H3\*) for the fixed value of $j$, one proceeds to construct, for each $c\in A$ a complete list of possibilities for $A(j,w)$ with $o(w)=c$. The first step in the algorithm is to insert in the lists all $A(j,w)$ for $w\in W_0$. Then proceeding cyclically through all words $v$ with ${{\sigma}}(v)=e_k$, for all $k\ne j$, the algorithm adds to the lists all possible values of $A(j,vw)$ corresponding to values $A(j,w)$ already on the lists. The algorithm terminates when a complete cycle through the words $v$ generates no new possible values for $A(j,w)$. The algorithm works because any $w\in W$ can be written $w=v_1v_2\dots v_q$, with ${{\sigma}}(v_i) = e_{k_i}$.
Is this algorithm practical for hand computation? for electronic computation? The authors have done no experiments, but they suspect that the lists of subsets of $A$ will get out of hand rapidly as the cardinality of $A$ increases. The situation is not entirely satisfactory.
The $C^*$-algebra
=================
Assume conditions (H0)-(H3) hold. Define an abstract untopologized algebra ${{\mathcal A}}_0$ over ${{\mathbb C}}$ which depends on $A$, $(M_j)_{j=1}^r$, $D$, and $\delta$. The generators of ${{\mathcal A}}_0$ are $\{s_{u,v}^0; u,v \in \overline W \ \text{and} \ t(u) = t(v) \}$. The relations defining ${{\mathcal A}}_0$ are $$\label{rel0}
\begin{split}
s_{u,v}^0s_{v,w}^0&=s_{u,w}^0\\
s_{u,v}^0&=\displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{w\in W;{{\sigma}}(w)=e_j,\\
o(w)=t(u)=t(v)}}
s_{uw,vw}^0 ,\ \text{for} \ 1 \le j \le r \\
s_{u,u}^0s_{v,v}^0&=0 \ \text{for} \ u,v \in \overline W_0, u \ne v.
\end{split}$$
It is trivial to verify that ${{\mathcal A}}_0$ has an antilinear antiautomorphism defined on the generators by
$${s_{u,v}^0}^* = s_{v,u}^0.$$
This makes ${{\mathcal A}}_0$ a $*$-algebra. Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be the corresponding enveloping $C^*$-algebra (c.f. [@ck p.256]) and let $s_{u,v}$ be the image of $s_{u,v}^0$ in ${{\mathcal A}}$. The generators of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are therefore $$\{s_{u,v};\ u,v \in \overline W \ \text{and} \ t(u) = t(v) \}$$ and the defining relations are
\[rel1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{s_{u,v}}^* &=& s_{v,u} \label{rel1a}\\
s_{u,v}s_{v,w}&=&s_{u,w} \label{rel1b}\\
s_{u,v}&=&\displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{w\in W;{{\sigma}}(w)=e_j,\\
o(w)=t(u)=t(v)}}
s_{uw,vw} ,\ \text{for} \ 1 \le j \le r
\label{rel1c}\\
s_{u,u}s_{v,v}&=&0 \ \text{for} \ u,v \in \overline W_0, u \ne v .\label{rel1d}\end{aligned}$$
\[equiv\] Suppose that $u,v \in \overline W$ and $t(u)=t(v)$. Then $s_{u,v}$ is a partial isometry with initial projection ${s_{u,v}}^*s_{u,v}=s_{v,v}$ and final projection $s_{u,v}{s_{u,v}}^*=s_{u,u}$.
\[f2\] Fix $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$ and let $u,v \in \overline W$ with $t(u) = t(v)$. Then $$s_{u,v}= \displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w\in W;{{\sigma}}(w)=m \\
o(w)=t(u)=t(v)
}} s_{uw,vw}.$$
Using (H1), this follows by induction from (\[rel1c\]).
\[5\] $s_{u,u}s_{v,v}=0$ if ${{\sigma}}(u)={{\sigma}}(v)$ and $u \ne v$.
The case ${{\sigma}}(u)={{\sigma}}(v)=0$ is exactly the relation (\[rel1d\]). Assume that the assertion is true whenever ${{\sigma}}(u)={{\sigma}}(v)=m$. Let ${{\sigma}}(u')={{\sigma}}(v')=m+e_j$ and let $u=u'\vert_{[0,m]}$, $v=v'\vert_{[0,m]}$. By relation (\[rel1c\]), we have that $s_{u,u}=\sum_w s_{uw,uw}$ where the sum is over $w \in W_{e_j}$ such that $o(w)=t(u)$. Since $s_{u',u'}$ is one of the terms of the preceding sum we have $s_{u,u} \ge s_{u',u'}$. Similarly $s_{v,v} \ge s_{v',v'}$. If $u \ne v$, this proves that $s_{u',u'}s_{v',v'}=0$, since by induction $s_{u,u}s_{v,v}=0$. On the other hand, if $u=v$ then $s_{u',u'}$, $s_{v',v'}$ are distinct terms in the sum $\sum_a s_{uw,uw}$ and are therefore orthogonal.
\[finitedecorate\] If ${{\overline W}}_0=D$ is finite then it follows from [(\[rel1d\])]{} that $\sum_{u\in {{\overline W}}_0}s_{u,u}$ is an idempotent. From Lemma \[f2\] it follows that for any $m$, $\sum_{u\in {{\overline W}}_m}s_{u,u}=\sum_{u\in {{\overline W}}_0}s_{u,u}$. Hence from [(\[rel1b\])]{} and Lemma \[5\] it follows that $\sum_{u\in {{\overline W}}_0}s_{u,u}$ is an identity for ${{\mathcal A}}$.
The next lemma is an immediate consequence of the definition of an enveloping $C^*$-algebra.
\[6\] Let ${{{\mathcal H}}}$ be a Hilbert space and for each $u,v \in \overline W$ with $t(u) = t(v)$ let $S_{u,v} \in {{\mathcal B}}({{\mathcal H}})$. If the $S_{u,v}$ satisfy the relations (\[rel1\]), then there is a unique \*-homomorphism $\phi : {{{\mathcal A}}} \to {{\mathcal B}}({{\mathcal H}})$ such that $\phi(s_{u,v})=S_{u,v}$.
\[7\] Any product $s_{u_1,v_1}s_{u_2,v_2}$ can be written as a finite sum of the generators $s_{u,v}$.
Choose $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ with $m \ge {{\sigma}}(v_1)$ and $m \ge {{\sigma}}(u_2)$. Use Lemma \[f2\] to write $s_{u_1,v_1}$ as a sum of terms $s_{u_3,v_3}$ with ${{\sigma}}(v_3)=m$. Likewise, write $s_{u_2,v_2}$ as a sum of terms $s_{u_4,v_4}$ with ${{\sigma}}(u_4)=m$. Now in the product $s_{u_1,v_1}s_{u_2,v_2}$ each term has the form $$s_{u_3,v_3}s_{u_4,v_4}=\begin{cases}
s_{u_3,v_4}& \text{if $v_3=u_4$},\\
s_{u_3,v_3}s_{v_3,v_3}s_{u_4,u_4}s_{u_4,v_4}=0& \text{if $v_3 \ne u_4$}
\end{cases}$$ by Lemma \[5\]. The result follows immediately.
\[8\] The $C^*$-algebra ${{{\mathcal A}}}$ is the closed linear span of the set $$\{s_{u,v}; u,v \in \overline W \ \text{and} \ t(u) = t(v) \}.$$
\[nonzero\] The algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is nonzero.
We must construct a nonzero \*-homomorphism from ${{\mathcal A}}$ into ${{\mathcal B}}({{\mathcal H}})$ for some Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$. Consider the set of infinite words $$W_{\infty} = \{ w: {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+ \to A ; M_j(w(l+e_j),w(l)) = 1\ \text{whenever}\ l \ge 0 \},$$ and define the product $uv$ for $u \in \overline W$ and $v \in W_{\infty}$ exactly as in Definition \[word-prod\]. Let ${{\mathcal H}}= l^2(W_{\infty})$ and define $$(\phi(s_{u,v}))(\delta_w)=\begin{cases}
\delta_{uw_1} & \text{if $w=vw_1$ for some $w_1 \in W_{\infty}$,}\\
0& \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ It is easy to check that the operators $\{\phi(s_{u,v});\ u,v \in \overline W \ \text{and} \ t(u) = t(v) \}$ satisfy the relations \[rel1\] and it follows from Lemma \[6\] that $\phi$ extends to a \*-homomorphism of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
The Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}= l^2(W_{\infty})$ is not separable. However, since the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is countably generated, there exist nonzero separable, ${{\mathcal A}}$-stable subspaces of ${{\mathcal H}}$, and in particular, there exist nontrivial representations of ${{\mathcal A}}$ on separable Hilbert space.
\[nonzero+\] If $\phi$ is a nontrivial representation of ${{\mathcal A}}$, and if $u \in {{\overline W}}$ then $\phi(s_{u,u})\ne 0$. In particular $s_{u,u} \ne 0$.
Suppose $\phi(s_{u,u}) = 0$. Choose any $v\in {{\overline W}}$. Use Lemma \[ends\] to find $w \in W$ such that $o(w)=t(u)$ and $t(w)=t(v)$. By Lemma \[f2\], we have $0 =\phi(s_{u,u}) = \sum \phi(s_{uw',uw'})$, the sum being taken over all $w' \in W$ such that ${{\sigma}}(w')={{\sigma}}(w)$ and $o(w')=t(u)$. Thus $\phi(s_{uw,uw})=0$. By Remark \[equiv\] it follows that that $\phi(s_{uw,v})=0$, that $\phi(s_{v,v})=0$, and finally that $\phi(s_{v,v'}) = 0$ whenever $t(v)=t(v')$. Hence $\phi$ is trivial.
When $r=1$, the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a simple Cuntz-Krieger algebra. More precisely, if we write $M=M_1^t$, then the Cuntz-Krieger algebra ${{\mathcal O}}_M$ is generated by a set of partial isometries $\{S_a ; a\in A\}$ satisfying the relations $S_a^*S_a=\sum_bM(a,b)S_bS_b^*$. If $u\in W$, let $S_u=S_{u(0)}S_{u(1)}\dots S_{t(u)}$ and if $v\in W$ with $t(u)=t(v)$, define $S_{u,v}=S_uS_v^*$ (c.f. [@ck Lemma 2.2]). The map $s_{u,v}\mapsto S_{u,v}$ establishes an isomorphism of ${{\mathcal A}}$ with ${{\mathcal O}}_M$. Tensor products of ordinary Cuntz-Krieger algebras can be identified as higher rank Cuntz-Krieger algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$. If ${{\mathcal A}}_1,{{\mathcal A}}_2$ are simple rank one Cuntz-Krieger algebras, with corresponding matrices $M_1, M_2$ and alphabets $A_1, A_2$ then ${{\mathcal A}}_1 \otimes {{\mathcal A}}_2$ is the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ arising from the pair of matrices $M_1\otimes I, I\otimes M_2$ and the alphabet $A_1 \times A_2$. More interesting examples arise from group actions on affine buildings. The details for some $r=2$ algebras arising in this way are given in Section \[boundary-algebra\].
The AF subalgebra {#The AF subalgebra}
=================
If $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$, let ${{\mathcal F}}_m$ denote the subalgebra of ${{\mathcal A}}$ generated by the elements $s_{u,v}$ for $u,v \in \overline W_m$.
\[fm\] There exists an isomorphism ${{\mathcal F}}_m\cong \bigoplus_{a\in A} {{\mathcal K}}(l^2(\{w \in \overline W; {{\sigma}}(w)=m, t(w)=a\})).$
Let $u,v \in {{\overline W}}_m$ with $t(u)=t(v)=a$. Consider the map $E^a_{\delta_u,\delta_v}\mapsto s_{u,v}$, where $E^a_{\delta_u,\delta_v}$ denotes a standard matrix unit in ${{\mathcal K}}(l^2(\{w \in \overline W; {{\sigma}}(w)=m, t(w)=a\}))$. This extends to a map which is an isomorphism according to equations (\[rel1a\]), (\[rel1b\]) and Lemma \[5\].
The relations (\[rel1c\]) show that there is a natural embedding of ${{\mathcal F}}_m$ into ${{\mathcal F}}_{m+e_j}$. The $C^*$-algebras $\{{{\mathcal F}}_m: m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+\}$ form a directed system of $C^*$-algebras in the sense of [@kr p. 864]. By [@kr Proposition 11.4.1] there is an essentially unique $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal F}}$ in which the union of the algebras ${{\mathcal F}}_m$ is dense, namely the direct limit of these algebras. We have the following commuting diagram of inclusions.
$$\begin{CD}
{{\mathcal F}}_{m+e_k} @>>> {{\mathcal F}}_{m+e_j+e_k}\\
@AAA @AAA\\
{{\mathcal F}}_m @>>> {{\mathcal F}}_{m+e_j}
\end{CD}$$
We may equally well regard ${{\mathcal F}}$ as the closure of $\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}{{\mathcal F}}_{jp}$, where $p=(1,1,\dots,1)$. In particular ${{\mathcal F}}$ is an $AF$-algebra.
\[F\] Let $\phi$ be a nonzero homomorphism from ${{\mathcal A}}$ into some $C^*$-algebra. Then the restriction of $\phi$ to ${{\mathcal F}}$ is an isomorphism.
Suppose that $\phi$ is not an isomorphism on ${{\mathcal F}}$. Then $\phi$ is not an isomorphism on some ${{\mathcal F}}_m$. Since $\bigoplus_{a\in A} {{\mathcal K}}(l^2(\{w \in \overline W; {{\sigma}}(w)=m, t(w)=a\})) \cong {{\mathcal F}}_m$ (Lemma \[fm\]), it follows from simplicity of the algebra of compact operators that $\phi(s_{u,u})=0$ for some $u$, contradicting Lemma \[nonzero+\].
Define an action $\alpha$ of the $r$-torus ${{\mathbb T}}^r$ on ${{\mathcal A}}$ as follows. If ${{\sigma}}(u)-{{\sigma}}(v) =m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ and $t=(t_1,\dots,t_r) \in {{\mathbb T}}^r$, let $\alpha_t(s_{u,v}) = t^ms_{u,v}$, where $t^m=t_1^{m_1}t_2^{m_2}\dots t_r^{m_r}$. The elements $\alpha_t(s_{u,v})$ satisfy the relations (\[rel1\]) and generate the $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. By the universal property of ${{\mathcal A}}$ it follows that $\alpha_t$ extends to an automorphism of ${{\mathcal A}}$. It is easy to see that that $t\mapsto \alpha_t$ is an action. It is also clear that $\alpha_t$ fixes all elements $s_{u,v}$ with ${{\sigma}}(u)={{\sigma}}(v)$ and so fixes ${{\mathcal F}}$ pointwise. We now show that ${{\mathcal F}}={{\mathcal A}}^{\alpha}$, the fixed point subalgebra of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Consider the linear map on ${{\mathcal A}}$ defined by $$\label{expectation}
\pi(x)= \int_{{{\mathbb T}}^r}\alpha_t(x)dt, \qquad \text{for} \ x \in {{\mathcal A}}$$ where $dt$ denotes normalized Haar measure on ${{\mathbb T}}^r$.
\[b\] Let $\pi$, ${{\mathcal F}}$ be as above.
1. The map $\pi$ is a faithful conditional expectation from ${{\mathcal A}}$ onto ${{\mathcal F}}$.
2. ${{\mathcal F}}={{\mathcal A}}^{\alpha}$, the fixed point subalgebra of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Since the action $\alpha$ is continuous, it is easy to see that $\pi$ is a conditional expectation from ${{\mathcal A}}$ onto ${{\mathcal A}}^{\alpha}$, and that it is faithful. Since $\alpha_t$ fixes ${{\mathcal F}}$ pointwise, ${{\mathcal F}}\subset {{\mathcal A}}^{\alpha}$. To complete the proof we show that the range of $\pi$ is contained in (and hence equal to) ${{\mathcal F}}$. By continuity of $\pi$ and Corollary \[8\], it is enough to show that $\pi(s_{u,v}) \in {{\mathcal F}}$ for all $u,v \in \overline W$. This is so because $$\label{pi(x)} \pi(s_{u,v})= s_{u,v}\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^r}t^{{{\sigma}}(u)-{{\sigma}}(v)}dt=\begin{cases}
0& \text{if ${{\sigma}}(u)\ne {{\sigma}}(v)$},\\
s_{u,v}& \text{if ${{\sigma}}(u) = {{\sigma}}(v)$}.
\end{cases}$$
Simplicity {#sectionsimplicity}
==========
We show that the $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is simple. Consequently any nontrivial $C^*$-algebra with generators $S_{u,v}$ satisfying relations (\[rel1\]) is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal A}}$. Several preliminary lemmas are necessary. Consequences of (H3), their theme is the existence of words lacking certain periodicities. Recall that for $m\in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$, $|m|=(|m_1|,\dots ,|m_r|)$.
\[a2\] Let $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ with $m \ge 0$ and let $a \in A$. There exists some $l \ge 0$ and some $w \in W_l$ satisfying
1. If $|p| \le m$ and $p \ne 0$ then $\tau_pw\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]} \ne w\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]}$,
2. $o(w)=a.$
Note that if $w=uw_pv$, and if $w_p$ is not $p$-periodic, then neither is $w$. Apply (H3) to obtain for each nonzero $p$, $|p| \le m$, a word $w_p$ which is not $p$-periodic. The final word $w$ is obtained by concatenating these words in some order using “spacers” whose existence is guaranteed by Lemma \[ends\]. The construction is illustrated in Figure \[concatenate\], where the spacer $s_{p,q}$ is chosen so that $o(s_{p,q})=t(w_p)$ and $t(s_{p,q})=o(w_q)$.
\[concatenate\]
units <1cm, 1cm> x from -6 to 6, y from -3 to 3 corners at -3 -3 and -2 -2 corners at -2 -2 and 0 -1 corners at 0 -1 and 1 0 corners at 1 0 and 2 2 corners at 2 2 and 4 3 at -1 -1.5 at 0.5 -0.5 at 1.5 1
\[extra\] One can find $u,u'\in W$ with ${{\sigma}}(u)={{\sigma}}(u')$, $o(u)=o(u')$, but $u\ne u'$.
Assume the contrary. Considering words of shape $e_1$, we see that for fixed $a$, no more than one $b\in A$ satisfies $M_1(b,a)=1$. By Lemma \[ends\], at least one $b\in A$ satisfies $M_1(b,a)=1$ and at least one $c\in A$ satisfies $M_1(c,a)=1$. Consequently the directed graph associated to $M_1$ must be a union of closed cycles. If $g$ is the g.c.d of the cycle lengths, then every $w\in W$ is $ge_1$-periodic, contradicting (H3).
\[a3\] Let $p \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$. Let $w_1,w_2 \in W_l$. There exist $l' \ge l$ and $w_1',w_2' \in W_{l'}$ such that $$w_1'\vert_{[0,l]}=w_1, \qquad w_2'\vert_{[0,l]}=w_2,$$ and $$\tau_pw_1'\vert_{[0,l']\cap[p,p+l']} \ne w_2'\vert_{[0,l']\cap[p,p+l']}.$$
Find two different words $u,v$ with ${{\sigma}}(u)={{\sigma}}(v)$ and $o(u)=o(v)$. Choose $s$ so that $p+{{\sigma}}(w_1)+{{\sigma}}(s) \ge 0$, $o(s)=t(w_1)$ and $t(s)=o(u)=o(v)$. Choose $w_2''$ so that $w_2''\vert_{[0,l]}=w_2$ and ${{\sigma}}(w_2'') \ge p+{{\sigma}}(w_1)+{{\sigma}}(s)+{{\sigma}}(u)$. Consider $w_2''\vert_{[p+{{\sigma}}(w_1)+{{\sigma}}(s),p+{{\sigma}}(w_1)+{{\sigma}}(s)+{{\sigma}}(u)]}$. If this is equal to $u$, let $w_1''=w_1sv$, otherwise, let $w_1''=w_1su$. (This is illustrated in Figure \[aperiodiclemma\].) Finally, let $l'={{\sigma}}(w_1'')\vee {{\sigma}}(w_2'')$ and extend $w_1''$ and $w_2''$ to words $w_1'$ and $w_2'$ in $ W_{l'}$.
\[aperiodiclemma\] units <1cm, 1cm> x from -6 to 6, y from -2 to 2 corners at -3 -2 and 0 0 corners at 0 0 and 1 1 corners at 1 1 and 3 2 corners at -3 -2 and 3 2 at -1.5 -1 at 0.5 0.5 at 2 1.5
\[bb\] Fix $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ with $m \ge 0$. For some $l \ge 0$ there exists a subset $S =\{w_a;\ a \in A\}$ of $W_l$ satisfying the two properties below.
1. For each $a \in A$, $o(w_a)=a.$
2. Let $a,b \in A$. Let $p \ne 0$ be in ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$ with $|p| \le m$. Then $w_a\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]} \ne \tau_pw_b\vert_{[0,l]\cap[p,p+l]}$.
The elements of $S$ are chosen as follows. For each $a \in A$, let $w_a \in W$ satisfy the conclusions of Lemma \[a2\]. By extending the words $w_a$ as necessary we may suppose that $w_a \in W_l$ for some $l \ge 0$. If $a,b\in A$, $a\ne b$ and $p\in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ with $|p|\le m$, we can apply Lemma \[a3\] and extend $w_a$ and $w_b$ to $w_a'$ and $w_b'$ where $\tau_pw_a'$ and $w_b'$ do not agree on their common domain. Then one can extend all the other $w_c$ to $w_c'$ of the same shape as $w_a'$ and $w_b'$. Apply this procedure once for each of the finitely many triples $(a,b,p)\in A\times A\times {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ with $|p|\le m$ and $a\ne b$, and the proof is done.
Fix $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$. Choose $l$ and $S$ satisfying the conditions of Lemma \[bb\]. Define $$\label{EQ}Q= \displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w \in \overline W;{{\sigma}}(w)=m+l \\
w\vert_{[m,m+l]} \in S
}} s_{w,w}.$$
\[bc\] If $l'\ge l$, then $$\label{XX}
Q= \displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w\in \overline W;{{\sigma}}(w)=m+l' \\
w\vert_{[m,m+l]} \in S
}} s_{w,w}.$$
By (H1) and Lemma \[f2\], $$\displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w\in \overline W;{{\sigma}}(w)=m+l' \\
w\vert_{[m,m+l]} \in S
}} s_{w,w}
=
\displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w_1\in \overline W, w_2\in W \\
{{\sigma}}(w_1)=m+l, {{\sigma}}(w_2)=l'-l \\
w_1\vert_{[m,m+l]} \in S, t(w_1)=o(w_2)
}} s_{w_1w_2,w_1w_2}
=
Q.$$
\[bd\] Suppose ${{\sigma}}(u),{{\sigma}}(v) \le m$ and $t(u)=t(v)=a$. If ${{\sigma}}(u) \ne {{\sigma}}(v)$, then $Qs_{u,v}Q = 0$.
Using Lemma \[f2\], write $$s_{u,v}= \displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
v_1; {{\sigma}}(v_1)=m+l \\
o(v_1)=a
}} s_{uv_1,vv_1}.$$ Apply Lemma \[bc\] with $l'=l+{{\sigma}}(v)$ so that for each word $w$ in the sum (\[XX\]) ${{\sigma}}(w)=m+l+{{\sigma}}(v)={{\sigma}}(vv_1)$. By Lemma \[5\], $s_{uv_1,vv_1}s_{w,w}=0$ unless $vv_1=w$. Consequently $s_{uv_1,vv_1}Q=0$ unless $vv_1\vert_{[m,m+l]} \in S$, which is to say $v_1\vert_{[m-{{\sigma}}(v),m-{{\sigma}}(v)+l]}\in S$. Similarly, $Qs_{uv_1,vv_1}=0$ unless $v_1\vert_{[m-{{\sigma}}(u),m-{{\sigma}}(u)+l]}\in S$. But if $w_1=v_1\vert_{[m-{{\sigma}}(v),m-{{\sigma}}(v)+l]}\in S$ and $w_2=v_1\vert_{[m-{{\sigma}}(u),m-{{\sigma}}(u)+l]}\in S$, then $w_1$ and $w_2$ would fail condition (2) of Lemma \[bb\], with $p={{\sigma}}(u)-{{\sigma}}(v)$.
\[bd+\] If $x=\sum_ic_is_{u_i,v_i}$ is a finite linear combination of the generators of ${{\mathcal A}}$ with ${{\sigma}}(u_i),{{\sigma}}(v_i)\le m$ then $QxQ= \displaystyle\sum_{{{\sigma}}(u_i)={{\sigma}}(v_i)}c_iQs_{u_i,v_i}Q=Q\pi(x)Q$, by Lemma \[bd\] and equation [(]{}\[pi(x)\][)]{}.
\[be\] The map $x \mapsto QxQ$ is an isometric \*-algebra map from ${{\mathcal F}}_m$ into ${{\mathcal A}}$.
If ${{\sigma}}(u)={{\sigma}}(v)=m$ and $t(u)=t(v)=a$, then, with the notation of Lemma \[bb\], we have $Qs_{u,v}Q= s_{uw_a,vw_a}$. With the notation of Lemma \[fm\], consider the map $$\bigoplus_{a\in A} {{\mathcal K}}(l^2(\{w \in \overline W; {{\sigma}}(w)=m, t(w)=a\})) \to {{\mathcal A}}$$ given by $$E_{\delta_u,\delta_v}^a \mapsto s_{uw_a,vw_a},$$ when $t(u)=t(v)=a$. This is easily checked to be an injective \*-algebra map, hence an isometry. The map in the statement of the Lemma is the composition of this isometry with that of Lemma \[fm\].
\[main1\] The $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is simple.
Let $\phi$ be a nonzero \*-homomorphism from ${{\mathcal A}}$ to some $C^*$-algebra. It is enough to show that $\phi$ is an isometry. Let $x=\sum_ic_is_{u_i,v_i}$ be a finite linear combination of the generators of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Choose $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$ so that ${{\sigma}}(u_i),{{\sigma}}(v_i) \le m$ for all $i$. Choose $l$ and $S$ as in Lemma \[bb\] and let $Q$ be as in equation (\[EQ\]). By Remark \[bd+\], $QxQ=Q\pi(x)Q$. Observe that $\pi(x) \in {{\mathcal F}}$ and so by Lemma \[be\], $\|Q\pi(x)Q\| = \|\pi(x)\|$. Moreover $Q\pi(x)Q \in {{\mathcal F}}_{m+l}$, so by Proposition \[F\], $\|\phi(Q\pi(x)Q)\| =\|Q\pi(x)Q\|$. Thus $$\|\phi(x)\| \ge \|\phi(Q)\phi(x)\phi(Q)\| = \|\phi(QxQ)\| =
\|\phi(Q\pi(x)Q)\|=\|Q\pi(x)Q\|=\|\pi(x)\|.$$ The inequality extends by continuity to all $x \in {{\mathcal A}}$. It follows that $\phi$ is faithful since if $\phi(y)=0$ then $0 = \|\phi(y^*y)\| \ge \|\pi(y^*y)\|$. Therefore $y=0$, by Lemma \[b\].
\[main1+\] Let ${{{\mathcal H}}}$ be a Hilbert space and for each $u,v \in \overline W$ with $t(u) = t(v)$ let $S_{u,v} \in {{\mathcal B}}({{\mathcal H}})$ be a nonzero partial isometry. If the $S_{u,v}$ satisfy the relations (\[rel1\]) and $\hat {{\mathcal A}}$ denotes the $C^*$-algebra which they generate, then there is a unique \*-isomorphism $\phi$ from ${{\mathcal A}}$ onto $\hat {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\phi(s_{u,v})=S_{u,v}$.
This follows immediately from Lemma \[6\] and Theorem \[main1\].
\[purely\_infinite\] The $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is purely infinite.
Note first that by Lemma \[f2\], $s_{uw,uw}$ is a subprojection of $s_{u,u}$. By Lemma \[f1\], this implies that $s_{u,u}$ is an infinite projection for any $u$. Any rank one projection in any ${{\mathcal F}}_l$ is equivalent to $s_{u,u}$ for some $u\in W_l$, and hence is infinite.
We must show that for every nonzero $h \in {{\mathcal A}}_+$, the $C^*$-algebra $\overline{h{{\mathcal A}}h}$ contains an infinite projection. Since $\pi$ is faithful, we may assume $\|\pi(h^2)\|=1$. Let $0 < \epsilon <1$. Approximate $h$ by self-adjoint finite linear combinations of generators. The square of this approximation gives an element $y=\sum_ic_is_{u_i,v_i}$ with $y\ge 0$ and $\| y-h^2\|\le\epsilon$. Fix $m$ so that ${{\sigma}}(u_i),{{\sigma}}(v_i)\le m$ for all $i$ and then construct $Q$ by Lemma \[bb\] and equation (\[EQ\]). We have $QyQ=Q\pi(y)Q\in {{\mathcal F}}_l$ for some $l$, $QyQ\ge 0$ and $\|QyQ\|= \|Q\pi(y)Q\|=\|\pi(y)\|\ge\|\pi(h^2)\|-\epsilon=1-\epsilon$. Since ${{\mathcal F}}_l$ is a direct sum of (finite or infinite dimensional) algebras of compact operators, there exists a rank one positive operator $R_1\in {{\mathcal F}}_l$ with $\|R_1\|\le(1-\epsilon)^{-1/2}$ so that $R_1QyQR_1=P$ is a rank one projection in ${{\mathcal F}}_l$. Hence $P$ is an infinite projection.
It follows that $\|R_1Qh^2QR_1-P\|\le \|R_1^2\|\|Q\|^2\|y-h^2\|\le \epsilon /(1-\epsilon)$. By functional calculus, one obtains $R_2\in {{\mathcal A}}_+$ so that $R_2R_1Qh^2QR_1R_2$ is a projection and $\|R_2R_1Qh^2QR_1R_2-P\|\le 2\epsilon /(1-\epsilon)$. For small $\epsilon$ one can then find an element $R_3$ in ${{\mathcal A}}$ so that $R_3R_2R_1Qh^2QR_1R_2R_3^*=P$.
Let $R=R_3R_2R_1Q$, so that $Rh^2R^*=P$. Consequently, $Rh$ is a partial isometry, whose initial projection $hR^*Rh$ is a projection in $h{{\mathcal A}}h$ and whose final projection is $P$. Moreover, if $V$ is a partial isometry in ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $V^*V=P$ and $VV^* < P$, then $(hR^*)V(Rh)$ is a partial isometry in $h{{\mathcal A}}h$ with initial projection $hR^*Rh$ and final projection strictly less than $hR^*Rh$.
We can now explain one of the reasons for introducing the set $D$ of decorations. Recall that $D$ is a countable or finite set. Denote by ${{\mathcal A}}_D$ the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ corresponding to a given $D$. One special case of interest is when $D=A$ and $\delta$ is the identity map. Then the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}_A$ is a direct generalization of a Cuntz-Krieger algebra [@ck]. There is an obvious notion of equivalence for decorations: two decorations $\delta_1 : D_1 \to A$ and $\delta_2 : D_2 \to A$ are equivalent if there is a bijection $\eta: D_1 \to D_2$ such that $\delta_1 = \delta_2 \eta$. Equivalent decorations give rise to isomorphic algebras. Given any set $D$ of decorations we can obtain another set of decorations $D \times {{\mathbb N}}$, with the decorating map $\delta':D\times {{\mathbb N}}\to A$ defined by $\delta'((d,i)) = \delta(d)$.
\[DN\] There exists an isomorphism of $C^*$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}_{D \times {{\mathbb N}}} \cong {{\mathcal A}}_D\otimes{{\mathcal K}}$.
If $u,v \in W$, the isomorphism is given by $s_{((d,i),u),((d',j),v)} \mapsto s_{(d,u),(d',v)}\otimes E_{i,j}$, where the $E_{i,j}$ are matrix units for ${{\mathcal B}}(l^2({{\mathbb N}}))$. The fact that this is an isomorphism follows from Corollary \[main1+\].
This procedure is useful, because it provides a routine method of passing from ${{\mathcal A}}$ to ${{\mathcal A}}\otimes{{\mathcal K}}$, a technique that is necessary to obtain the results of [@ck].
\[27\] Let $l: D \to {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$ be any map. Define $D'=\{(d,w)\in {{\overline W}};\ {{\sigma}}(w)=l(d)\}$ and define ${{{\delta}'}}: D' \to A$ by ${{{\delta}'}}({{\overline w}})=t({{\overline w}})$. Then ${{\mathcal A}}_{D'}\cong{{\mathcal A}}_D$.
Define $\phi: {{\mathcal A}}_{D'}\to{{\mathcal A}}_D$ by $\phi(s_{({{\overline w}}_1,u_1),({{\overline w}}_2,u_2)})=s_{{{\overline w}}_1u_1,{{\overline w}}_2u_2}$, for ${{\overline w}}_1,{{\overline w}}_2\in D'$, $u_1,u_2 \in W$, $o(u_i)={{{\delta}'}}({{\overline w}}_i)=t({{\overline w}}_i)$, and $t(u_1)=t(u_2)$. Relations (\[rel1\]) (for ${{\mathcal A}}_{D'}$) are satisfied for $\phi(s_{({{\overline w}}_1,u_1),({{\overline w}}_2,u_2)})$. By Corollary \[main1+\] the homomorphism $\phi$ exists and is injective. Relation (\[rel1c\]) for ${{\mathcal A}}_D$ shows that each generator of ${{\mathcal A}}_D$ is in the image of $\phi$. Hence $\phi$ is an isomorphism.
\[27+\] For any $(D,\delta)$, ${{\mathcal A}}_D$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal A}}_{D'}$ for some $(D',{{{\delta}'}})$ with ${{{\delta}'}}:D'\to A$ surjective.
By general hypothesis, $D$ is nonempty and $A$ is finite. Use Lemma \[27\] once to replace $D$ with $D''$ so that $\#(D'')\ge\#(A)$, and use it again, in conjunction with Lemma \[ends\], to construct the pair $(D',{{{\delta}'}})$.
\[27++\] For a fixed alphabet $A$ and fixed transition matrices $M_j$, the isomorphism class of ${{\mathcal A}}_D \otimes {{\mathcal K}}$ is independent of $D$.
By Corollary \[27+\], ${{\mathcal A}}_D \cong {{\mathcal A}}_{D'}$ for some $(D',{{{\delta}'}})$ with ${{{\delta}'}}:D'\to A$ surjective. By Lemma \[DN\], ${{\mathcal A}}_{D' \times {{\mathbb N}}} \cong {{\mathcal A}}_{D'}\otimes{{\mathcal K}}$. Since ${{{\delta}'}}$ is surjective, the decorating set $D' \times {{\mathbb N}}$ is equivalent to the decorating set $A \times {{\mathbb N}}$: the inverse image of each $a\in A$ is countable. Thus ${{\mathcal A}}_D\otimes{{\mathcal K}}\cong {{\mathcal A}}_{A \times {{\mathbb N}}}$.
Decorating sets other than $A$ and $A \times {{\mathbb N}}$ arise naturally in the examples associated to affine buildings.
Construction of the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}\otimes {{\mathcal K}}$ as a crossed product {#ZRCP}
=======================================================================================
A vital tool in [@ck] was the expression of ${{\mathcal O}}_A\otimes {{\mathcal K}}$ as the crossed product of an AF algebra by a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-action [@ck Theorem 3.8]. The present section is devoted to an analogous result. In view of Lemma \[DN\], this is done by establishing an isomorphism from ${{\mathcal A}}_{A\times {{\mathbb N}}}$ onto the crossed product of an AF-algebra by a ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$-action. The AF-algebra will be isomorphic to the algebra ${{\mathcal F}}$ of Section \[The AF subalgebra\], relative to the decorating set $A \times {{\mathbb N}}$, and the action of an element $k \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ will map the subalgebra ${{\mathcal F}}_m$ onto ${{\mathcal F}}_{m+k}$ for each $m \ge 0$.
Let a $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}'$ be defined just as ${{\mathcal A}}$ is, with $D=A$ and with generators $\{s'_{u,v}; u,v \in W \ \text{and} \ o(u) = o(v) \}$. The relations are the same as those in (\[rel1\]) except that in the sum (\[rel1c\]), words are extended from the beginning. The full relations are
\[rel1’\] $$\begin{aligned}
{s'_{u,v}}^* &=& s'_{v,u} \label{rel1a'}\\
s'_{u,v}s'_{v,w}&=&s'_{u,w} \label{rel1b'}\\
s'_{u,v}&=&\displaystyle\sum_{\substack{w\in W;{{\sigma}}(w)=e_j,\\
t(w)=o(u)=o(v)}} s'_{wu,wv} \label{rel1c'}\\
s'_{u,u}s'_{v,v}&=&0 \ \text{for} \ u,v \in W_0, u \ne v. \label{rel1d'}\end{aligned}$$
This may be thought of as using words with extension in the negative direction. Alternatively, replacing $M_j$ by the transpose matrix $M_j^t$ for each $j$ in the definition of ${{\mathcal A}}$ results in an algebra isomorphic to ${{\mathcal A}}'$. Conditions (H0)–(H3) for the $M_j^t$ follow from the corresponding conditions for the $M_j$. Consequently all the preceding results are valid for the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}'$.
By Theorem \[main1\], ${{\mathcal A}}'$ is a simple separable $C^*$-algebra. Let $\psi : {{\mathcal A}}' \to {{\mathcal B}}({{\mathcal H}})$ be a nondegenerate representation of ${{\mathcal A}}'$ on a *separable* Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$. For $a \in A$, let ${{\mathcal H}}_a$ be the range of the projection $\psi(s'_{a,a})$. Then ${{\mathcal H}}= \bigoplus_{a\in A} {{\mathcal H}}_a$. By Lemmas \[f2\] and \[nonzero+\], each ${{\mathcal H}}_a$ is infinite dimensional. Let ${{\mathcal C}}= \bigoplus_{a\in A} {{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal H}}_a) \subset {{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal H}})$.
For each $l \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$ define a map $\alpha_l : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ by $$\label{alpha}\alpha_l(x) = \displaystyle\sum_{w \in W_l}
\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})x\psi(s'_{o(w),w}).$$ Note that $\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})$ is a partial isometry with initial space ${{\mathcal H}}_{o(w)}$ and final space lying inside ${{\mathcal H}}_{t(w)}$.
\[alpha1\] Let $\alpha_l$ be as above.
1. $\alpha_l$ has image in ${{\mathcal C}}$.
2. $\alpha_l$ is a $C^*$-algebra inclusion.
3. For $k,l \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$, $\alpha_k\alpha_l=\alpha_{k+l}$.
1\. Clearly $\alpha_l(x) \in {{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal H}})$. Moreover for fixed $w \in W$ with $t(w) = a$, $\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})x\psi(s'_{o(w),w}) \in {{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal H}}_a)$.
2\. Fix $w \in W_l$ with $o(w)=a$. Observe that $s'_{w,a}$ is a partial isometry with initial projection $s_{a,a}$. Moreover for two different words $w_1,w_2 \in W_l$, the range projections of $s'_{w_1,o(w_1)}$ and $s'_{w_2,o(w_2)}$ are orthogonal. The result is now clear.
3\. If $w_1 \in W_k$ and $w_2 \in W_l$ then according to Lemmas \[f2\] and \[5\], $$\label{orth'}
s'_{w_1,o(w_1)}s'_{w_2,o(w_2)}=
\displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w_3 \in W_l \\
t(w_3)=o(w_1)
}}
s'_{w_3w_1,w_3}s'_{w_2,o(w_2)}
=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $t(w_2) \ne o(w_1)$}\\
s'_{w_2w_1,o(w_2)} & \text{if $t(w_2)= o(w_1)$}.
\end{cases}$$
Therefore $$\begin{split}
\alpha_k\alpha_l(x) & =
\displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w_1 \in W_k \\
w_2 \in W_l
}}
\psi(s'_{w_1,o(w_1)})\psi(s'_{w_2,o(w_2)})x\psi(s'_{o(w_2),w_2})\psi(s'_{o(w_1),w_1}) \\
& = \displaystyle\sum_
{\substack{
w_1 \in W_k \\
w_2 \in W_l \\
t(w_2)=o(w_1)
}}
\psi(s'_{w_2w_1,o(w_2)})x\psi(s'_{o(w_2),w_2w_1}) \\
& = \alpha_{k+l}(x).
\end{split}$$
For each $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ let ${{\mathcal C}}^{(m)}$ be an isomorphic copy of ${{\mathcal C}}$, and for each $l \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$, let $$\alpha_l^{(m)} : {{\mathcal C}}^{(m)} \to {{\mathcal C}}^{(m+l)}$$ be a copy of $\alpha_l$. Let ${{\mathcal E}}= \varinjlim {{\mathcal C}}^{(m)}$ be the direct limit of the category of $C^*$-algebras with objects ${{\mathcal C}}^{(m)}$ and morphisms $\alpha_l$ ([@kr Proposition 11.4.1]). Then ${{\mathcal E}}$ is an AF algebra. (See the discussion preceding Proposition \[F\].)
If $x \in {{\mathcal C}}$, let $x^{(m)}$ be the corresponding element of ${{\mathcal C}}^{(m)}$. Then $x^{(m)}$ is identified with $(\alpha_lx)^{(m+l)}$ for all $l \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r_+$. Define an action $\rho$ of ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$ on ${{\mathcal E}}$ by $\rho(l)(x^{(m)})=x^{(m+l)}$. Since ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$ is amenable, the full crossed product of ${{\mathcal E}}$ by this action coincides with the reduced crossed product [@ped Theorem 7.7.7], and we denote it simply by ${{\mathcal E}}\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}^r$. The defining property of the crossed product says that there is a unitary representation $m \mapsto U^m$ of ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$ into the multiplier algebra of ${{\mathcal E}}\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ such that $\rho(l)(x^{(m)})=U^lx^{(m)}U^{-l}$, that is $$\label{covar}
U^lx^{(m)}=x^{(m+l)}U^{l}.$$
\[Z\^rcross\] There exists an isomorphism $\phi : {{\mathcal A}}_{A\times {{\mathbb N}}} \to {{\mathcal E}}\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ where, moreover $\phi({{\mathcal F}})={{\mathcal E}}$.
Let $D= A \times {{\mathbb N}}$ and $\delta(a,n)=a$. Fix a map $\beta : D \to {{\mathcal H}}$ so that $\{\beta(d); \delta(d)=a\}$ is an orthonormal basis of ${{\mathcal H}}_a$. For ${{\overline w}}=(d,w) \in {{\overline W}}_m$ define $\beta({{\overline w}}) = \psi(s'_{w,o(w)})\beta(d)$, in this way extending $\beta$ to a map $\beta : \overline W \to {{\mathcal H}}$. Observe that for a fixed $w \in W$ with $o(w)=a$, $\{\beta(d,w) ; d \in D, \delta(d)=a\}$ is an orthonormal basis for the range of $s'_{w,w}$. Since, moreover the ranges of $\{s'_{w,w} ; w \in W_m\}$ are pairwise orthogonal and sum to all of ${{\mathcal H}}$, we see that $\{\beta({{\overline w}}) ; {{\overline w}}\in \overline W_m\}$ is an orthonormal basis for ${{\mathcal H}}$.
For $w \in W$ and ${{\overline u}}=(d,u) \in {{\overline W}}$, we have $$\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})\beta({{\overline u}}) =
\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})\psi(s'_{u,o(u)})\beta(d) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $o(w) \ne t(u)$}\\
\psi(s'_{uw,o(u)})\beta(d) & \text{if $o(w)=t(u)$},
\end{cases}$$ by equation (\[orth’\]). That is $$\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})\beta({{\overline u}}) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $o(w) \ne t(u)$}\\
\beta(\overline uw) & \text{if $o(w)=t(u)$}.
\end{cases}$$
We will now define the map $\phi : {{\mathcal A}}_D \to {{\mathcal E}}\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}^r$. For ${{\overline u}}, {{\overline v}}\in {{\overline W}}$ with $t({{\overline u}})=t({{\overline v}})$ and ${{\sigma}}({{\overline u}})=l$ and ${{\sigma}}({{\overline v}})=m$ define $$\label{phi}
\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}})= U^{m-l}\left(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(l)}.$$
We use the notation $\xi \otimes \overline \eta$ to denote the rank one operator on a Hilbert space defined by $\zeta \mapsto \langle \zeta, \eta \rangle \xi$, so that when $\xi$,$\eta$ have norm one, $\xi \otimes \overline \eta$ is a partial isometry with initial projection $\eta \otimes \overline \eta$ and final projection $\xi \otimes \overline \xi$. If the vectors $\xi$, $\eta$ vary through an orthonormal basis for a Hilbert space then the operators $\xi \otimes \overline \eta$ form a system of matrix units for the compact operators on that Hilbert space. By equation (\[covar\]) we have $$\label{covar+}
\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}})= \left(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(m)}U^{m-l}.$$
We show that the partial isometries $\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}})$ satisfy the relations (\[rel1\]). Relation (\[rel1d\]) is immediate from the definition of $\beta({{\overline w}})$, since if ${{\overline w}}\in {{\overline W}}_0$ then $\phi(s_{{{\overline w}},{{\overline w}}})= \left(\beta({{\overline w}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline w}})}\right)^{(0)}$.
Relation (\[rel1a\]) is satisfied since, by (\[covar+\]), $$\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}})^* = \left(\left(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes
\overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(m)}U^{m-l}\right)^*
= U^{l-m}\left(\beta({{\overline u}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline v}})}\right)^{(m)}= \phi(s_{{{\overline u}},{{\overline v}}}).$$ If $t({{\overline w}})=t({{\overline v}})$ and ${{\sigma}}({{\overline w}})=n$, then $$\begin{split}
\phi(s_{{{\overline w}},{{\overline v}}})\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}}) &=
U^{n-m}\left(\beta({{\overline w}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline v}})}\right)^{(m)}U^{m-l}\left(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes
\overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(l)} \\
&=
U^{n-m}U^{m-l}\left(\beta({{\overline w}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline v}})}\right)^{(l)}\left(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes
\overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(l)} \\
&=
U^{n-l}\left(\beta({{\overline w}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(l)} \\
&=
\phi(s_{{{\overline w}},{{\overline u}}}).
\end{split}$$ Thus (\[rel1b\]) is satisfied. Finally (\[rel1c\]) is a consequence of the following calculation. $$\begin{split}
\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}}) &= U^{m-l}\left(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(l)} \\
&= U^{m-l}\left(\alpha_k(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline u}})})\right)^{(l+k)} \\
&= U^{m-l}\displaystyle \sum_{w \in W_k}
\left(\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes \overline{\psi(s'_{w,o(w)})\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(l+k)} \\
&= U^{m-l}\displaystyle \sum_{\substack{w \in W_k \\ o(w)=t({{\overline u}})}}
\left(\beta({{\overline v}}w) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline u}}w)}\right)^{(l+k)} \\
&= \displaystyle \sum_{\substack{w \in W_k \\ o(w)=t({{\overline u}})}}
\phi(s_{{{\overline v}}w,{{\overline u}}w}).
\end{split}$$
All the relations (\[rel1\]) are satisfied by the partial isometries $\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}})$. Therefore by Lemma \[6\], $\phi$ defines a \*-homomorphism. Clearly $\phi$ is not the zero map; hence it is an isometry, by Theorem \[main1\]. It only remains to show that $\phi$ is onto.
Fix $m, n \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r$ so that $m, m+n \ge 0$. For ${{\overline u}}\in {{\overline W}}_m$ and ${{\overline v}}\in {{\overline W}}_{m+n}$ with $t({{\overline u}})=t({{\overline v}})=a$, we have $$\phi(s_{{{\overline v}},{{\overline u}}})= U^n\left(\beta({{\overline v}}) \otimes \overline{\beta({{\overline u}})}\right)^{(m)}.$$
As the sets $\{\beta({{\overline v}}) ;\ {{\overline v}}\in {{\overline W}}_{m+n}, t({{\overline v}})=a\}$ and $\{\beta({{\overline u}}) ;\ {{\overline u}}\in {{\overline W}}_m, t({{\overline u}})=a\}$ are bases for ${{\mathcal H}}_a$, the image of $\phi$ contains a dense subset of $U^n\left({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal H}}_a)\right)^{(m)}$. Therefore the image of $\phi$ contains $U^n\left({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal H}}_a)\right)^{(m)}$, for each $a \in A$. It therefore contains $U^n{{\mathcal C}}^{(m)}$.
Also, for any $k \ge 0$, $$\phi({{\mathcal A}}_{A\times {{\mathbb N}}}) \supseteq U^n{{\mathcal C}}^{(m)} \supseteq U^n \alpha_k^{(m-k)}{{\mathcal C}}^{(m-k)}= U^n{{\mathcal C}}^{(m-k)}.$$ It follows that $\phi({{\mathcal A}}_{A\times {{\mathbb N}}}) = {{\mathcal E}}\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}^r$. It is clear from the definitions that $\phi({{\mathcal F}}_m)={{\mathcal C}}^{(m)}$ and that $\phi({{\mathcal F}})={{\mathcal E}}$.
\[Z\^rcross+\] ${{\mathcal A}}\otimes{{\mathcal K}}\cong {{\mathcal E}}\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}^r$.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[Z\^rcross\], Lemma \[DN\] and Corollary \[27++\].
\[nuclear\] ${{\mathcal A}}$ is nuclear.
This follows because the class of nuclear $C^*$-algebras is closed under stable isomorphism and crossed products by amenable groups, and contains the AF algebras.
\[previous\] Suppose that $D$ is finite, so that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is unital by Remark \[finitedecorate\]. Then it has been established that the separable unital $C^*$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is simple (Theorem \[main1\]), nuclear (Corollary \[nuclear\]) and purely infinite (Proposition \[purely\_infinite\]). Corollary \[Z\^rcross+\] also shows that ${{\mathcal A}}$ belongs to the bootstrap class ${\mathcal N}$, which contains the AF-algebras and is closed under stable isomorphism and crossed products by ${{\mathbb Z}}$. Thus ${{\mathcal A}}$ satisfies the Universal Coefficient Theorem [@bl Theorem 23.1.1]. The work of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">E. Kirchberg</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Phillips</span> [@k; @k'],[@p] therefore shows that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is classified by its K-groups.
Boundary actions on affine buildings of type ${\widetilde}A_2$ {#boundary-algebra}
==============================================================
Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be a locally finite thick affine building of type ${\widetilde}A_2$. This means that ${{\mathcal B}}$ is a chamber system consisting of vertices, edges and triangles (*chambers*). An *apartment* is a subcomplex of ${{\mathcal B}}$ isomorphic to the Euclidean plane tesselated by equilateral triangles. A *sector* (or *Weyl chamber*) is a $\frac{\pi}{3}$-angled sector made up of chambers in some apartment. Two sectors are *equivalent* (or parallel) if their intersection contains a sector. We refer to [@bro; @g; @ron] for the theory of buildings. Shorter introductions to the theory are provided by [@bro'; @ca; @st].
The boundary $\Omega$ is defined to be the set of equivalence classes of sectors in ${{\mathcal B}}$. In ${{\mathcal B}}$ we fix some vertex $O$, which we assume to have type $0$. For any $\omega \in \Omega$ there is a unique sector $[O,\omega)$ in the class $\omega$ having base vertex $O$ [@ron Theorem 9.6]. The boundary $\Omega$ is a totally disconnected compact Hausdorff space with a base for the topology given by sets of the form $$\Omega(v) = \left \{ \omega \in \Omega : [O,\omega) \ \text{ contains } v \right \}$$ where $v$ is a vertex of ${{\mathcal B}}$ [@cms Section 2]. We note that if $[O,\omega) \ \text{ contains } v$ then $[O,\omega)$ contains the parallelogram $\operatorname{conv}(O,v)$.
Let ${{\Gamma}}$ be a group of type rotating automorphisms of ${{\mathcal B}}$ that acts freely on the vertex set with finitely many orbits. See [@cmsz] for a discussion and examples in the case where ${{\Gamma}}$ acts transitively on the vertex set. There is a natural induced action of ${{\Gamma}}$ on the boundary $\Omega$ and we can form the universal crossed product algebra $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ [@ped]. The purpose of this section is to identify $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ with an algebra of the form ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Let ${{\mathfrak a}}$ be a Coxeter complex of type ${\widetilde}A_2$, which we shall use as a model for the apartments of ${{\mathcal B}}$. Each vertex of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ has type $0$,$1$, or $2$. Fix as the origin in ${{\mathfrak a}}$ a vertex of type $0$. Coordinatize the vertices by ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ by choosing a fixed sector in ${{\mathfrak a}}$ based at the origin and defining the positive coordinate axes to be the corresponding sector panels (*cloisons de quartier*). The coordinate axes are therefore given by two of the three walls of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ passing through the origin. Let ${{\mathfrak t}}$ be a model *tile* in ${{\mathfrak a}}$ and let ${{\mathfrak p}}_m$ be a model parallelogram in ${{\mathfrak a}}$ of *shape* $m = (m_1,m_2)$, as illustrated in Figure \[models\]. As per Figure \[models\], assume that ${{\mathfrak t}}$ and ${{\mathfrak p}}_m$ are both based at $(0,0)$. Thus ${{\mathfrak t}}$ is the model parallelogram of shape $(0,0)$.
\[models\] units <0.5cm,0.866cm> point at -6 0 x from -5 to 5, y from -3.5 to 4.5 \[t\] at 1 -2.2 \[b\] at -1 4.2 \[l\] at 3.2 0 \[r\] at -3.2 2 1 -2 3 0 / -3 2 -1 4 / -1 4 3 0 / -3 2 1 -2 / at 0 -3.5 units <0.5cm,0.866cm> point at 6 0 x from -5 to 5, y from -3.5 to 4.5 \[t\] at 0 -0.2 \[b\] at 0 2.2 \[r\] at -1.2 1 \[l\] at 1.2 1 from -1 1 to 1 1 -1 1 0 0 1 1 / -1 1 0 2 1 1 / at 0 -2
Let ${{\mathfrak T}}$ denote the set of type rotating isometries $i :{{\mathfrak t}}\to{{\mathcal B}}$, and let $A = {{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak T}}$. We will use the set $A$ as an alphabet to define an algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. Let ${{\mathfrak P}}_m$ denote the set of type rotating isometries $p:{{\mathfrak p}}_m \to {{\mathcal B}}$, and let ${{\mathfrak W}}_m = {{\Gamma}}\backslash
{{\mathfrak P}}_m$. Let ${{\mathfrak P}}= \bigcup_m {{\mathfrak P}}_m$ and ${{\mathfrak W}}= \bigcup_m {{\mathfrak W}}_m$.
If $p \in {{\mathfrak P}}_m$, then define $t(p) : {{\mathfrak t}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$ by $t(p)(l) = p(m+l)$. Then $t(p)$ is a type rotating isometry such that $t(p)({{\mathfrak t}})$ lies in $p({{\mathfrak p}}_m)$ with $t(p)(1,1)=p(m_1+1,m_2+1)$, as illustrated in Figure \[t(p)\]. Thus $t(p) \in {{\mathfrak T}}$. Similarly $o(p) : {{\mathfrak t}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$ is defined by $o(p)=p\vert_{{{\mathfrak t}}}$.
\[t(p)\]
units <0.5cm,0.866cm> \[t\] at 1 -2.2 at 0 1 \[r\] at -1.6 3.6 \[r\] at 0.4 -1.6 x from -6 to 6, y from -3 to 4 1 -2 3 0 -1 4 -3 2 1 -2 / -1.5 3.5 -1 3 -0.5 3.5 / 0.5 -1.5 1 -1 1.5 -1.5 /
The matrices $M_1$, $M_2$ with entries in $\{0,1\}$ are defined as follows. If $a,b \in A$, say that $M_1(b,a)=1$ if and only if there exists $p \in {{\mathfrak P}}_{(1,0)}$ such that $a={{\Gamma}}o(p)$ and $b={{\Gamma}}t(p)$. Similarly, if $c \in A$ then $M_2(c,a)=1$ if and only if there exists $p \in {{\mathfrak P}}_{(0,1)}$ such that $a={{\Gamma}}o(p)$ and $c={{\Gamma}}t(p)$. The definitions are illustrated in Figure \[tiles\], for suitable representative isometries $i_a$,$i_b$,$i_c$ in ${{\mathfrak T}}$.
\[tiles\]
units <0.5cm,0.866cm> point at -6 0 x from -5 to 5, y from -1 to 3.3 at 1 2 at 0 1 at 0 -1 -1 1 0 0 1 1 / -1 1 0 2 1 1 / 1 1 2 2 1 3 0 2 / units <0.5cm,0.866cm> point at 6 0 x from -5 to 5, y from -1 to 3.3 at -1 2 at 0 1 at 0 -1 -1 1 0 0 1 1 / -1 1 0 2 1 1 / -1 1 -2 2 -1 3 0 2 /
In order to apply the general results we need to verify that conditions (H0)-(H3) are satisfied. We address this question in the subsection \[conditionsH0-H4\]. Until further notice we simply impose the following
> [**ASSUMPTION**]{}: Conditions [(H0)-(H3)]{} are satisfied.
We can now define the set of words $W_m$ of shape $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ based on the alphabet $A$ and the transition matrices $M_1$,$M_2$, as in Section 1. There is also a natural map $\alpha : {{\mathfrak P}}\to W$, defined as follows. Given $p \in {{\mathfrak P}}_m$, construct $\alpha(p)=w$ according to the following procedure. For each $n \in {{\mathbb Z}}^2_+$ with $0 \le n \le
m$, let $w(n)={{\Gamma}}p_n$ where $p_n \in {{\mathfrak T}}$ is defined by $p_n(l)=p(n+l)$, for $(0,0) \le l \le (1,1)$. Since the translation $l \mapsto n+l$ is a type-rotating isometry of ${{\mathfrak a}}$, it follows that $p_n$ is type rotating, hence an element of ${{\mathfrak T}}$. Passing to the quotient by ${{\Gamma}}$ gives a well defined map $\alpha : {{\mathfrak W}}_m \to W_m$ and hence a map $\alpha : {{\mathfrak W}}\to W$. The use of $\alpha$ for the different maps should not cause confusion. If $a= {{\Gamma}}i \in A = {{\mathfrak W}}_0$ then $\alpha(a)=a$, so it is clear that $o(\alpha(p))={{\Gamma}}o(p)$ and $t(\alpha(p))= {{\Gamma}}t(p)$.
\[frWm\] The map $\alpha$ is a bijection from ${{\mathfrak W}}_m$ to $W_m$ for each $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^2_+$.
Suppose that $\alpha(p)=\alpha(p')$. Then ${{\Gamma}}p_n = {{\Gamma}}p'_n$ for $0 \le n \le m$. For each $n$ there exists ${{\gamma}}_n$ so that ${{\gamma}}_np_n=p_n'$. Since ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely on the vertices, each ${{\gamma}}_n$ is uniquely determined. Moreover, since $p_n$ and $p_{n+e_j}$ share a pair of vertices in their image, it must be true that ${{\gamma}}_n={{\gamma}}_{n+e_j}$. By induction, the ${{\gamma}}_n$ have a common value, ${{\gamma}}$, and ${{\gamma}}p=p'$. Thus ${{\Gamma}}p = {{\Gamma}}p'$.
It remains to show that $\alpha$ is surjective. Let $w \in
W_m$. Choose a path $(n_0,\dots,n_k)$ of points in ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ so that $n_0=0, n_k=m$, and each difference $n_{j+1}-n_j$ is either $e_1$ or $e_2$. Choose representative type rotating isometries $i_0,i_1, \dots
,i_k$ from ${{\mathfrak t}}$ into ${{\mathcal B}}$ with ${{\Gamma}}i_r=w(n_r)$ so that $i_r({{\mathfrak t}})$ and $i_{r+1}({{\mathfrak t}})$ are adjacent tiles in ${{\mathcal B}}$, according to the two possibilities in Figure \[tiles\]. This defines a gallery ${{\mathfrak G}}=\{i_0({{\mathfrak t}}),i_1({{\mathfrak t}}), \dots ,i_k({{\mathfrak t}})\}$. Let ${{\mathfrak G}}_0=\{C_0,C_1,
\dots,C_k\}$ be the corresponding gallery in ${{\mathfrak p}}_m$ with $C_0={{\mathfrak t}}$. It is clear from Figure \[inductive step\] that ${{\mathfrak G}}_0$ is a minimal gallery in ${{\mathfrak a}}$. (The elements of ${{\mathfrak G}}$ and ${{\mathfrak G}}_0$ are tiles rather than chambers, but this is immaterial.) The obvious map $p : {{\mathfrak G}}_0 \to {{\mathfrak G}}$ is a strong isometry (preserves generalized distance). Therefore ${{\mathfrak G}}$ is contained in an apartment and $p$ extends to a strong isometry $p$ from the convex hull $\operatorname{conv}({{\mathfrak G}}_0)={{\mathfrak p}}_m$ into that apartment. See [@bro p. 90,Theorem] and [@bro' Appendix B]. Thus $p \in {{\mathfrak P}}_m$ and since $\alpha(p)$ agrees with $w$ at $n_0,n_1,\dots,n_k$, (H1) implies that $\alpha(p)=w$.
\[inductive step\]
units <0.5cm,0.866cm> x from -6 to 6, y from -6 to 2 1 2 -2.5 -1.5 1 -5 4.5 -1.5 1 2 / 1 -2 0.5 -1.5 1 -1 1.5 -1.5 1 -2 / 1 -5 1.5 -4.5 1 -4 0.5 -4.5 / 1 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 1.5 / 1.25 -1.25 2.5 0 1.25 1.25 / 0.75 -1.75 -0.5 -3 0.75 -4.25 /
Let ${{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m$ denote the set of type rotating isometries $p :{{\mathfrak p}}_m \to
{{\mathcal B}}$ such that $p(0,0)=O$ and let ${{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}= \bigcup_m {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m$. Let $D$ denote the set of type-rotating isometries $d : {{\mathfrak t}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$ such that $d(0,0)=O$. Let $\delta : D \to A$ be given by $\delta(d)={{\Gamma}}d$. The map $\delta$ is injective since ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$. Moreover $\delta$ is surjective if and only if ${{\Gamma}}$ acts transitively on the vertices. Define ${{\overline{\alpha}}}: {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}\to {{\overline W}}$ by ${{\overline{\alpha}}}(p)=\left(o(p), \alpha({{\Gamma}}p)\right)$. (Recall that $o(p)=
p\vert_{{{\mathfrak t}}}$.)
\[oalpha\] The map ${{\overline{\alpha}}}$ is a bijection from ${{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m$ onto ${{\overline W}}_m$ for each $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^2_+$.
If ${{\overline{\alpha}}}(p_1)={{\overline{\alpha}}}(p_2)$ then $o(p_1)=o(p_2)$; moreover ${{\Gamma}}p_1={{\Gamma}}p_2$, by Lemma \[frWm\]. Since ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely on the vertices, it follows that $p_1=p_2$. Therefore ${{\overline{\alpha}}}$ is injective.
To see that it is surjective, let ${{\overline w}}= (d,w) \in {{\overline W}}_m$, where $w
\in W_m$ and $d \in D$. By Lemma \[frWm\], there exists $p \in
{{\mathfrak P}}_m$ such that $\alpha( {{\Gamma}}p)=w$. Then $${{\Gamma}}d=\delta (d)=o(w)=o(\alpha({{\Gamma}}p))= {{\Gamma}}o(p).$$ Replacing $p$ by ${{\gamma}}p$ for suitable ${{\gamma}}\in {{\Gamma}}$ ensures that $o(p)=d$ and hence $p\in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m$ and ${{\overline{\alpha}}}(p)={{\overline w}}$.
If $p \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}$ then $\operatorname{conv}(O,t(p)({{\mathfrak t}}))=\operatorname{conv}(O,p(m_1+1,m_2+1))$ and we introduce the notation $$\Omega(p)=\Omega(p(m_1+1,m_2+1)) = \left \{ \omega \in \Omega ; t(p) \subset [O,\omega) \right \}
=\left \{ \omega \in \Omega ; p({{\mathfrak p}}_m) \subset [O,\omega) \right \}.$$
Let $i\in {{\mathfrak T}}$, that is, suppose that $i :{{\mathfrak t}}\to{{\mathcal B}}$ is a type rotating isometry. Let $$\Omega(i)=\left \{ \omega \in \Omega ; i({{\mathfrak t}}) \subset [i(0,0),\omega) \right \},$$ those boundary points represented by sectors which originate at $i(0,0)$ and contain $i({{\mathfrak t}})$. Clearly $\Omega({{\gamma}}i)={{\gamma}}\Omega(i)$. For $p \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m$ we have $\Omega(p)=\Omega(t(p))$. Indeed, any sector originating at $t(p)(0,0)$ and containing $t(p)({{\mathfrak t}})$ extends to a sector originating at $O$ and containing $p({{\mathfrak p}}_m)$.
Fix ${{\overline w}}_1, {{\overline w}}_2 \in {{\overline W}}$ with $t({{\overline w}}_1)=t({{\overline w}}_2)=a \in A$. Let $p_1={{\overline{\alpha}}}^{-1}({{\overline w}}_1)$ and $p_2={{\overline{\alpha}}}^{-1}({{\overline w}}_2)$. Let ${{\gamma}}\in {{\Gamma}}$ be the unique element such that ${{\gamma}}t(p_1)=t(p_2)$. Define a homomorphism $\phi: {{\mathcal A}}\to C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ by $$\label{isomorphism}
\phi(s_{{{\overline w}}_2,{{\overline w}}_1})={{\gamma}}{{\bf 1}}_{{{\Omega}}(p_1)}= {{\bf 1}}_{{{\Omega}}(p_2)}{{\gamma}}.$$
Note that by Lemma \[6\] this does indeed define a \*-homomorphism of ${{\mathcal A}}$ because the operators of the form $\phi(s_{{{\overline w}}_2,{{\overline w}}_1})$ are easily seen to satisfy the relations (\[rel1\]). We now prove that $\phi$ is an isomorphism from ${{\mathcal A}}$ onto $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ (Theorem \[main2\] below). For this some preliminaries are necessary.
\[c1\] For any $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}^2_+$, ${{\bf 1}}= \displaystyle \sum_{p \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m} {{\bf 1}}_ {\Omega(p)}$.
This follows from the discussion in [@cms Section 2].
\[c2\] The linear span of $\{ {{\bf 1}}_ {\Omega(p)} ; p \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}\}$ is dense in $C({{\Omega}})$.
This follows because the sets $\Omega(p)$ for $p \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}$ form a basis for the topology of ${{\Omega}}$ [@cms Section 2].
\[c3\] Let $p \in {{\mathfrak P}}_m$ where $m = (m_1,m_2) \in {{\mathbb Z}}^2_+$. Let $x = p(0,0)$ and $y= p(m_1+1,m_2+1)$. Let $y'$ be another vertex of ${{\mathcal B}}$ whose graph distance to $y$ in the $1$-skeleton of ${{\mathcal B}}$ equals $n$. Suppose that $n \le m_1, m_2$. Then $\operatorname{conv}(x,y')$ contains $p({{\mathfrak p}}_{(m_1-n,m_2-n)})$.
Induction reduces us to the case $n=1$. There is some apartment containing $x$ and the edge from $y$ to $y'$. In Figure \[c3’\] we show one of the six possible positions for $y'$.
\[c3’\]
units <0.5cm,0.866cm> point at -4 1 x from -3 to 3, y from -2.5 to 4.5 at -1 4 at 1 4 at -1 -2 \[r,b\] at -1.2 4.1 \[l,b\] at 1.2 4.1 \[r,t\] at -1.2 -2.1 from -1 4 to 1 4 -1 -2 -3 0 1 4 3 2 -1 -2 / -3 0 -4 1 -1 4 2 1 / span <4pt> -3 0 0 <,z,,> -1 -2 2 <z,z,,> 0 -1 3 <z,,,> 2 1 1 /
Now $\operatorname{conv}(x,y')$ is the image of some $p' \in {{\mathfrak P}}_{(m_1+1,m_2-1)}$. It is evident in this case (and in the other five cases) that $p'({{\mathfrak p}}_{(m_1-1,m_2-1)})=p({{\mathfrak p}}_{(m_1-1,m_2-1)})$.
\[9B\] Let $p \in {{\mathfrak P}}_m$ for $m=(m_1,m_2)$. Let $x=p(m_1+1,m_2+1)$ and $y=p(0,0)$. Let $y'$ be a third vertex of ${{\mathcal B}}$ at distance $n$ to $y$. Suppose $n \le m_1,m_2$. Then $\operatorname{conv}(x,y')$ is the image of some $p' \in {{\mathfrak P}}$, where $p'(0,0)=y'$ and $t(p')=t(p)$.
\[9B’\]
units <0.5cm,0.866cm> x from -6 to 6, y from -3 to 4.3 \[t\] at 1 -2.2 \[l\] at -0.8 4.1 \[t\] at -2.5 -1.7 \[r\] at -1.6 3.6 1 -2 3 0 -1 4 -3 2 1 -2 / -3 2 -4.5 0.5 -2.5 -1.5 1 2 / -1.5 3.5 -1 3 -0.5 3.5 /
See Figure \[9B’\]. According to Lemma \[c3\], the convex hull $\operatorname{conv}(x,y')$ contains $t(p)({{\mathfrak t}})$. Because $\operatorname{conv}(x,y')$ contains a chamber, it must be the image of a unique $p' \in {{\mathfrak P}}$ with $p'(0,0)=y'$. Since $t(p)({{\mathfrak t}})$ lies in the image of $p'$, namely $\operatorname{conv}(x,y')$, and $t(p)(1,1)=x$, it follows that $t(p')~=~t(p)$.
\[main2\] The map $\phi$ is an isomorphism from ${{\mathcal A}}$ onto $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$.
Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is simple, $\phi$ is injective. If $p \in {{\overline W}}$ then ${{\bf 1}}_{\Omega(p)}=\phi(s_{{{\overline w}},{{\overline w}}})$, where ${{\overline w}}={{\overline{\alpha}}}(p)$ and so Lemma \[c2\] shows that the range of $\phi$ contains $C({{\Omega}})$. It remains to show that it contains ${{\Gamma}}$. Fix ${{\gamma}}\in {{\Gamma}}$. Choose $m=(m_1,m_2)$ so that $d(O,{{\gamma}}^{-1}O) \le m_1, m_2$. Now ${{\gamma}}= {{\gamma}}{{\bf 1}}= \displaystyle \sum_{p \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m} {{\gamma}}{{\bf 1}}_ {\Omega(p)}$. For $p \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}_m$ we claim that ${{\gamma}}t(p) = t(p')$ for some $p' \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}$. Hence ${{\gamma}}{{\bf 1}}_ {\Omega(p)} = \phi \left(s_{\alpha(p'),\alpha(p)}\right)$. This shows the range of $\phi$ contains ${{\Gamma}}$ and hence is surjective.
To prove the claim above, apply Corollary \[9B\] to find $p'' \in {{\mathfrak P}}$ with $p''(0,0)= {{\gamma}}^{-1}(O)$ and $t(p'')=t(p)$. Let $p' = {{\gamma}}p''$. Then $p'(0,0)=O$, so $p' \in {{\overline{\mathfrak W}}}$ and $t(p')={{\gamma}}t(p'')={{\gamma}}t(p)$.
It follows from Theorem \[main2\] and Remark \[previous\] that $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes {{\Gamma}}$ is simple, nuclear and purely infinite. Simplicity and nuclearity had previously been proved in [@rs] under the additional assumption that ${{\Gamma}}$ acts transitively and in a type rotating manner on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$. From simplicity it follows that $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes{{\Gamma}}$ is isomorphic to the reduced crossed product $C({{\Omega}})\rtimes_r {{\Gamma}}$. See also [@an; @qs] for general conditions under which the full and reduced crossed products coincide. Their results apply, for example when ${{\Gamma}}$ is a lattice in a linear group.
Conditions [(H0)-(H3)]{} for affine buildings of type ${\widetilde}A_2$ {#conditionsH0-H4}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Continue the notation and terminology used above, assuming throughout that ${{\Gamma}}$ acts on ${{\mathcal B}}$ via type rotating automorphisms. We prove that conditions (H0), (H1), and (H3) are satisfied so long as ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely and with finitely many orbits on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$. Moreover, if ${{\mathcal B}}$ is the building of $G={{\text{\rm{PGL}}}}_3({{\mathbb K}})$, where ${{\mathbb K}}$ is a nonarchimedean local field of characteristic zero and ${{\Gamma}}$ is a lattice in ${{\text{\rm{PGL}}}}_3({{\mathbb K}})$ we prove that (H2) holds as well. There are several concrete examples in [@cmsz] where all these hypotheses are satisfied.
\[M\_1M\_2\] Suppose that ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely and with finitely many orbits on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$. Then the matrices $M_1$, $M_2$ of the previous section satisfy conditions [(H0)]{},[(H1)]{}, and [(H3)]{}.
By definition $M_1$ and $M_2$ are $\{0,1\}$-matrices. To say that they are nonzero is to say that ${{\mathfrak P}}_{(1,0)}$ and ${{\mathfrak P}}_{(0,1)}$ are nonempty, which the are. This proves (H0).
Fix any nonzero $j\in{{\mathbb Z}}^2$. We will construct $w\in{{\mathfrak W}}$ which is not $j$-periodic. Choose $m\in{{\mathbb Z}}^2$ large enough so that inside ${{\mathfrak p}}_m$ one can find a minimal gallery of chambers, $(C_0,C_1,\dots,C_l)$ so that $C_l$ is the $j$-translate of $C_0$. Write $\tau:C_0\to C_l$ for the identification by translation of the two chambers.
Construct an isometry $p$ from this minimal gallery to ${{\mathcal B}}$ by defining successively $p|_{C_0}$, $p|_{C_1}$, etc. Since the building is thick, one has at least two choices at each step. Once $p|_{C_{l-1}}$ is fixed, no two of the choices for $p|_{C_l}$ can be in the same ${{\Gamma}}$-orbit, since ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$. Therefore, one may choose $p$ so that $p|_{C_0}$ and $p\circ\tau$ are in different ${{\Gamma}}$-orbits. Now extend $p$ to an isometry $p:{{\mathfrak p}}_m\to{{\mathcal B}}$. The element of $W$ associated to $p$, that is $\alpha(\Gamma p)$, is not $j$-periodic. This proves (H3).
Condition (H1c) is vacuous for $r=2$. Consider the configuration of Figure \[unique\_extension\]. Given the tiles $a$, $b$, and $c$, there is exactly one tile $d$ which completes the picture. Since $a$, $b$, and $c$ make up a minimal gallery, this follows by the same argument used in proving Lemma \[frWm\]. Translating this fact to matrix terms, we have that if $(M_2M_1)(c,a)>0$ then $(M_1M_2)(c,a)=1$. Likewise, if $(M_1M_2)(c,a)>0$, then $(M_2M_1)(c,a)=1$. Conditions (H1a) and (H1b) follow, and by Lemma \[3\], so does condition (H1).
\[unique\_extension\]
units <0.5cm,0.866cm> x from -5 to 5, y from 0 to 4 at 0 1 at 1 2 at 0 3 at -1 2 -1 1 0 0 2 2 0 4 -1 3 0 2 1 3 / -1 1 0 2 1 1 / -1 1 -2 2 -1 3 /
It is not much harder to prove (H1) directly, bypassing conditions (H1a)-(H1c). It remains to prove condition (H2). The next result and its corollary prove a strong version of condition (H2).
\[H(3)\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be the building of $G={{\text{\rm{SL}}}}_3({{\mathbb K}})$, where ${{\mathbb K}}$ is a local field of characteristic zero. Let ${{\Gamma}}$ be a lattice in ${{\text{\rm{SL}}}}_3({{\mathbb K}})$ which acts freely on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$ with finitely many orbits. Let the alphabet $A={{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak T}}$ and the transition matrices $M_1$,$M_2$ be defined as at the beginning of Section \[boundary-algebra\]. Then for each $i=1,2$, the directed graph with vertices $a \in A$ and directed edges $(a,b)$ whenever $M_i(b,a) =1$ is irreducible.
We use an idea due to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Mozes</span> [@moz' Proposition 3]. Fix a model half-infinite strip ${{\mathfrak s}}$ of tiles in ${{\mathfrak a}}$ based at $(0,0)$ and let ${{\mathfrak s}}_k= {{\mathfrak p}}_{(k,0)}$ be the initial segment consisting of $k+1$ tiles.
\[H(1)\]
units <0.5cm,0.866cm> x from -6 to 6, y from 0 to 1 from -5 1 to 6 1 from -6 0 to 5 0 -5 1 -6 0 / -3 1 -4 0 / -1 1 -2 0 / 1 1 0 0 / 3 1 2 0 / 5 1 4 0 /
Let ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$ \[respectively ${{\mathfrak S}}_k$, $k\ge1$\] be the set of type-preserving isometric embeddings $s$ of ${{\mathfrak s}}$ \[respectively ${{\mathfrak s}}_k$\] into the building ${{\mathcal B}}$. Thus ${{\mathfrak S}}_k$ is the subset of type-preserving maps in ${{\mathfrak P}}_{(k,0)}$ and if $s\in{{\mathfrak S}}_k$, then $o(s)$ and $t(s)$ are defined as before. Also, if $s\in{{\mathfrak S}}$ define $o(s)=s\vert_{{{\mathfrak t}}}$ and let $s_k=t(s\vert_{{{\mathfrak s}}_k})$ for $k \ge 0$.
It is desired to prove that given $a,b \in A$, there exists $k \in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ and $s \in {{\mathfrak S}}_k$ such that $a={{\Gamma}}o(s)$ and $b={{\Gamma}}t(s)$. The group $G$ acts transitively on the set of apartments of ${{\mathcal B}}$ [@st Section 5]. Moreover the stabilizer of an apartment acts transitively on the set of sectors of the apartment. It follows that $G$ acts transitively on ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$. Therefore ${{\mathfrak S}}_0=G/H_0$ for some subgroup $H_0$. In fact $$H_0=\{
\begin{pmatrix} a_1 & b_2 & b_3 \\ 0 & a_2 & c \\ 0 & d & a_3
\end{pmatrix} \in G ;
\text{ $|a_j|=1$, $|b_j|,|c|\leq 1$, and~$|d|< 1$}
\}.$$ Say that two elements of ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$ are equivalent if, beyond a certain point dependent on the two elements, they agree on all tiles of ${{\mathfrak s}}$. Let ${{\mathfrak S}}$ be the space of equivalence classes. Since $G$ acts transitively on ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$, a fortiori it acts transitively on ${{\mathfrak S}}$. Thus ${{\mathfrak S}}=G/H$ for some $H$. In fact $$H=\{
\begin{pmatrix} a_1 & b_2 & b_3 \\ 0 & a_2 & c \\ 0 & d & a_3
\end{pmatrix} \in G ;
\text{~$|a_j|=1$,~$|c|\leq 1$, and~$|d|< 1$}
\}.$$ The only relevant facts about $H$ are that it is closed and noncompact. On ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$ and ${{\mathfrak S}}$ we put the topologies and measures obtained from the isomorphisms with $G/H_0$ and $G/H$.
The Howe–Moore Theorem [@z Theorems 10.1.4 and 2.2.6] shows that ${{\Gamma}}$ acts *ergodically* on ${{\mathfrak S}}$. Suppose that there exist $a,b
\in A$ which cannot occur as $a={{\Gamma}}o(s)$ and $b={{\Gamma}}t(s)$ with $s\in
{{\mathfrak S}}_k$, for any $k$. Let ${{\mathfrak S}}_0' = \{s\in{{\mathfrak S}}_0; {{\Gamma}}o(s)=a\}$ and let ${{\mathfrak S}}'$ be the projection of ${{\mathfrak S}}_0'$ to ${{\mathfrak S}}$. The sets ${{\mathfrak S}}_0'$ and ${{\mathfrak S}}'$ are clearly ${{\Gamma}}$-invariant. The set ${{\mathfrak S}}'$ is open, since ${{\mathfrak S}}_0'$ is open. Therefore ${{\mathfrak S}}'$ is not of null measure. By the ergodicity of the ${{\Gamma}}$-action ${{\mathfrak S}}'$ has full measure. Also of full measure will be the inverse image of ${{\mathfrak S}}'$ in ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$, which consists of all those $s'\in{{\mathfrak S}}_0$ which are equivalent to some $s\in{{\mathfrak S}}_0$ with ${{\Gamma}}o(s)=a$. A fortiori $$\left\{
s\in{{\mathfrak S}}_0 ; \text{there exists $K\ge 0$ such that $b\ne {{\Gamma}}s_k$ for all $k \ge K$}
\right\}$$ is of full measure in ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$. Now, in $\Gamma \backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0$ the set $$\left\{
{{\Gamma}}s\in{{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0 ; \text{there exists $K\ge 0$ such that $b\ne {{\Gamma}}s_k$ for all $k \ge K$}
\right\}$$ will also be of full measure.
On ${{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0$ use the measure obtained in the usual way from the unique (up to positive constant) positive $G$-invariant measure on ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$. The following condition defines the new measure, $d\dot{s}$, in terms of the old measure, $ds$: $$\int_{\Gamma \backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0}
\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}
F(\gamma(s))
\, d\dot{s}
=
\int_{{{\mathfrak S}}_0}
F(s)
\, ds$$ for any $F\in C_c({{\mathfrak S}}_0)$. Since $\Gamma \backslash G$ is of finite total measure, it follows that $\Gamma \backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0$ is too. Assume that this total measure is one. One can easily verify that relative to $d\dot{s}$ the distribution of ${{\Gamma}}s_k$ is independent of $k$. In fact, $\left| \{{{\Gamma}}s \in {{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0 ; {{\Gamma}}s_k= b \}\right|= \frac{1}{\#A}$ for all $k \ge 0$.
Let $0 < \epsilon < \frac{1}{\#A}$. The monotone convergence theorem implies that there exists $K$ such that $$\left|\left\{
{{\Gamma}}s\in{{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0 ; \text{$b\ne {{\Gamma}}s_k$ for all $k \ge K$}
\right\}\right|
>1-\epsilon.$$ But this means that $$\left|\{{{\Gamma}}s\in{{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0 ; {{\Gamma}}s_K=b \}\right|
\le \epsilon.$$ This contradicts $\left| \{{{\Gamma}}s \in {{\Gamma}}\backslash {{\mathfrak S}}_0 ; {{\Gamma}}s_K= b \}\right|= \frac{1}{\#A}$, and so proves the result.
\[H(3)+\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be the building of $G={{\text{\rm{PGL}}}}_3({{\mathbb K}})$, where ${{\mathbb K}}$ is a local field of characteristic zero. Let ${{\Gamma}}$ be a lattice in ${{\text{\rm{PGL}}}}_3({{\mathbb K}})$ which acts freely on the vertices of ${{\mathcal B}}$. Then the conclusions of Theorem \[H(3)\] hold.
The image of $SL_3({{\mathbb K}})$ in $PGL_3({{\mathbb K}})$ has finite index. Let $\Gamma'$ be the pullback to $SL_3({{\mathbb K}})$ of $\Gamma$. Then $\Gamma' \backslash SL_3({{\mathbb K}})$ also has finite volume and the proof of Theorem \[H(3)\] applies. Moreover, the $\Gamma$-orbits of tiles of ${{\mathcal B}}$ are made up of unions of $\Gamma'$-orbits. So if we wish to construct $s \in {{\mathfrak S}}_k$ having first and last tiles in certain $\Gamma$-orbits, we just pick $\Gamma'$-orbits contained in the two $\Gamma$-orbits and thereafter work with $\Gamma'$.
We needed to use an indirect argument in the previous Corollary because the Howe–Moore theorem does not apply in its simplest form to $PGL_3({{\mathbb K}})$.
In work which will appear elsewhere, it will be shown how to extend the methods of the proof of the Howe–Moore theorem so as to prove the necessary ergodicity in greater generality. It is enough to suppose that ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely and with finitely many orbits on the vertices of a thick building of type ${\widetilde}A_2$. Since ergodicity implies (H2), and since (H0), (H1), and (H3) always hold, Theorem \[main2\] is likewise true in this generality.
Not only does this allow one to work with the buildings associated to ${{\text{\rm{PGL}}}}_3({{\mathbb K}})$ when ${{\mathbb K}}$ has positive characteristic, but it also makes available those buildings of type ${\widetilde}A_2$ which are associated to no linear group. Note finally that direct combinatorial proofs of (H2) can be constructed for the ${\widetilde}A_2$ groups listed in [@cmsz].
Examples of type ${\widetilde}A_1 \times {\widetilde}A_1$ {#A1A1}
---------------------------------------------------------
Analogous results hold for groups acting on buildings of type ${\widetilde}A_1 \times {\widetilde}A_1$. Consider by way of illustration a specific example studied in [@moz] and generalized in [@bm]. In [@moz Section 3], there is constructed a certain lattice subgroup ${{\Gamma}}$ of $G = PGL_2({{\mathbb Q}}_p) \times
PGL_2({{\mathbb Q}}_q)$, where $p,q \equiv 1$ (mod 4) are two distinct primes. The building ${{\Delta}}$ of $G$ is a product of two homogeneous trees $T_1$, $T_2$, so that the chambers of ${{\Delta}}$ are squares and the apartments are copies of the euclidean plane tesselated by squares. If $a \in {{\Gamma}}$ then there are automorphisms $a_1$, $a_2$ of $T_1$, $T_2$, respectively such that $a(u,v)=(a_1 u,a_2 v)$ for each vertex $(u,v)$ of ${{\Delta}}$. However, even though each $a\in{{\Gamma}}$ is a direct product of automorphisms, the group ${{\Gamma}}$ is not a direct product of groups ${{\Gamma}}_1$ and ${{\Gamma}}_2$.
The group ${{\Gamma}}$ acts freely and transitively on the vertices of ${{\Delta}}$. The preceding results all extend to this situation. The tiles are now squares instead of parallelograms. The boundary of ${{\Delta}}$ is defined as before, using $\frac{\pi}{2}$-angled sectors. The condition (H1) is a consequence of [@moz Theorem 3.2] and the irreducibility condition (H2) follows from [@moz' Proposition 3].
[RRR]{}
C. Anantharaman-Delaroche, Systèmes dynamiques non commutatifs et moyennabilité, [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**279**]{} (1987), 297-315.
B. Blackadar, [*K-theory for Operator Algebras, Second Edition*]{}, MSRI Publications 5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
M. Burger and S. Mozes, Finitely presented groups and products of trees, [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sér. 1*]{} [**324**]{} (1997), 747–752.
K. Brown, [*Buildings*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989.
K. Brown, Five lectures on buildings, [*Group Theory from a Geometrical Viewpoint (Trieste 1990)*]{}, 254–295, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, N.J., 1991.
D. I. Cartwright, A brief introduction to buildings, [*Harmonic Functions on Trees and Buildings (New York 1995)*]{}, 45–77, [*Contemp. Math.*]{} [**206**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., 1997.
J. Cuntz, A class of $C^*$-algebras and topological Markov chains: Reducible chains and the Ext-functor for $C^*$-algebras, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**63**]{} (1981), 23-50.
J. Cuntz, K-theory for certain $C^*$-algebras, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**113**]{} (1981), 181-197.
J. Cuntz and W. Krieger, A class of $C^*$-algebras and topological Markov chains, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**56**]{} (1980), 251-268.
D. I. Cartwright, W. M[ł]{}otkowski and T. Steger, Property (T) and ${\widetilde}A_2$ groups, [*Ann. Inst. Fourier*]{} [**44**]{} (1993), 213–248.
D. I. Cartwright, A. M. Mantero, T. Steger and A. Zappa, Groups acting simply transitively on the vertices of a building of type ${\widetilde}A_2$, I and II, [*Geom. Ded.*]{} [**47**]{} (1993), 143–166 and 167–223.
P. Garrett, [*Buildings and Classical Groups*]{}, Chapman & Hall, London, 1997.
E. Kirchberg, Exact $C^*$-algebras, tensor products, and the classification of purely infinite algebras, [*Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Zürich, 1994)*]{}, Vol. 2, 943–954, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995.
E. Kirchberg, The classification of purely infinite $C^*$-algebras using Kasparov’s theory, in [*Lectures in Operator Algebras*]{}, Fields Institute Monographs, Amer. Math. Soc., 1998.
R. V. Kadison and J. R. Ringrose, [*Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras, Volume II*]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1986.
S. Mozes, Actions of Cartan subgroups, [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**90**]{} (1995), 253–294.
S. Mozes, A zero entropy, mixing of all orders tiling system, [*Contemp. Math.*]{} [**135**]{} (1992), 319–325.
N. C. Phillips, A classification theorem for purely infinite simple $C^*$-algebras, [*preprint*]{}, Oregon 1995.
G. K. Pedersen, [*$C^*$-algebras and their Automorphism Groups*]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1979.
J. C. Quigg and J. Spielberg, Regularity and hyporegularity in $C^*$-dynamical systems, [*Houston J. Math.*]{} [**18**]{} (1992), 139-152.
G. Robertson and T. Steger, $C^*$-algebras arising from group actions on the boundary of a triangle building, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**72**]{} (1996), 613–637.
G. Robertson and T. Steger, K-theory for rank two Cuntz-Krieger algebras, [*preprint*]{}.
M. Ronan, [*Lectures on Buildings*]{}, Perspectives in Mathematics, Vol. 7, Academic Press, New York, 1989.
J. Spielberg, Free product groups, Cuntz-Krieger algebras, and covariant maps, [*International J. Math.*]{} [**2**]{} (1991), 457-476.
T. Steger, Local fields and buildings, [*Harmonic Functions on Trees and Buildings (New York 1995)*]{}, 79–107, Contemp. Math. [**206**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., 1997.
R. J. Zimmer, [*Ergodic Theory and Semisimple Groups*]{}, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1984.
[^1]: This research was supported by the Australian Research Council.
[^2]: Typeset by -LaTeX
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Transformer with self-attention has achieved great success in the area of nature language processing. Recently, there have been a few studies on transformer for end-to-end speech recognition, while its application for hybrid acoustic model is still very limited. In this paper, we revisit the transformer-based hybrid acoustic model, and propose a model structure with interleaved self-attention and 1D convolution, which is proven to have faster convergence and higher recognition accuracy. We also study several aspects of the transformer model, including the impact of the positional encoding feature, dropout regularization, as well as training with and without time restriction. We show competitive recognition results on the public Librispeech dataset when compared to the Kaldi baseline at both cross entropy training and sequence training stages. For reproducible research, we release our source code and recipe within the PyKaldi2 toolbox.'
address: 'Microsoft Speech and Language Group\'
bibliography:
- 'bibtex.bib'
title: 'A Transformer with Interleaved Self-attention and Convolution for Hybrid Acoustic Models'
---
Transformer, Self-attention, Convolution, Hybrid acoustic model, Speech recognition
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) with long short-term memory (LSTM) [@hochreiter1997long] units have defined the state-of-the-art large-scale speech recognition since 2014 [@sak2014long]. While there have been new types of sequence modeling approaches which are proposed and explored for speech recognition recently, such as sequence-to-sequence with attention [@Chorowski2015Attention; @chan2016listen; @lu2015study], connectionist temporal classification [@graves2006connectionist] and recurrent neural network transducer [@graves2006connectionist], LSTM-RNNs remains the most popular neural network architectures for learning speech feature representations, although convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with different variants have shown competitive recognition results for some tasks. The key behind the success of RNNs is their capacity to learn temporal correlations in sequential signals through the recurrent connections when the networks are trained with the back-propagation through time (BPTT) [@werbos1990backpropagation] algorithm. However, a well-known weakness of RNNs is the gradient vanishing or explosion problem due to BPTT, and the recurrent connections in RNNs make it challenging to parallelize the computations in both training and inference stages.
Transformer [@vaswani2017attention], which relies solely on self-attention to capture the temporal correlations in sequential signals, is a new type of neural network structure for sequence modeling, which has achieved excellent results in machine translation [@vaswani2017attention], language modeling [@dai2018transformer], as well as end-to-end speech recognition [@karita2019comparative; @dong2018speech]. Self-attention is appealing for sequence modeling in the sense that it can learn long-term correlations by one step of attention operation, while for RNNs, it would take multiple steps in the time space for both forward and backward computation, and noise may accumulate during the process. CNNs, on the other hand, require multiple layers to capture the correlations between the two features which are very distant in the time space, although dilation that uses large strides can reduce the number of layers that is required. While there have been many studies on end-to-end speech recognition using transformers [@karita2019comparative; @dong2018speech; @sperber2018self; @tian2019self; @salazar2019self], their applications for hybrid acoustic models are less well understood. In this paper, we study the more standard transformer for speech recognition within the hybrid framework, and provide further insight to this model through experiments on the Librispeech public dataset.
Related works
=============
There have been a few studies on transformers for end-to-end speech recognition, particularly for sequence-to-sequence with attention model [@karita2019comparative; @dong2018speech; @sperber2018self], as well as transducer [@tian2019self] and CTC models [@salazar2019self]. In [@karita2019comparative], the authors compared RNNs with transformers for various speech recognition and synthesis tasks, and obtained competitive or even better results with transformers. However, the key challenge for transformer-based sequence-to-sequence model is to perform online streaming speech recognition, as there is no clear boundary for chunk-wise self-attention. Transformer based transducer [@tian2019self] and CTC model [@salazar2019self] do not have the issue for online speech recognition, however, the results presented in the two studies are not competitive compared the hybrid baseline system from Kaldi [@povey2011kaldi].
The work that is closely related to ours is the time restricted self-attention for hybrid acoustic model [@povey2018time], where the self-attention layer is applied to a chunk of the acoustic frames on top of a time-delay neural network (TDNN) or an LSTM layer. Recently, Han et al. [@han2019multi; @han2019state] presented two extensions to this work by using multiple streams of acoustic features to the TDNN layers before the self-attention layer in [@han2019state], or using multi-stride features to the self-attention layers [@han2019multi]. In fact, the key idea of the two studies is the same, i.e., sample the features using different strides (or sampling rates), and feed the multiple views of the features to the model, assuming that each view contains complementary acoustic information. The only difference is that the multiple views of features are fed into the TDNN layers in [@han2019state] , referred to as multi-stream, while they are fed into the self-attention layers directly in [@han2019multi], referred to as multi-stride self-attention model.
In this work, we look at a few other aspects of transformer-based hybrid acoustic models that have not been studied previously. In [@povey2018time; @han2019multi; @han2019state], self-attention is only applied in a chunk of acoustic input restricted by a time window, which makes the transformer model easier to train as it does not need to consider very long term correlations. While whole sequence-level self-attention has been applied in sequence-to-sequence models [@karita2019comparative], hybrid model is different in the sense that it is required to maintain strict frame-level alignments before performing predictions, which may be challenging for a transformer with multiple layers of self-attention as it may reorder the sequence. Furthermore, lower sampling rates are usually used for transformer-based acoustic models, which makes it easier for sequence-level self-attention as the input sequences are much shorter. We propose an interleaved self-attention and convolution structure for transformer model, with the motivation that convolution can learn local feature correlations and maintain the ordering information of the sequence while self-attention can capture long-term correlations. We show that the model can achieved competitive recognition results when trained with or without time-restriction.
Transformer {#sec:transformer}
===========
In this section, we review each component in the standard transformer model, and discuss a model structure that is mainly investigated for speech recognition in this work.
Self-attention with multiple heads
----------------------------------
The attention mechanism in transformer is technically the same as in the original RNN-based attention model [@bahdanau2014neural]. The key difference is that the query used to compute the attention probability is also from the source sequence, instead of using the decoder hidden state as in the RNN-based attention model [@bahdanau2014neural]. In [@vaswani2017attention], the authors used the dot-production attention [@luong2015effective] rather than the conventional additive attention [@bahdanau2014neural] in favor of the low computational complexity, which is rewritten here as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:att}
\text{Attention}(Q, K, V) = \text{Softmax}\left(\frac{QK^T}{\sqrt{d_k}}\right)V, \end{aligned}$$
where $Q,K,V$ are referred to the query, key and value according to [@vaswani2017attention]. In transformer, both $Q$ and $K$ are from the source sequence, while in the conventional RNN-based attention model [@bahdanau2014neural], $Q$ is from the decoder hidden state, and $K$ is from the encoder hidden state. In Eq , $d_k$ is the dimension of the model, and it is used to scale the dot-product between $Q$ and $K$ in order to smooth the probability distribution returned by the Softmax operation. This is to avoid placing most of the attention probability to a single frame as a result of the dot-product attention, while additive attention does not require such a scaling factor from our experience.
Another key idea from the transformer paper [@vaswani2017attention] is the multi-head attention mechanism, which performs multiple attention operations in parallel using different model parameters. The output from different attention heads are then concatenated and projected before being fed into the next layer. It can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\text{MultiHead}(Q, K, V) &= [H_1, H_2, \cdots, H_n]W^O \\
\text{where } H_i & = \text{Attention}(QW_i^Q, KW_i^K, VW_i^V) \end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the number of attention heads, and $W_i^Q, W_i^K, W_i^V$ are parameters for the $i$-th attention head, and $W^O$ is the projection matrix to reduce the dimension of the concatenated attention vector.
Positional encoding {#ssec:pos}
-------------------
The attention function (\[eq:att\]) itself does not use the information of the order of the sequence $V$. It is possible that reordering the elements in $V$ can result in the same attention vector after the attention operation, since Eq is only a weighted sum of the elements in $V$. To encode the positional information into the model, the authors in [@vaswani2017attention] proposed a sinusoidal function as $$\begin{aligned}
PE[t, 2i] &= \sin\left(t /10000^\frac{2i}{d_k}\right) \\
PE[t, 2i+1] &= \cos\left(t/10000^\frac{2i+1}{d_k}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $i$ refers to the dimension, and $t$ denotes the time-step. We study the same type of the positional encoding for our speech recognition experiments, by adding $PE[t]$ to the corresponding feature vector at the time step $t$.
![The transformer model structure with interleaved self-attention and 1D convolution. $L$ denotes the number of layers, and [Norm]{} refers to layer normalization.[]{data-label="fig:model"}](transformer){width="25.00000%"}
-2mm
Interleaved self-attention and convolution {#ssec:conv}
------------------------------------------
For hybrid models, our preliminary experiments show that transformers with multiple self-attention layers alone is hard to train without time restriction, and it can easily diverge after a few epochs. We hypothesize that this is due to the nature of hybrid models, which are expected to predict the frame-level labels. Hence, they are more sensitive to any reordering or shifting of the acoustic information in the time space compared with sequence-to-sequence models. The positional encoding along may not be able to provide sufficient information to maintain the sequential information in the acoustic sequence (cf. section \[ssec:dropout\]). In this paper, we propose a transformer model with interleaved 1D convolution and self-attention, with the motivation that the convolution layer can maintain the sequential information of the input sequence, while at the same time, it can learn the local correlations. Self-attention, on the other hand, is expected to capture the global information as the attention is performed as the entire sequence level. The model with interleaved convolution and self-attention has the flexibility to tradeoff the model capacity for learning both local and global information from the input sequence. Same as the standard transformer [@vaswani2017attention], we also insert the feedforward layer after the multi-head attention. The final model structure is shown in Figure \[fig:model\]. It is possible that the feedforward layer is redundant, or its size could be reduced given the 1D convolution layer. We will investigate this aspect in our future work. Table \[tab:size\] shows the number of parameters in each component of the transformer model studied in this paper.
0.15cm
Model component \#layers \#parameters (M)
--------------------- ---------- ------------------
Input Linear Layer 1 0.04
MultiHead Attention 6 6.29
Layer Norm 12 0.12
Feedforward 6 12.61
1D-CNN. 6 4.72
Output Linear Layer 1 2.96
Total $\sim$26.6
: The number of parameters in terms of millions (M) for each component in the 6-layer transformer model studied in this paper, where $d_k=512$, the size of feedforward layer is 2048, and the kernel size of the 1D convolution is 3. The feature dimension is 80. []{data-label="tab:size"}
-3mm
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
We performed the experiments using the publicly available Librispeech corpus [@panayotov2015librispeech], which contains around 960 hours of training data in total. To constrain our research scope, we fixed the depth of the transformer models to be 6 layers, and the dimension of the model $d_k$ in Eq to be 512. The number of hidden units in the feedforward layer is 2048. The kernel size for each convolution layer is 3 without stride. The total number of parameters is around 26.6 million. We did some experiments using a smaller model, and the results are worse than what we reported here. We did not train deeper transformer models due to the memory constraint. In our experiments, we used a high frame rate as 100 Hz, i.e., extracting one acoustic frame in every 10 millisecond. This led to long acoustic sequences. As the memory cost of self-attention is in the order of $O(T^2)$, where $T$ is the length of the acoustic sequence, lower frame rate would significantly cut down the memory cost, and enable the training of much deeper transformer models that will studied in our future work.
In terms of acoustic features, we used 80-dimensional raw log-mel filter-banks (FBANKs), and we did not perform any form of speaker-level feature normalization. Instead, we only applied the utterance-level mean and variance normalization. We used a 4-gram language model for decoding that is released as the part of the corpus, and we used Kaldi [@povey2011kaldi] to build a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) system for bootstrapping. Our transformer acoustic models were trained using the PyKaldi2 toolbox [@lu2019pykaldi2] , which is built on top of Kaldi and PyTorch through the PyKaldi [@can2018pykaldi] wrapper. We used the Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] cross entropy (CE) training, and the same learning rate scheduler as in [@vaswani2017attention]. For sequence training, we used the vanilla stochastic gradient decent (SGD) with fixed learning rate.
Results of positional encoding and dropout {#ssec:dropout}
------------------------------------------
We first evaluated the positional encoding discussed in section \[ssec:pos\] and dropout training for the transformer model. Results are given in Table \[tab:pos\]. Unlike the observations in the area of machine translation, positional encoding did not make a big difference in terms of recognition accuracies for our transformer models. One possible reason is that we have used 1D convolution, which has encoded some sequential information in to the model. Another possible reason is that the dynamic range of the positional encoding is much smaller compared to the output of the first linear layer in Figure \[fig:model\]. During the model training, the information in the positional encoding may be ignored. We performed a sanity check by removing the positional encoding when evaluating a transformer model trained [*with*]{} positional encoding, and obtained results which are only around 0.1% worse absolute. In the future, we shall investigate if it would make a difference after scaling the positional encoding features to the same dynamic range as the acoustic feature after the linear projection layer.
As for dropout training, it was pointed out in [@vaswani2017attention] that transformer model for sequence to-sequence ASR may suffer from overfitting easily, and regularization such as dropout is important to address such kind of issue. In our experiments, we also observed the overfitting problem, and our models were usually trained for about 8 - 10 epochs. However, dropout is not effective for our model, and it only slightly improved the recognition accuracy. It may be due to the convolution layers used in our model, as according to our experience, dropout does not work well for CNNs. While other regularization approach may be applicable including adding data noise, in our future work, we are more interested in evaluating the model with very large amount of our internal training data to see if the transformer model is still sensitive to the overfitting problem.
0.15cm
------------- ----------- ----- ------- ------- ------- -------
Model POS DP clean other clean other
$\times$ 0.1 4.5 11.5 4.9 11.8
Transformer $\surd$ 0.1 4.4 11.7 4.9 11.9
$\times $ 0 4.5 11.8 5.0 12.1
$\times$ 0.2 4.6 11.9 5.0 12.2
------------- ----------- ----- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Results of the transformer model with or without positional encoding denoted as [POS]{}, and dropout regularization denoted as [DP]{}.[]{data-label="tab:pos"}
-3mm
0.15cm
------------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Model Conv [Norm]{} clean other clean other
$\times$ $\surd$ 5.1 13.0 5.8 13.4
Transformer $\surd$ $\surd$ 4.4 11.6 4.9 12.0
$\surd $ $\times$ 4.5 11.5 4.9 11.8
------------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Results of the transformer model with or without 1D convolution. [Norm]{} refers to the layer normalization before output linear layer.[]{data-label="tab:conv"}
-3mm
1D convolution and layer normalization {#ssec:conv}
--------------------------------------
We then evaluated the impact of the 1D convolution layers in our transformer model by removing all the convolution layers. This corresponds to a vanilla transformer as in [@vaswani2017attention]. We still added the positional encoding feature to the inputs since the sequential information from the convolution layers is no longer available. We also have to insert another layer normalization to the output of the transformer before the output linear layer to stabilize the training. Otherwise, the training diverges quickly after one or two epochs in our experiments. The results are given in Table \[tab:conv\], which shows that the recognition errors are much higher when the model does not have the convolution layers. Besides, without the convolution layers, the convergence of the model during training also became much slower, which demonstrates that the convolution layers are helpful for both convergence in model training and the recognition accuracy. For a fair comparison, we also added another layer normalization to the model with convolutions. While it can further speed up the convergence, it does not improve the recognition accuracy further. In the future, we shall compare the interleaved combination of self-attention and convolution to the sequential combination of self-attention and TDNN [@povey2018time; @han2019multi; @han2019state], which is a special type of 1D convolution with subsampling.
0.15cm
------------- --------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Model window clean other clean other
$[-\infty, \infty]$ 4.4 11.6 4.9 12.0
Transformer $[-\infty, 0]$ 4.6 11.8 5.1 12.5
$[-\infty, 12]$ 4.5 12.1 5.0 12.4
$[-\infty, 24]$ 4.7 12.1 5.0 12.7
------------- --------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Results of the transformer model trained with or without the time restriction.[]{data-label="tab:time"}
-3mm
With or without time restriction
--------------------------------
In the previous experiments, we performed self-attention across the whole input sequence. This corresponds to the offline model as the whole sequence need to be visible before the attention operation. For online streaming speech recognition, we can simply apply to a time restriction window to the self-attention layer, which is the same as the study in [@povey2018time]. However, this is very challenging for sequence-to-sequence model based on transformer as the boundary for each output token is unclear. For hybrid models, the latency is controllable by adjusting the size of the time restriction window. In our implementation, we still take the whole sequence as the input, but mask out the frames which are outside the time restriction window, i.e., the attention probabilities of those frames are set to be zero during training.
Follow the convention, we denote $[-l, r]$ as the attention time window, where $l$ and $r$ are the sizes of left and right context. When $l$ is $\infty$, it means that we perform self-attention up to the start of the acoustic sequence, while $r=\infty$ means the attention operation spans to the end of the sequence. The offline model corresponds to the time window of $[-\infty, \infty]$ as in Table \[tab:time\]. Note that, each 1D convolution layer looks ahead 1 frame since the kernel size is 3 without stride (e.g., $[-1, 1]$). The time window in Table \[tab:time\] is only for the attention operation, and the corresponding latency should have another 6 frames overhead from the convolution layers. In addition, the numbers in Table \[tab:time\] refer to the accumulated attention window. If the time window for each self-attention layer is $[-\infty, 2]$, then the total accumulated time window for 6 self-attention layers would be $[-\infty, 12]$.
For faster convergence, we used the transformer models with one more layer normalization as in section \[ssec:conv\], although the offline results on the [dev-other]{} and [test-other]{} evaluation sets are slightly worse. The table shows that when we limited the future context information for the transformer model, we obtained slightly worse results. However, contrary to our expectations, when we increased the right context size, we did not achieve higher recognition accuracy, although the CE losses were significantly reduced, e.g., from $\sim$0.78 for the model with the attention window of $[-\infty, 0]$ to $\sim$0.70 for the model with the attention window of $[-\infty, 24]$ from our setups. Although the convolution layers have already looked ahead 6 frame in total, we believe the future context information should still be helpful. We hypothesis that this may be due to the multi-head attention. If one or more attention heads are placed at around the end of the time window, i.e., focusing on the future context information more than it should, the information from those time steps can help to reduce the training loss, but it may not be able to generalize well. To understand deeper about this results, we will replicate the set of experiments with different numbers of attention heads, and also perform experiments on some other datasets in our future work.
Sequence training results {#ssec:comp}
-------------------------
In Table \[tab:comp\], we show the sequence training results of the transformer model trained with the maximum mutual information (MMI) criterion. We followed the traditional lattice-based sequence training approach, and the lattices were generated on-the-fly as implemented in PyKaldi2. We used a CE trained model as the seed model, and then trained the model with MMI using the vanilla SGD optimizer. We fixed learning rate as $5\times10^{-5}$, and to avoid overfitting, we applied the CE regularization with weight as $0.2$. The model was converged in less than 1 epoch. Table \[tab:comp\] shows that we obtained larger improvements on the noisy test sets ([dev-other, test-other]{}). Our results are comparable to the results of the TDNN system in Kaldi[^1], which is a well-tuned hybrid system. In fact, the TDNN system applied the speed perturbation [@ko2015audio] for data argumentation and i-vector based speaker adaptive training, while in our system, we only used the raw log-mel filterbank features without using any speaker-level information. From that sense, our results are very competitive. Han et al. [@han2019multi; @han2019state] achieved better results by using multi-stream and multi-stride features on top of the TDNN system, which are also applicable to our system, and will be investigated in the future.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
While transformer has been very successful in the area of nature language processing, its application to speech recognition is mostly within the end-to-end architecture. We are more interested in transformers for hybrid acoustic models as there is no theoretical issues for online streaming speech recognition. In this paper, we have presented a transformer model with interleaved self-attention and convolution for hybrid acoustic modeling, although this structure may be also applicable to end-to-end models. We have showed that the convolutional layers can improve the recognition accuracy with faster convergence compared to the model with self-attention layers only. We have also investigated several other aspects of the model including the impact of the positional encoding feature, dropout regularization as well training with and without the time restriction. Our work is an addition to the current study of self-attention for hybrid models with a sequential TDNN and self-attention architecture trained with time restriction only. For our future works, we shall study training much deeper transformer with low frame rate to get rid of the GPU memory constraint, as well as evaluate the model in the setting with a very large amount of training data.
0.15cm
------------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Model Criterion clean other clean other
CE 4.4 11.6 5.0 12.1
TDNN sMBR 4.1 11.1 4.6 11.3
LFMMI 3.9 10.4 4.3 10.8
Transformer CE 4.5 11.5 4.9 11.8
MMI 4.3 10.7 4.6 11.1
------------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Sequence training results and comparison to a baseline hybrid system.[]{data-label="tab:comp"}
-3mm
[^1]: <https://github.com/kaldi-asr/kaldi/blob/master/egs/librispeech/s5/RESULTS>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present high contrast images of the hydrogen white dwarf G 29-38 taken in the near infrared with the Hubble Space Telescope and the Gemini North Telescope as part of a high contrast imaging search for substellar objects in orbit around nearby white dwarfs. We review the current limits on planetary companions for G29-38, the only nearby white dwarf with an infrared excess due to a dust disk. We add our recent observations to these limits to produce extremely tight constraints on the types of possible companions that could be present. No objects $>$ 6 M$_{Jup}$ are detected in our data at projected separations $>$ 12 AU, and no objects $>$ 16 M$_{Jup}$ are detected for separations from 3 to 12 AU, assuming a total system age of 1 Gyr. Limits for companions at separations $<$ 3 AU come from a combination of 2MASS photometry and previous studies of G29-38’s pulsations. Our imaging with Gemini cannot confirm a tentative claim for the presence of a low mass brown dwarf. These observations demonstrate that a careful combination of several techniques can probe nearby white dwarfs for large planets and low mass brown dwarfs.'
author:
- 'John H. Debes, Steinn Sigurdsson, Bruce E. Woodgate'
bibliography:
- 'g29bib.bib'
title: 'Cool Customers in the Stellar Graveyard I: Limits to Extrasolar Planets around the White Dwarf G29-38'
---
Introduction {#s1}
============
G29-38 (ZZ Psc, WD 2326+049, GJ 895.2) is a nearby ($d$=13.6 pc) non-radially pulsating hydrogen white dwarf (WD) with photospheric absorption lines due to metals such as Mg and Ca [@vanaltena95; @koester97]. Hydrogen WDs with metal absorption lines are known as DAZs. G29-38 has a measured gravity $\log{g}$= 8.15 and a T$_{eff}$=11820 K, placing its cooling age at 0.6 Gyr [@liebert04].
G29-38 possesses an infrared excess, originally attributed to a companion substellar object [@zuckerman87]. Further infrared studies, including pulsational studies in the near-IR, showed that the excess was more consistent with a circumstellar disk at 1 R$_\odot$ with a blackbody temperature of $\sim$1000 K [@tokunaga88; @tokunaga90; @telesco90; @graham90]. The origin of the disk is unclear, though it could be caused by a tidally disrupted asteroid or comet, potentially sent to the inner system by a planetary system that suffered chaotic evolution after post main sequence evolution [@debes02; @jura03].
Long-term pulsational studies of G29-38 have allowed several of the more stable pulsation modes to be monitored for timing delays due to an unseen companion [@kleinman94; @kleinman98]. No conclusive detection of a companion has been reported. Speckle imaging of G29-38 furthermore could not detect any unresolved companions, although IR slit scans of G29-38 appeared to show an extension in the N-S direction on scales of 0.4 [@kuchner98; @haas90].
The biggest question that remains is the origin of the dust disk, which pollutes the white dwarf’s atmosphere with metals. Any origin for the dust requires a substellar companion [@debes02; @zuckerman03]. Planets in inner regions most likely are engulfed by the AGB phase of the star, with larger planets possibly “recycled” into brown dwarf companions [@seiss99a; @seiss99b]. Remnant asteroids and comets potentially could survive at distances where they would not be ablated during the AGB phase [@stern90]. However, if the primary star has asymmetric mass loss, objects such as comets can easily be lost from the system if the orbital timescale equals the timescale for mass loss [@parriott98]. Planets or brown dwarfs in orbits $\gtorder$5 AU will avoid engulfment and survive post main sequence evolution [@rasio96; @duncan98]. Massive white dwarfs that are the result of WD-WD mergers may also form terrestrial mass planets in the debris of the merger, allowing unseen companions in close orbits [@livio92].
WDs also make excellent targets for extrasolar planet searches with current ground and space based techniques [@burleigh02; @debes04]. WDs are orders of magnitude dimmer than their main sequence progenitors, allowing fainter companions to be detected. In the near-IR substellar companions emit thermal radiation, which for objects warmer than $\sim$300 K dominates the reflected light from their hosts. Companions that form at a particular semi-major axis conserve angular momentum during post main sequence mass loss and widen their orbits by a factor $\propto m_i/m_f$, where $m_i$ and $m_f$ are the initial and final masses of the central star [@jeans24]. Any observations of a WD then probe to orbits that were a factor of at least 2 times smaller when the star was on the main sequence. Current imaging searches in the near infrared are most effective for WDs that have a combined cooling time and main sequence age of $\sim$1-5 Gyr. At these ages WDs have become dimmer than their main sequence progenitor. Concurrently, massive planets and brown dwarfs are observable in the near-IR since they haven’t cooled below 300 K. WDs with metal lines can be markers for planetary systems and the presence of a dust disk and a high abundance of accreted metals makes G29-38 a primary candidate for the presence of a substellar or planetary companion [@debes02].
These motivations are the basis for a survey of nearby young DAZs that we have conducted using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). We have primarily used the coronagraph on the NIC2 detector which is part of NICMOS. With the high contrast, resolution, and sensitivity of NICMOS, we can probe to within 3 AU of G29-38 looking for substellar companions that could help to explain the presence of this peculiar DAZ’s dust disk. Section \[s2\] describes the observations. Section \[s3\] presents sensitivity limits as well as second epoch data for a candidate companion. These results are then combined with pulsational timing studies and 2MASS photometry to perform the most comprehensive search for substellar companions around a WD to date, providing a roadmap for the direct detection of planetary companions to WDs in the future. In Section \[s4\] we present the conclusions from our work.
Observations {#s2}
============
We imaged G29-38 using the NIC-2 camera on NICMOS both with and without a coronagraph. We used both the F110W ($\sim$J) and F160W ($\sim$H) filters for our observations. The highest degree of contrast at separations $>$ 1 is gained by performing a combination of coronagraphy and point spread function (PSF) subtraction [@fraquelli04]. Pipeline reduced coronagraphic data were obtained from STScI, and the basic procedure outlined by @fraquelli04 was used to optimize the results for coronagraphic self-subtraction.
Due to the detection of a candidate planetary companion, follow-up observations were taken approximately a year later with Gemini North telescope Director’s Discretionary time. We used the Altair adaptive optics (AO) system in conjunction with NIRI to take H band images of G 29-38 and the candidate to determine if they shared common proper motion.
The Gemini observations were taken on August 5, 2004. A total of 4 $\times$ 15s frames were co-added at 10 dither points to subtract the background and to remove pixel-to-pixel defects, for an effective integration on source of forty minutes. Our total integration returned an average AO corrected FWHM of 75 mas, significantly smaller than the diffraction limit of our F110W images with HST. Because of Gemini’s higher spatial resolution, we used this second epoch data to search for companions at separations $<$1. Table \[tab:obs\] shows the date and time of the observations taken of G29-38, along with the filters.
The second epoch Gemini data were processed using several IRAF tasks designed by the Gemini Observatory and based upon the samples given to observers. Each frame was flatfielded and sky subtracted. In addition, due to the on-sky rotation from a fixed Cassegrain Rotator, each frame was rotationally registered and combined. More details of the general strategy and reduction are in @debes04.
Results {#s3}
=======
No substellar objects were detected in an annulus betweee 1 and 5 from G 29-38 with our coronagraphic observations. One candidate object was detected at a S/N$\sim$6 with m$_{F110W}$-m$_{F160W}$=1.1$\pm$0.3 and apparent m$_{F110W}$=23.7$\pm$0.2. The discovery image and its follow up Gemini image is shown in Figure \[fig:gemfig\]. The magnitudes and colors were consistent with an object $<$ 10 M$_{Jup}$ at 13.6 pc [@bsl03]. Its initial position relative to G 29-38 was $\Delta\alpha$=4.91$\pm0.01$ $\Delta\delta$=2.03$\pm0.01$ in our HST images. Since the measured proper motion of G29-38 is -411$\pm$0.01 mas/yr in $\alpha$ and -263$\pm$.01 mas/yr in $\delta$ [@pauli03], we predict an increase of 330 mas and 250 mas in R.A. and dclination, respectively, between our two epoch observations due to parallactic motion and proper motion, leading to $\Delta\alpha$=5.24$\pm$0.02 and $\Delta\delta$=2.28$\pm$0.02 for the non co-moving case. The position of the candidate in the second epoch Gemini data is $\Delta\alpha$=5.25$\pm$0.01 and $\Delta\delta$=2.30$\pm$0.01.
The candidate is a background object that does not share G29-38’s proper motion. The errors in the calculation come primarily from the uncertainty in G29-38’s proper motion and uncertainties in the measured centroids. However, the position of the background object is well within the errors and shows no hint of its own proper motion.
Our Gemini data were of high enough spatial resolution that we should have easily detected extended structure similar to what was reported in @haas90. We see no such structure in any of our HST or Gemini observations. Any dust disk present around G29-38 must be confined to smaller than 75 mas or 1 AU projected separation.
Limits from Imaging
-------------------
@schneider03 showed a reliable way to determine sensitivity of an observation with NICMOS, given the stability of the instrument. Artificial “companions” are generated with the HST PSF simulation software TINYTIM [^1] and scaled to higher fluxes until they are recovered. These companions are inserted into the observations and used to gauge sensitivity. We adopted this strategy for our data as well. An implant was placed in the images. Two difference images were created following our procedure of PSF subtraction and then rotated and combined for maximum signal to noise. Sample images were examined by eye as a second check that the dimmest implants could be recovered. The implants were normalized so that their total flux was equal to 1 DN/s. The normalized value was converted to a flux in Jy or a Vega magnitude by multiplying by the correct photometry constants given by the NICMOS Data Handbook. We considered an implant recovered if its scaled flux in a given aperture had a S/N of 5.
For our Gemini data we used the PSF of G29-38 as a reference for the implant. The implant was normalized to a peak pixel value of one. Implants were scaled with increasing flux until recovered to determine the final image’s sensitivity to objects at a S/N of 10, since siginificant flux from the PSF remained at separations $<$ 1. The relative flux of the implant with respect to the host star was measured and a corresponding MKO H magnitude was derived from the 2MASS H magnitude to give a final apparent magnitude sensitivity. For our Gemini images we checked sensitivity starting at a distance of $\sim$3 times the FWHM of G29-38, or 0.22, out to 7, the extent of our field of view. Gemini’s sensitivity beyond $\sim$1.5 was comparable to that of our NICMOS data, with a median sensitivity of H$\sim$22.9.
Our resulting sensitivity plot in Figure \[fig:sens\], incorporating both our Gemini and HST data, shows the apparent limiting magnitudes in our search from 0.22 to 5. These results represent the deepest and highest contrast images taken around a white dwarf to date. In the NICMOS images beyond 1 our sensitivity was limited not by scattered light from G 29-38, but by the limited exposure time.
It is useful to convert the sensitivity in the observed magnitudes or fluxes into a corresponding companion mass. Since most substellar companions do not have long term energy sources, the luminosity of a brown dwarf or planet that is not significantly insolated is dependent both on mass and age. In the present situation we can estimate the age of the system based on the properties of the host star. For our current sensitivity calculation we chose the most recent models published by @bsl03 and @baraffe03. These models are difficult to compare to each other and to observations in the near-IR due to the presence of H$_2$O molecular absorption that can cause variations in predicted magnitudes in different photometric systems [@stephens04]. The @baraffe03 magnitudes are in the CIT system, while @bsl03 make their synthetic spectra directly available and thus can be convolved with any filter set. Both sets converge to within a magnitude of each other for ages $>$ 1 Gyr in the J, H, and K filters but in general, for a given age and mass, the @bsl03 predicted magnitudes are fainter. In Figure \[fig:cmd\] and our calculations in this Section, we use the @bsl03 models. If the @baraffe03 models are correct, our limits are at most $\sim$1-2 M$_{Jup}$ lower than reported. In Section \[sx.x\] we instead use the @baraffe03 models since they extend to higher mass.
Most models are for ground based J, H, and K filters. These filters were originally designed to avoid atmospheric windows of high near-IR absorption which is irrelevant for HST filter design. The wideband NICMOS filters vaguely resemble their ground-based counterparts, but possess significant differences in the case of objects that have deep molecular absorption. To adequately understand what type of companions one can detect, it is necessary to take flux calculations from the models and convolve them with the waveband of interest to get a predicted absolute magnitude for the HST filters: $$M_x=-2.5 \log\left(\int \lambda A_\lambda F_\lambda d\lambda\right)+2.5 \log\left(\int \lambda A_\lambda F_{\lambda,Vega} d\lambda\right)$$ where $A_\lambda$ is the transmission function of the filter, $F_\lambda$ is the flux of the putative companion, and $F_{\lambda,Vega}$ is the Vega flux as calculated by @kurucz. This method is preferred for detector arrays when calculating synthetic photometry [@girardi02].
Figure \[fig:cmd\] shows a sample $M_{F110W}$ vs. M$_{F110W}$-M$_{F160W}$ color magnitude plot for substellar objects as a function of their mass that have ages of 1 Gyr and 3 Gyr [@bsl03]. A comparison with @bsl03’s plots show that the predicted J magnitudes in their paper and the F110W magnitudes we’ve calculated differ by slight amounts due to the different transmission function of the two filters. It should also be noted that these predicted fluxes are based upon a completely isolated object that is not experiencing any insolation from its host star. Companions around WDs would have been insolated by their parent star for the main sequence lifetime. However, insolation calculations show that this would be insignificant for well separated companions [@burrows04]. The largest insolation would occur during the red giant branch (RGB) and asymptotic giant branch phases (AGB) of post main sequence evolution. Calculating the equilibrium temperature shows that the temperature at 5 AU during these phases would be less than the temperature experienced by HD 209458B, the Jovian planet in a 0.03 AU orbit around a main sequence star. Insolation of a planet during the post main sequence stages of evolution should not be sufficient to alter a substellar companion’s predicted magnitude from the isolated case.
To get a final prediction of the types of companions to which we are sensitive requires a fairly accurate estimate of the WDs total age. The total age can be determined from the sum of a WDs cooling age and its main sequence lifetime. Estimates of the main sequence lifetime can be taken from the initial to final mass ratio relationship between WDs and their progenitor stars [@weidemann00]. Cooling times can be derived by modeling. @liebert04 gives G29-38’s mass and cooling age as 0.7 $\Msun$ and 0.6 Gyr. Using a theoretical version of the initial-to-final mass function, M$_i=10.4 \ln \left[(M_{WD}/\Msun)/0.49\right] \Msun $, one derives an initial mass of 3.7 $\Msun$ [@wood92]. The main sequence (MS) lifetime can be estimated by $10 (M/\Msun)^{-2.5}$ Gyr, which gives an MS lifetime of 0.4 Gyr and thus a total age of 1 Gyr [@wood92]. However, from pulsational studies, the precise mass of G 29-38 is 0.6 $\Msun$ which, if the cooling time remains the same or is a bit longer, leads to an age of 2-3 Gyr [@kleinman98]. Thus, the age of G 29-38 likely lies between 1 and 3 Gyr.
Limits from 2MASS Photometry {#sx.x}
----------------------------
While direct imaging is most sensitive to companions $>$0.2 unresolved companions could still be present for G29-38. In order to rule out companions at separations where imaging or PSF subtraction could not resolve them, we looked at the near-IR flux of G29-38. Low mass companions to WDs have often been discovered through near-IR excesses [@probst82; @zuckerman92; @green00]. G29-38 presents a problem due to its already well known dust disk, which causes a measurable excess starting at about 1.6. However, no large excess is predicted for the J band, which we will use to limit the presence of unresolved substellar companions. For our search we use the near-IR photometry of the 2MASS catalogue which has been used in the past to search for flux excesses in combination with comparison to model WD atmospheres [@wachter03]. Using the measured effective temperatures, gravities, and distances of a WD, we can model the expected J magnitude (J$_{th}$) using the model atmospheres of @bergeron95. These models cover a wide range of WD effective temperature, gravity, and atmospheric composition. When combined with accurate photometry in the visible, these models can reproduce the flux in the J band of a WD to within a few percent [@bergeron01]. The model values of J, H, and K are based on the CIT filter system, which we converted to 2MASS magnitudes using the color transformations provided by the 2MASS documentation[^2]. Then, the excess of the expected minus observed J magnitude, $\Delta$J=J$_{th}$-J$_{\mbox{2MASS}}$, can be determined. An excess of flux in the J band under this notation gives a positive $\Delta$J. At the accuracy of 2MASS, limits can be placed on the type of companions present in close orbit around G29-38.
In order to place robust limits to a J excess for G29-38, we must determine the scatter of $\Delta$J from a sample of WDs with known physical parameters and see what an accurate estimate of a 3$\sigma$ excess would be. We would expect the sample to have a median $\Delta$J$\sim$ 0 and that the standard deviation of $\Delta$J gives a good estimate of the 1$\sigma$ error in our analysis. As a demonstration we take the sample of @liebert04 which includes G29-38 in a study of DA WDs from the PG survey of UV excess sources. Of the 374 white dwarfs we chose the brightest 72 of the sample that had a J $<$ 15, had unambiguous sources in 2MASS, and had reliable photometry, i.e those objects that had quality flags of A or B in the 2MASS point source catalogue for their J magnitudes.
If there were a significant number of excesses in the sample then the standard deviation of the observed minus expected magnitudes will be overestimated. Since we cannot [*a priori*]{} know whether there will be a large number of excesses or not, we’ve assumed that there are not a significant fraction of WDs with excesses in our samples. While calculating the standard deviation for each filter, we removed any object with an excess $>$ 3 $\sigma$ from the sample and recalculated the scatter in observed minus expected magnitudes. We iterated this process three times. We found that of the 72 sources, only eight objects showed an excess in at least one filter. These objects are in Table \[tab:excesses\].
After determining the standard deviation of the sample, we found that 1$\sigma$errors for the sample in the J, H, and K bands were 0.07 mag, 0.1 mag, and 0.15 mag, respectively. We treated any excesses greater than 3$\sigma$ as significant, though if an excess was only present in one band we marked this as a tentative detection. One exception is G29-38 itself, which showed only a 3.5$\sigma$ excess in the Ks band due to its dust disk, which has been amply confirmed in the past.
Seven objects in our sample showed significant excesses in at least two filters and one object showed a significant excess only in the Ks band. These results are shown in Table \[tab:excesses\]. Of the eight objects, 5 were previously known (See references in Table \[tab:excesses\]). PG 1234+482, PG 1335+369, and PG 1658+441 are new. Care was taken to ensure that the coordinates of new excess candidates in the 2MASS fields were correct and that their optical photometry was consistent both with that reported in @liebert04 and with the distance assumed in the modeling. The absolute magnitudes of candidate excess companions were calculated by taking the excess flux and using the distance derived from models of the WDs. A spectral type for each excess object was either taken from the literature or compared to nearby M and L dwarfs with known distances [@henry94; @leggett01]. The results are presented in Table \[tab:excess2\]. The spectral types we’ve determined are rough and need to be confirmed through spectroscopic follow-up or high spatial resolution imaging.
PG 1234+482 and PG 1658+441 both were previously studied in the J and K bands by @green00 for excesses. None were reported for either of these objects. Based on our analysis, PG 1234+482 has significant excesses in the H and Ks filters. @green00 reported a similar K magnitude as that reported in 2MASS but due to larger errors in their photometry, measured it as a marginal excess of $\sim$1.3$\sigma$. PG 1658+441 shows only an excess in the Ks 2MASS filter, which is contradicted by the infrared photometry taken in @green00. Their measured magnitude in K differs by $\sim$0.6 mag from 2MASS, with the 2MASS measurements having a higher reported error. Based on this uncertain photometry, the excess could be due to a mid L dwarf–the J-K color of such an object would result in a negligible excess in J and an observable excess in K$_{s}$ [@leggett01]. This would be an exciting discovery, if confirmed, as only two substellar objects are known to orbit nearby white dwarfs [@zuckerman88; @farihi04] PG 1658+441 has been selected and observed for Program 10255, an HST snapshot program to resolve close WD+M dwarf binaries. If an L dwarf is present in an orbit greater than a few AU, it should be resolved with those observations.
Our resulting 3$\sigma$ limit for G29-38 is then $\Delta$J=0.21, which corresponds to an unresolved source with M$_J$=14.8. Interpolating from the models of [@baraffe03], the corresponding unresolved companion mass at 1 and 3 Gyr is 40 $M_{Jup}$ and 58 $M_{Jup}$ respectively.
Limits from Pulsational Studies
-------------------------------
Claims for the presence of companions around G29-38 have often occurred. Its infrared excess was originally attributed to a brown dwarf companion, while radial velocity and pulsational timing hinted at the presence of either a low mass stellar companion or a massive black hole, all of which were shown to be spurious by more careful, long-term pulsational timing [@kleinman94].
Pulsational timing is done in a similar fashion to pulsar timing, in that phase changes of the observed minus calculated (O-C) pulse arrival times can be used to calculate the projected semi-major axis of the reflex motion for the white dwarf, $a \sin{i}$. For pulsating white dwarfs, the technique requires identifying a stable pulsational mode and measuring its arrival time very precisely. Measuring higher derivatives of the period change can also help to further constrain the Keplerian parameters of a companion orbit before it has completed a full revolution. This technique for pulsars has been remarkably effective at finding “oddball” planets, such as the first terrestrial extrasolar planets ever discovered and a Jovian mass planet in the metal poor M4 cluster [@wolszczan92; @sigurdsson03].
Long baseline timing studies of pulsating white dwarfs can produce very stringent limits to the types of companions orbiting them, down to tens of Earth masses. They are limited by the timescale of observations and knowledge of the inclination of the system while probing the inner-most orbital separations. In this sense pulsational timing is generally complementary to direct imaging searches, the combination of the two providing a comprehensive and sensitive method for searching for extra-solar planets.
@kleinman94 demonstrated that for G29-38, perturbations on the order of 10 s or greater could have been detected around the white dwarf. In fact, a trend was discovered in their data that had an amplitude of 56 s and a possible period of 8 years. This was a tentative detection given the possibility of the mode that they used being unstable or slowly varying. However, based on G29-38’s parameters, one can estimate how massive such a companion would be and what its semi-major axis would be assuming $i\sim$90$^\circ$. Assuming G29-38 has a mass of 0.6 $\Msun$, the derived minimum mass was 21 M$_{Jup}$ with a semi-major axis of 3.4 AU. A mass of 0.7 $\Msun$ does not significantly change these values.
As mentioned above, the noise limit to the @kleinman94 pulsational timing allows limits to be placed on the types of companions present with orbital timescales of $<$ 8 years. Figure \[fig:finalsens\] shows the combination of the pulsational timing limits based on the 10 s noise limit and our observational data. Our 2MASS photometry limits extend to where the predicted mass equals that derived from the limits of the pulsational studies, 0.4 AU for an age of 1 Gyr and 0.2 AU for an age of 3 Gyr. Between those separations and 3 AU, the limits are determined by the pulsational studies. Beyond 3 AU the limits are determined by our imaging. Overplotted is the separation and mass of the possible companion detected in the pulsational timing. Our observations weigh against the possibility of the tentative companion, if the total age of G29-38 is closer to 1 Gyr. If the age of G29-38 is closer to 3 Gyr, we can constrain the inclination of the possible companion’s orbit to be $>$ 44$^\circ$ from face on based on our detection limit of 30 $M_{Jup}$. Inspection of the limits shows that any companion $>$ 12 M$_{Jup}$ is ruled out for separations between $\sim$1 AU and 3 AU and $>$ 5 AU if the age of G 29-38 is close to 1 Gyr. All but planetary mass objects are ruled out for a good portion of the discovery space around this white dwarf. Further observations, such as sensitive radial velocity variations, would provide a stronger limit to close in companions than what is possible with 2MASS.
Conclusions {#s4}
===========
We have shown that a combination of high contrast imaging and photometry of individual relatively young and nearby white dwarfs such as G 29-38 can effectively probe for high mass planets. Information gleaned through this technique we can detect planets not accessible by other methods. Any planet discovered could become an important spectroscopic target for follow-up. The information gleaned from a large scale version of this study may provide key information on planet formation and evolution in intermediate mass stars as well as providing a possible explanation for the origin of white dwarfs with metal absorption [@debes02].
If a close companion is involved in the origin of G29-38’s dusty disk, it must be substellar and if a well-separated companion is involved it is of planetary mass. These mass limits apply if the scenario for the formation of DAZs follows @debes02, where an unstable planetary system sends volatile-depleted asteroidal or cometary material into the inner system. The possibility remains that a smaller planet could be present. Indeed, planets of $\sim$1 M$_{Jup}$ or less may be favored for the DAZ phenomenon [@hansen04 private communication]. Planets near our mass limits may be too efficient at ejecting surviving planetesimals rather than sending them into the inner system.
Finally, due to the sensitivity of our Gemini observations we can place some strong conclusions on previous claims for the presence of close companions due to pulsational timing by @kleinman94. If the age of G29-38 is 1 Gyr, we can refute the presence of a companion at $\sim$3.4 AU. We can place limits on its mass its if the age of G29-38 is closer to 3 Gyr. The possibility exists that the companion could be closer to G 29-38 than its maximum extent, since the pulsation timing observations were of not sufficient quality to determine the phase of the initial observations. We see no evidence for a companion beyond some structure in the AO PSF at a projected separation that does not match the predicted orbital separation [@trujillo04 personal communication].
We would like to gratefully acknowledge Al Shultz and Glenn Schneider for helpful conversations about coronagraphy with NICMOS, and Chad Trujillo and Joe Jensen for critical help with the inner workings of Altair and the reduction of Altair imaging data.
Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NASÊ5-26555. These observations are associated with program \#9834. Also based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina). Near-IR Photometry obtained as part of the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. S.S. also acknowledges funding under the Pennsylvania State University Astrobiology Research Consortium (PSARC).
[lccc]{} N8Q301010 & 2003-10-20 10:07:00 & F205W & 17.942\
N8Q301011 & 2003-10-20 10:08:00 & F205W & 17.942\
N8Q301020 & 2003-10-20 10:15:20 & F160W & 11.960\
N8Q301030 & 2003-10-20 10:20:00 & F110W & 11.960\
N8Q304010 & 2003-09-14 19:31:00 & F110W & 575.877\
N8Q305010 & 2003-09-14 19:59:00 & F110W & 575.877\
N8Q306010 & 2003-09-14 21:07:00 & F160W & 575.877\
N8Q307010 & 2003-09-13 21:35:00 & F160W & 575.877\
GN-2004A-DD-9 & 2004-08-05 14:81:08 & MKO H & 2220.00\
[ccccccc]{} 0017+061 & 15.33 & 15.49 & 15.56 & 13.74 & 13.19 & 12.98\
0205+134 & 15.45 & 15.63 & 15.72 & 12.80 & 12.20 & 11.96\
0824+289 & 14.95 & 15.13 & 15.22 & 12.42 & 11.80 & 11.65\
1026+002 & 14.29 & 14.41 & 14.46 & 11.75 & 11.22 & 10.94\
1033+464 & 14.93 & 15.08 & 15.17 & 12.56 & 12.03 & 11.75\
1234+482 & 15.14 & 15.32 & 15.40 & 14.98 & 14.96 & 14.94\
1335+369 & 15.03 & 15.15 & 15.20 & 13.29 & 12.92 & 12.85\
1658+441 & 15.26 & 15.40 & 15.50 & 15.44 & 15.53 & 15.05\
[cccccc]{} 0017+061 & 8.98 & 8.29 & 8.05 & M5V & 1\
0205+134 & 6.46 & 5.81 & 5.56 & M3.5V & 2\
0824+289 & 6.90 & 6.24 & 6.09 & dC+M3V & 3\
1026+002 & 8.96 & 8.38 & 8.09 & M5V & 1\
1033+464 & 8.15 & 7.56 & 7.26 & M4V & 1\
1234+482 & 11.31 & 10.3 & 10.3 & M8V & -\
1335+369 & 9.30 & 8.84 & 8.77 & M5.5V & -\
1658+441 & - & - & 14.1 & L5 & -\
[^1]: http://www.stsci.edu/software/tinytim/tinytim.html
[^2]: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/sec6\_4b.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present three-dimensional numerical magnetohydrodynamic simulations of radiatively inefficient spherical accretion onto a black hole. The simulations are initialized with a Bondi flow, and with a weak, dynamically unimportant, large-scale magnetic field. The magnetic field is amplified as the gas flows in. When the magnetic pressure approaches equipartition with the gas pressure, the field begins to reconnect and the gas is heated up. The heated gas is buoyant and moves outward, causing line stretching of the frozen-in magnetic field. This leads to further reconnection, and more heating and buoyancy-induced motions, so that the flow makes a transition to a state of self-sustained convection. The radial structure of the flow changes dramatically from its initial Bondi profile, and the mass accretion rate onto the black hole decreases significantly.
Motivated by the numerical results, we develop a simplified analytical model of a radiatively inefficient spherical flow in which convective transport of energy to large radii plays an important role. In this “convection-dominated Bondi flow” the accretion velocity is highly subsonic and the density varies with radius as $\rho\propto R^{-1/2}$ rather than the standard Bondi scaling $\rho\propto R^{-3/2}$. We estimate that the mass accretion rate onto the black hole correspondingly scales as $\dot M \sim (R_{in}/R_a)\dot M_{Bondi}$, where $R_{in}$ is a small multiple of the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole and $R_a$ is the “accretion radius” at which the ambient gas in the surrounding medium is gravitationally captured by the black hole. Since the factor $R_{in}/R_a$ is typically very small, $\dot M$ is significantly less than the Bondi accretion rate. Convection-dominated Bondi flows may be relevant for understanding many astrophysical phenomena, e.g. post-supernova fallback and radiatively inefficient accretion onto supermassive black holes, stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars.
author:
- 'Igor V. Igumenshchev and Ramesh Narayan'
title: 'Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Spherical Accretion'
---
Introduction
============
The classic problem of adiabatic spherical accretion onto a compact gravitating mass has been studied by many authors. The hydrodynamic version of this problem was solved by Bondi (1952) who showed that inside a certain capture radius, the radial velocity of the accreting gas varies as $v_R\propto R^{-1/2}$, where $R$ is the radius. Correspondingly, the density varies as $\rho\propto R^{-3/2}$.
If the gas in a Bondi flow has a frozen-in magnetic field, the field lines are stretched in the radial direction and compressed in the transverse direction, so that the radial component of the field is amplified according as $B_R\propto R^{-2}$. The magnetic energy density then varies as $\epsilon_m=B^2/8\pi\propto R^{-4}$. However, the gravitational energy density of the gas varies only as $\epsilon_{grav}=\rho GM/R\propto R^{-5/2}$. Thus, for a sufficiently small radius, one formally has $\epsilon_m\gg\epsilon_{grav}$, which is physically inconsistent since the magnetic energy ultimately is derived from the gravitational binding energy of the accreting gas.
Shvartsman (1971) proposed that the conversion of gravitational energy into magnetic energy is accompanied by turbulence which tangles the magnetic field lines. He suggested that, as the magnetic and gravitational energies approach equipartition, field reconnection ensures that $\epsilon_m$ does not exceed $\epsilon_{grav}$. Reconnection will be accompanied by dissipation (Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Ruzmaikin 1974; Mészáros 1975) which will heat the gas. As a result, the thermal energy of the gas is also likely to come into rough equipartition with the other energies. These modifications have been recognized for many years and have been incorporated into models of spherical accretion flows.
To our knowledge, all published studies of the magnetized spherical accretion problem have assumed that the magnetic field causes no serious [*dynamical*]{} effects on the flow. In particular, all authors assume that the velocity and density scale exactly as in the Bondi solution, namely $v_R\propto R^{-1/2}$, $\rho\propto R^{-3/2}$. (The following is an incomplete list of relevant papers on the subject: Zeldovich & Novikov 1971; Shapiro 1973a,b; Ipser & Price 1977, 1982, 1983; Maraschi et al. 1979; Maraschi, Roasio, & Treves 1982; Scharlemann 1981, 1983; Treves, Maraschi, & Abramowicz 1988; Turolla & Nobili 1989; Nobili, Turolla, & Zampieri 1991; Mason & Turolla 1992; Mason 1992; Melia 1992; Kowalenko & Melia 1999; Coker & Melia 2000; many other papers discuss spherical accretion without explicitly considering magnetic fields and heating, e.g. Ostriker et al. 1976; Park & Ostriker 1989; Houck & Chevalier 1991; Zampieri et al. 1998.)
In this paper we show that the magnetic field can play an important, perhaps even dominant, role in the dynamics of spherical accretion flows. The influence is both direct, through the action of the electromotive force, and indirect, through the entropy generated in the process of field reconnection. The latter leads to convection, which drastically changes the flow structure relative to the Bondi solution. In particular, the density profile becomes much less centrally peaked than the Bondi $R^{-3/2}$ profile, and the mass accretion rate is reduced significantly below the Bondi rate. Interestingly, the flow resembles the recently discovered hydrodynamical convection-dominated accretion flow solution (CDAF, Narayan, Igumenshchev, & Abramowicz 2000; Quataert & Gruzinov 2000; Stone, Pringle, & Begelman 1999; Igumenshchev & Abramowicz 2000, 2001; Igumenshchev, Abramowicz, & Narayan 2000; Ball, Narayan, & Quataert 2001).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In §2 we describe our numerical method, and the details of our initial and boundary conditions. In §3 we present results of numerical simulations, and in §4 we describe an approximate self-similar solution which includes the effects of plasma heating and convection. In §5 we discuss some implications of the results.
Simulation Technique
====================
Magnetohydrodynamic Equations
-----------------------------
We solve the equations of resistive MHD in the one-fluid approximation, $${d\rho\over dt} + \rho{\bf\nabla\cdot v} = 0,$$ $$\rho{d{\bf v}\over dt} = -{\bf\nabla} (P+Q) - \rho{\bf\nabla}\Phi +
{1\over 4\pi}({\bf\nabla}\times{\bf B})\times {\bf B},$$ $$\rho{d\epsilon\over dt} = -(P+Q){\bf\nabla\cdot v} + {1\over
4\pi}\eta{\bf J}^2,$$ $${\partial{\bf B}\over \partial t} = {\bf\nabla}\times({\bf v}\times{\bf B} -
\eta{\bf J}),$$ where $\rho$ is the density, ${\bf v}$ is the velocity, $P$ is the pressure, $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential, ${\bf B}$ is the magnetic induction, $\epsilon$ is the specific internal energy, ${\bf
J}={\bf\nabla}\times{\bf B}$ is the current density, and $\eta$ is the resistivity. The terms involving $Q$ in equations (2) and (3) correspond to an artificial viscosity which is introduced to correctly treat shocks. We adopt the ideal gas equation of state, $$P=(\gamma-1)\rho\epsilon,$$ with an adiabatic index $\gamma=5/3$. We assume that there is no radiative cooling.
We take the compact mass at the center to be a black hole of mass $M$ and we use a pseudo-Newtonian gravitational potential (Paczyński & Wiita 1980) to mimic the effects of general relativity, $$\Phi=-{GM\over R-R_g}, \qquad R_g={2\,GM\over c^2},$$ where $R_g$ is the gravitational radius.
Numerical Method
----------------
We numerically solve equations (1)–(4) by using an extension of the original PPM algorithm developed by Colella & Woodward (1984) for hydrodynamics. We use the Lagrangian version of the PPM algorithm with operator splitting. The Riemann solver takes into account the non-linear interaction of the fast MHD waves when calculating time-updates of the density, velocity and internal energy in equations (1)–(3). The components of the Lorentz force in the equation of motion (2) are calculated using a solution of the Lagrangian characteristic equations for Alfvén waves, as in the method of characteristics (MOC) of Stone & Norman (1992). We use dimension splitting when solving the equations in three dimensions.
We replace the induction equation (4) by an equivalent equation for the vector potential ${\bf A}$, $${\partial{\bf A}\over\partial t} = {\bf v}\times{\bf B} -
\eta{\bf J},$$ where ${\bf B}={\bf\nabla}\times{\bf A}$. This approach guarantees that the constraint ${\bf\nabla\cdot B}=0$ is satisfied to within grid approximation errors at each time $t$. The first term on the right hand side of equation (7) is calculated using a modified version of the Eulerian MOC algorithm (Stone & Norman 1992). (The modification is due to our use of a different representation of the location of the Alfvén characteristics domain for calculating the averaged values of the components of ${\bf v}$ and ${\bf B}$.)
The code operates on a three-dimensional Cartesian grid. In order to adequately resolve the large dynamic range of spatial scales spanned by astrophysical accretion flows, we employ a nested grid (see Fig. 1) similar to that employed by Igumenshchev et al. (2000) for simulating hydrodynamical CDAFs in three dimensions. In the present calculations, we have used five subgrids with $64\times 64\times 64$ cells in each subgrid. The cell size in the innermost subgrid is $\Delta_1=0.5 R_g$. Each succeeding subgrid has its cell size increased by a factor of 2, and so the outermost subgrid has $\Delta_5=8 R_g$, and covers a cube of size $256 R_g \times 256 R_g
\times 256 R_g$. In practice, we used only a quarter of the full cubic domain, by focusing on a 90 degree wedge around the $z$ axis. Thus, we employed $32\times32\times64$ cells along $xyz$, and used periodic boundary conditions in the azimuthal direction.
We define the quantities $\rho$, $\rho{\bf v}$ and $\rho\epsilon$ at the centers of cubic cells, and the components of ${\bf B}$ at the corresponding cell edges. By using continuous piece-wise parabolic approximations of ${\bf v}$ and ${\bf B}$ when solving equation (7), the code avoids the “explosive” instability which is found in MHD codes based on the original MOC algorithm (Clarke 1996).
The energy equation in numerical MHD needs to be handled with care. Because of the finite spatial resolution, field lines can reconnect, leading to a loss of magnetic energy without a compensating increase in the internal energy of the gas. This leads to uncontrolled energy loss in the simulation (e.g. Stone & Pringle 2001; Igumenshchev & Abramowicz 2001).
To fix the problem, we introduce an explicit artificial resistivity $\eta$ and set its magnitude to be larger than the effective numerical resistivity associated with numerical reconnection. Following Stone & Pringle (2001), we choose $$\eta=\eta_0{|{\bf\nabla}\times{\bf B}|\over\sqrt{4\pi\rho}}\Delta^2,$$ where $\eta_0$ is a dimensionless parameter and $\Delta$ is the grid spacing. The magnetic Reynolds number corresponding to this resistivity is $$Re_m\simeq {1\over\eta_0}\left({L\over\Delta}\right)^2,$$ where $L$ is the characteristic spatial scale of the problem.
Ryu, Jones, & Frank (1995) have shown that the effective Reynolds number due to numerical resistivity has the same functional dependence on $L$ and $\Delta$ as in equation (9), and they estimate the corresponding coefficient $(\eta_0)_n$ to be in the range $0.2-0.5$ for their second-order MHD code based on the total variation diminishing scheme. We expect that our code has the same or even lower numerical resistivity. For this reason, we have used $\eta_0$ in the range of $0.3-0.5$. Test runs show a significant improvement in energy conservation when we choose $\eta_0$ in this range.
In principle, the non-uniform nested numerical grid (Fig. 1) could introduce perturbations in the flow at the interfaces between subgrids because of differences in the numerical viscosity and resistivity on the two sides of the boundary. We checked for this effect in rotating hydrodynamical accretion flows (Igumenshchev et al. 2000), and found that the perturbations were small and had no significant effect on the global flow. The present simulations of MHD accretion flows again show only minor effects at sub-grid interfaces.
Initial and boundary conditions
-------------------------------
We initialize our simulations with a spherically symmetric flow, described by the following self-similar Bondi solution for a $\gamma=5/3$ gas in the Newtonian gravitational potential of a point mass $M$, $$\rho(R)={\dot{M}\over 4\pi}{R^{-3/2}\over v_0\sqrt{GM}}, \quad
v_R(R)=-v_0\sqrt{GM\over R}, \quad
\epsilon(R)={3\over 5}\left(1-{v_0^2\over 2}\right){GM\over R},$$ where $\dot{M}$ is the mass accretion rate and $v_0$ is a dimensionless parameter which can take any value in the range $0\le v_0\le\sqrt{2}$. In all our simulations we have taken $v_0=1$, which corresponds to supersonic Bondi accretion with Mach number ${\cal M}=1.7$. We take the initial magnetic field to be uniform with only one non-zero component: $B_z$. We specify the initial strength of the magnetic field $B_z$ by a parameter $b_0$ defined as follows, $${B_z^2\over8\pi}=b_0^2{GM\rho_{out}\over R_{out}},$$ where $\rho_{out}$ is the density of the gas at the outer radius of the grid $R_{out}=256\,R_g$. We choose $b_0^2\ll1$, which ensures that the magnetic field has negligible influence on the flow dynamics early in the simulation.
At the outer boundary we assume that, at all times, the density and the velocity are given by the Bondi solution (10) and the magnetic field is equal to its initial value. At the inner boundary, close to the black hole horizon, we assume absorbing conditions. Specifically, any matter that crosses the inner radius $R_{in}=2 R_g$ is extracted from the computational domain, and the magnetic terms in the equation of motion (2) are switched off.
Numerical Results
=================
We have calculated four models, A, B, C, D, with the parameters listed in Table 1. All the models begin with a weak magnetic field ($b_0^2\ll1$), which has a negligible dynamical effect on the flow. Therefore, the spherical Bondi solution with which the flow is initialized is stable and persists for some time. As the gas flows in, the strength of the magnetic field increases, with the most rapid increase occurring in the innermost region. At a certain critical time the field becomes strong enough to modify the flow dynamics.
Figure 2 shows the evolution of the mass accretion rate onto the black hole for Models A (thin line), B (dashed line) and D (thick line). At the beginning of the simulations the accretion rates in all three models experience a quick relaxation. This initial relaxation is due to the fact that there is a minor inconsistency between the self-similar solution (10) and the absorbing inner boundary conditions as well as the pseudo-Newtonian potential (6). At the end of the initial relaxation, the flow takes up a slightly modified steady state configuration, and the mass accretion rate onto the black hole becomes equal to the rate of mass input at the outer boundary. At this point, the flow is essentially the standard Bondi flow. Model D, which is a pure hydrodynamic simulation, does not change any further after this initial relaxation. Models A, B and C, however, which have magnetic fields, undergo significant evolution.
Figure 3 shows the configuration of magnetic field lines in Model A at time $t=0.5$; we measure time in units of the free-fall time from the outer radius $R_{out}$ of the computational domain. We see that the initially parallel field lines are pulled in towards the black hole as they are swept in by the converging flow streamlines. Note that, near the equatorial plane, oppositely directed magnetic lines closely approach each other. This leads to efficient reconnection soon after this time.
At $t \simeq 0.5$ in Model A the strength of the magnetic field in the vicinity of the black hole reaches equipartition with the gas pressure, and the accretion rate experiences a sudden large drop. This drop represents the effect of the amplified magnetic field, which suppresses accretion in the equatorial zone and forces matter to accumulate within a “core” region in the vicinity of the black hole. Because the initial Bondi flow is supersonic, an MHD shock forms where the inflowing matter meets the core. The post-shock gas is sub-sonic and sub-Alfvenic. In Model B the same drop in accretion rate is again seen, except that it happens at a later time ($t\approx 1$). This model starts with a weaker field and therefore it takes longer for the magnetic pressure to build up to equipartition strength. Model C, with a smaller value of the resistivity parameter $\eta_0$, has an evolution almost identical to that of Model A. All three models relax to a new state in which the mass accretion rate is several times less than the mass supply rate. The accretion rates in Models A, B and C continue to evolve slowly with time and by the end of the simulations ($t\sim8$), the rates are roughly an order of magnitude less than the mass supply rate. The accretion rates are highly variable, however, reflecting the unstable nature of the flows. All three models have very similar final states.
Here we discuss Model A in detail as a representative example. As already mentioned, a dense core is formed in the innermost region of the accretion flow once the magnetic field reaches equipartition with the gas pressure. The core is bounded by a quasi-spherical shock. The size of the core and the mass contained in it increase with time due to the accumulation of matter; matter flows onto the core from the outside at a rate determined by the rate of mass input at the outer boundary, while mass flows out of the core into the black hole at a much lower rate (roughly a factor of ten lower).
Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the distribution of density, magnetic field lines and velocity streamlines in the core region at a relatively late time, $t=7.88$. The influence of the large scale magnetic field introduced through the outer boundary condition is still visible in the polar direction. The magnetic field here is almost radial and has its maximum strength. Correspondingly, the density takes its minimum value, so that the plasma $\beta\equiv P_g/P_m$ is quite small, $\beta\sim 0.1$. The accreting matter moves along the magnetic lines with supersonic velocity; the velocity is roughly of order the Alfven speed. Because of the high velocity there is no accumulation of matter.
As Figures 4–6 show, the picture is very different in the equatorial region (“equator” and “pole” are defined with respect to the large-scale magnetic field). The topology of the magnetic field is much more tangled and the gas is denser. The accumulated matter is highly inhomogeneous, with filaments of higher and lower density being sandwiched between each other (Fig. 4). The inhomogeneous structure is the result of convection in the core driven by the heat released during episodes of magnetic reconnection.
The first reconnection event occurs at a time slightly later than that shown in Figure 3. The reconnection and corresponding energy release happens exactly at the equatorial plane, in the vicinity of the inner boundary, where the magnetic field is strongest and where oppositely directed field lines approach each other most closely. After the reconnection event the local strength of the magnetic field is reduced to a sub-equipartition level (as visualized by Shvartsman 1971) and the gas is heated by the energy released in the reconnection. The heated gas expands and forms a convective blob which moves outward as a result of buoyancy force. During the motion of the hot blob through the ambient medium it deforms magnetic lines and causes new reconnection events. This leads to the formation of other hot blobs which again become convective. As a result, the convective motions are self-sustained and lead to turbulence in the core. The magnetic field in the convection zone is on average close to equipartition strength, with $\beta\simeq 1$–$10$.
Figure 5 shows the tangled magnetic field configuration after the convection has become fully developed, and Fig. 6 shows the chaotic velocity streamlines. We see numerous vortices and circulation patterns. The most efficient convection occurs at intermediate angles between the poles and the equator. Somewhat less efficient convective motions are present in the equatorial plane, and there is no convection in the polar regions.
Self-Similar Solutions
======================
To better understand the physics of radiatively inefficient magnetized spherical accretion, we consider here a steady radial flow and seek self-similar solutions of the equations. By the assumption of self-similarity, we expect the plasma $\beta$ to be independent of radius $R$. Hence we write the gas, magnetic and total pressure as $$P_g\equiv\rho c_s^2, \qquad
P_m={1\over\beta}\rho c_s^2, \qquad
P_{tot}=P_g+P_m={\beta+1\over\beta}\rho c_s^2,$$ where $c_s$ is the isothermal sound speed of the gas. The radial momentum equation and the gas energy equation take the form $${d\over dR}\left({v_R^2\over 2}\right)
=-{1\over\rho}{dP_{tot}\over dR}-{GM\over R^2},$$ $$\rho v_R T{ds \over dR}\equiv
\rho v_R \left[ {1\over\gamma-1}{dc_s^2\over dR}-{c_s^2\over\rho}
{d\rho\over dR}\right]
=-{1\over R^2}{d\over dR}(R^2 F_{c})+Q_{diss},$$ where $v_R$ is the radial velocity (assumed negative for accretion), $s$ is the specific entropy of the gas, $\gamma$ is the adiabatic index, and $F_c$ is the outward flux of energy due to convection. The term on the left hand side of equation (14) describes the inward advection of energy, the first term on the right hand side is the divergence of the convective energy flux, and $Q_{diss}$ is the rate of heating of the gas by dissipation.
Following Narayan & Yi (1994, see also Kato, Fukue, & Mineshige 1998; Narayan et al. 2000), we use a simple parametric form to represent the convective flux, $$F_{c}=-\alpha_{c}c_s R \rho T{ds\over dR},$$ where $\alpha_c$ is a dimensionless constant. For the heating term, $Q_{diss}$, we note that there are at least two sources of dissipation: (i) energy release through magnetic reconnection, and (ii) viscous and resistive dissipation at small scales as a result of a turbulent cascade. It is not possible to model these processes in detail. Instead, we note that the ultimate source of energy is the gravitational potential energy of the accreting gas, and so we write $$Q_{diss}=-\alpha_d{v_R\over R}\rho{GM\over R},$$ where $\alpha_d$ is another dimensionless constant (the negative sign is because $v_R<0$).
We consider self-similar flows in which the various variables behave as power laws in radius (see the analogous discussion of CDAFs in Narayan et al. 2000), $$c_s(R)=c_0 v_K\propto R^{-1/2},$$ $$\rho(R)= \rho_0 R^{-a},$$ $$v_R(R)= {\dot{M}\over4\pi R^2\rho}=-v_0 v_K\left(R_g\over R\right)^{(3/2-a)}
\propto R^{-2+a},$$ where $v_K=\sqrt{GM/R}$ is the Keplerian velocity, and $a$ is a power-law index which takes one of two values, 3/2 or 1/2 (see Narayan et al. 2000 and Quataert & Gruzinov 2000). The coefficients $c_0$ and $v_0$ are dimensionless coefficients whose values are determined by substituting the solution into the two conservation equations (13) and (14). The coefficient $\rho_0$ is proportional to the accretion rate $\dot M$ and scales out of the problem.
The simplest case to consider is the pure hydrodynamic problem, in which gas with $\gamma=5/3$ accretes onto a black hole, with neither convection nor dissipative heating. The self-similar solution with $a=3/2$ automatically satisfies the energy equation, while the momentum equation gives $$v_0^2=2-{5(\beta+1)\over\beta}c_0^2.$$ We then have a family of solutions in which $v_0$ is a free parameter and $c_0$ is determined by equation (18) (with $\beta\to \infty$ since there is no magnetic field), $$c_0^2={1\over5}(2-v_0^2).$$ This is the self-similar solution given in equation (10), which was used to initialize the numerical simulations. The same self-similar solution is often used even for magnetized spherical accretion, under the assumption that the field will achieve equipartition and thereby have a self-similar scaling. But this is not correct. When there is a magnetic field, there is bound to be reconnection (see the discussion in §1) and this means that the entropy of the gas will increase inward. This is not consistent with the assumed scaling ($a=3/2$, $\gamma=5/3$, cf. Quataert & Narayan 1999).
In the presence of magnetic fields, we need to consider the more general problem with finite values of $\beta$, $\alpha_c$ and $\alpha_d$, and a general value of $\gamma$. Let us first assume that $a$ takes the standard Bondi value of 3/2. In this case, all the terms in the energy equation (14) are of the same order (all scale as $R^{-4}$), and the energy equation gives the following relation between $v_0$ and $c_0$, $$\left({1\over\gamma-1}-{3\over2}\right)(v_0-\alpha_c c_0)
c_0^2=\alpha_d v_0.$$ This relation, combined with equation (18) from the momentum equation, allows us to solve uniquely for $v_0$ and $c_0$ for given values of $\beta$, $\alpha_c$, $\alpha_d$ and $\gamma$. However, not all combinations of these parameters lead to a physical solution. For instance, consider the case when $\alpha_c c_0 \ll v_0$. Equation (20) then gives $$c_0^2 = {\alpha_d\over \left({1\over \gamma-1}-{3\over2}\right)},$$ which shows that $\gamma$ has to be less than 5/3 if $c_0^2$ is to be positive and finite. In fact, the constraint on $\gamma$ is even more severe. This can be seen by substituting (21) in (18) and solving for $v_0^2$. The requirement that $v_0^2>0$ leads to $${1\over \gamma-1} > {3\over2} + {5(\beta+1)\alpha_d\over 2\beta},$$ which gives an upper limit on $\gamma$ that is smaller than 5/3.
The reason for these constraints is that the value $\gamma=5/3$ is a singular case for a self-similar solution with $a=3/2$. This fact was noted by Quataert & Narayan (1999) for the case of a rotating viscous flow, but the same argument applies here as well. When the condition $\alpha_c c_0 \ll v_0$ which was used to derive (21) is not satisfied, the inequality (22) becomes modified to a more complicated relation. However, the qualitative features remain the same. Specifically, we find that $\gamma$ has to be smaller than a certain value (which is less than 5/3) in order to have a physical solution.
Let us next consider a self-similar solution with $a<3/2$. Now, the various terms in the energy equation are no longer of the same order. The entropy advection term and the heating term still vary as $R^{-4}$, but the term describing the divergence of the convective flux varies as $R^{-5/2-a}$. The latter term dominates at large $R$. Since there is no other term to balance this term, the only way to satisfy the energy equation is to ensure that its coefficient is equal to zero. This requires $a=1/2$.
Let us now set $a=1/2$. As we have just argued, the energy equation is automatically satisfied (to leading order) at large $R$. The momentum equation also becomes simpler since the term involving $v_R$ is smaller than the other two terms and may be neglected. Thus we find $$c_0^2={2\beta\over3(\beta+1)}.$$ The value of the parameter $v_0$ is not uniquely determined by this analysis, but is fixed by boundary conditions. In particular, close to the black hole, where the various terms in the energy equation become of comparable order (in fact, the convective term probably becomes less important than the other two terms), the flow will make a transition to a different regime; this is also the region where the flow matches onto the absorbing boundary condition at the black hole. We do not discuss the physics of this region as it is beyond the scope of the present paper.
A feature of the $a=1/2$ self-similar solution is that $\gamma=5/3$ is not a singular case (the solution is singular when $\gamma=3$, but this has no practical consequences). Thus, for an accretion flow with $\gamma=5/3$, the $a=1/2$ solution appears to be more robust than the $a=3/2$ solution. For lower values of $\gamma$, both the $a=3/2$ solution and the $a=1/2$ flow may be allowed and it is not a priori obvious which solution would be picked by nature. We suspect that the $a=1/2$ solution is the flow of choice under most conditions (see also the discussion of the $a=1/2$ law by Gruzinov 2001).
The two solutions discussed above are very different from each other. In the $a=3/2$ flow, convection is a relatively minor perturbation and the energy balance is primarily between energy advection and dissipative heating. This flow is very similar to the standard Bondi accretion flow, with only minor changes in the values of some coefficients. In contrast, in the new $a=1/2$ solution, the convective flux dominates the energy equation. We therefore refer to it as a convection-dominated Bondi Flow (CDBF). This flow deviates remarkably from the standard Bondi solution; in fact, it resembles the CDAF solution.
The CDBF has a steady outward flux of energy due to convection. The convective luminosity is $$L_c=4\pi R^2F_c= {\alpha_c c_0^3\over 2v_0}
\left({1\over\gamma-1}-{1\over2}\right)\dot Mc^2
\equiv \varepsilon_c\dot Mc^2.$$ Thus, convection transports a fraction of the binding energy of the accreting gas outward. The efficiency of this process, described by the coefficient $\varepsilon_c$, depends on details of the flow which are not easy to determine from first principles. In the case of a CDAF, where again there is an analogous relation, numerical simulations by Igumenshchev & Abramowicz (2000; see also Narayan et al. 2000; Igumenshchev et al. 2000) give $\varepsilon_c\sim 0.001-0.01$. It is likely that a CDBF also has a similar efficiency.
Summary and Discussion
======================
The main result of this paper is that radiatively inefficient spherical (i.e. non-rotating) accretion of magnetized plasma onto a compact mass has very different properties compared to spherical accretion of unmagnetized gas. The unmagnetized problem is described by pure hydrodynamics. It was solved by Bondi (1952) and has been widely applied.
Our results on the magnetized problem are based on three-dimensional numerical MHD simulations. The simulations are initialized with an analytical self-similar Bondi flow (eq. \[10\]) and have initially a weak, dynamically unimportant magnetic field ($b_0^2\ll1$, cf eq. \[11\]). The inner boundary conditions correspond to a black hole. We find that the Bondi solution survives for a short period of time with relatively minor changes. However, during this time the magnetic field becomes progressively stronger — because of radial stretching and transverse compression of the frozen-in field lines as the gas flows in — until the magnetic pressure builds up roughly to equipartition with the gas pressure (Figure 3).
After this time, the structure of the flow changes dramatically. The equipartition magnetic field exerts a back-reaction on the free-falling gas and slows it down in the “equatorial” region. A shock forms and gas accumulates in a “core.” The magnetic field begins to reconnect to maintain the magnetic pressure slightly below equipartition (plasma $\beta\sim1-10$). The reconnection heats the gas locally, and the resulting high entropy material moves outward under buoyancy. The outward motion causes further stretching and amplification of the frozen-in field lines, leading to further episodes of reconnection. Before long, the plasma in the vicinity of the black hole experiences fully developed turbulent convection. With time, the convective core grows in size, as more magnetized material from the outside is added to it, while mass flows into the black hole at a much smaller rate. The flow in the convective core bears almost no resemblance to the Bondi solution (see Figures 4, 5 and 6). One result of all this is that the accretion rate onto the black hole is reduced significantly from the Bondi rate (Figure 2). The flow does not have a wind or outflow, as in the models of Blandford & Begelman (1999) and Das (2000), but this is not surprising since those authors include additional ingredients such as angular momentum and viscosity (Blandford & Begelman, see also Narayan & Yi 1994) and pair physics (Das).
The principal physical effects operating in our numerical simulations may be understood by considering the energetics of the accreting magnetized plasma. We can identify three major stages in which the gravitational binding energy of the accreting gas is transformed into other forms of energy: $${\rm (gravitational~energy)}$$ $$\downarrow$$ $${\rm (magnetic~energy)}$$ $$\downarrow$$ $${\rm (thermal~energy)}$$ $$\downarrow$$ $${\rm (convective~turbulent~energy,~leading~to~convective~energy~transport)}$$ The first and second transformations, namely (gravitational energy)$\rightarrow$(magnetic energy) and (magnetic energy)$\rightarrow$(thermal energy) are well-known and have been widely discussed (Shvartsman 1971; Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Ruzmaikin 1974; Mészáros 1975; and numerous later papers, see §1). These two processes build up the magnetic field to near-equipartition strength and modify the thermal state of the gas (and its radiative properties) relative to the standard Bondi flow. However, they have little effect on the overall dynamics of the flow.
The third transformation, (thermal energy)$\rightarrow$(convective turbulence), does have a very important effect on the dynamics, and this appears to have been overlooked in previous studies. The importance of convection is not because it creates turbulent kinetic energy (which is just another form of pressure, like magnetic and thermal pressure), but because it causes energy [*transport*]{}. Convection efficiently transports energy from the deep interior of the flow, where the bulk of the gravitational energy is released, to the outer regions of the flow. Away from the center, the convective flux dominates the physics and thus has a significant effect on the structure of the flow.
In the MHD simulations presented here, the mass accretion rate onto the black hole is reduced by a factor of about ten relative to a Bondi flow with the same outer boundary conditions (of density and sound speed). The reduction occurs because of the formation of the convective core. The mean accretion velocity in the core is highly subsonic, and much smaller than the radial velocity in an equivalent Bondi flow. Only very close to the inner absorbing boundary does the accretion become supersonic, in contrast to a standard Bondi flow which has supersonic infall over a wide range of radius. The radial density profile is also very different from the $R^{-3/2}$ profile found in a Bondi flow.
We should caution that, in our models, we have assumed that the external medium has a uniform magnetic field. This leads to a large departure from spherical symmetry in the accretion flow at late times. For instance, Figures 4–6 show a bipolar structure in the magnetic field, with two “poles” (oriented parallel to the external field) along which there is preferential accretion. The situation we have simulated would be realized if the coherence scale of the field in the external medium is larger than the accretion radius $R_a$ — the radius at which the gas from the external medium is captured by the gravitational pull of the accreting mass. However, one could visualize other situations in which the field is tangled on small scales in the external medium, so that the accreting gas has several distinct magnetic loops.
We have tried numerical experiments on accretion flows with small scale magnetic field of different configurations. However, we lacked sufficient numerical resolution for these experiments; the field underwent resistive dissipation before it could reach equipartition with the gas pressure. This demonstrates the importance of having adequate numerical resolution. We estimate that to conduct any believable experiments with a non-uniform external field we will need to increase the numerical resolution by a factor of at least 2–3.
Despite the above cautionary comment, the basic physical ideas we have presented should be valid whatever be the topology of the field; namely, line stretching and field amplification leads to reconnection, which leads to gas heating, which leads to convection. This chain of argument requires merely that the magnetic field should be frozen into the gas and that the magnetic field should build up to equipartition strength before the gas falls into the black hole. Since the magnetic pressure grows as $R^{-4}$ whereas the gas pressure varies only as $R^{-5/2}$ (§1), the latter condition should be easily satisfied in most cases of interest.
Another cautionary comment is related to the fact that our simulations have not reached steady state. The convective core grows slowly and has reached a size of only about $80R_g$ by the end of our simulations. This is still a factor of 3 smaller than the size of the grid. In a real accretion flow we imagine that the convective core would grow until it extends beyond $R_a$. The convective flux would then flow out into the external medium, and perhaps modify the medium in the vicinity of $R_a$. Ultimately, a steady state should result, but the present simulations have not been run long enough to determine the nature of the steady state.
In §4 we present a simplified set of equations to describe spherical accretion of a magnetized plasma. The equations include two critical pieces of physics: (i) heating of the gas by reconnection (and other dissipative processes), and (ii) convective energy transport. Depending on parameters, we find that there are two distinct self-similar solutions of the equations.
One solution is not very different from the standard Bondi solution; the density varies as $\rho\propto R^{-3/2}$ and the velocity varies as $v_R\propto R^{-1/2}$. This solution is possible whenever convection is not very strong and when the adiabatic index $\gamma$ of the gas is smaller than a limit which is less than the standard value of 5/3 (cf. discussion below eqs \[21, 22\]). For given boundary conditions at the accretion radius $R_a$, the mass accretion rate in this solution is similar to the Bondi accretion rate $\dot M_{Bondi}$. Our numerical simulations, however, are not consistent with this solution. At this time we are not sure if the solution is relevant for any radiatively inefficient spherical accretion flow with strong fields.
The second solution is completely different from the Bondi solution. It has density varying as $\rho\propto R^{-1/2}$ and velocity varying as $v_R\propto R^{-3/2}$. The scalings may be understood as follows.
The bulk of the energy generation in the accretion flow happens close to the black hole. Some fraction of this energy is transported outward by convection. At radii greater than a certain transition radius $R_{in}$, whose value is uncertain but is probably no more than a few tens of $R_g$, the convective luminosity $L_c$ completely dominates over any local energy generation. Thus, for $R>R_{in}$, we expect $L_c$ to be practically independent of $R$; equivalently, the convective flux $F_c$ must vary as $R^{-2}$. Because the accretion flow is assumed to be radiatively inefficient, the gas is virial and has a sound speed $c_s\sim v_K$ (the Kepler or free-fall velocity). Thus, there is only one velocity in the problem, namely $v_K\propto
R^{-1/2}$; therefore, the convective flux has to take the form $F_c\sim\rho c_s^3 \sim\rho v_K^3 \sim\rho R^{-3/2}$. Requiring the convective flux to vary as $R^{-2}$ means that $\rho$ must scale as $R^{-1/2}$. Mass conservation, $\dot M=-4\pi R^2v_R\rho=$ constant, then immediately gives $v_R\propto R^{-3/2}$. Thus, the structure of the flow is determined uniquely once we assume (i) that there is a significant flux of energy outward due to convection, and (ii) that there is no significant radiative cooling.
Because of the important role played by convection, we refer to this kind of flow as a convection-dominated Bondi flow, or CDBF. The scalings sketched out above allow us to estimate the mass accretion rate in this flow. In the standard Bondi problem, where a mass $M$ is embedded in a homogeneous medium of density $\rho_\infty$ and sound speed $c_\infty$, the accretion radius is given by $R_a\sim
GM/c_\infty^2$; this is the radius at which the gravitational free-fall velocity is equal to $c_\infty$. The gas in the Bondi solution flows in at essentially the free-fall velocity for $R\lesssim
R_a$; therefore, the mass accretion rate is given by $\dot
M_{Bondi}\sim4\pi R_a^2\rho_\infty c_\infty$. In a CDBF, we expect $v_R$ to be roughly equal to the free-fall velocity at $R\sim R_{in}$. Since $v_R$ falls off as $R^{-3/2}$, this means that at $R\sim R_a$, $v_R$ is smaller than the local free-fall velocity by a factor $\sim
R_{in}/R_a$. We then estimate that $$\dot M_{CDBF}\approx{R_{in}\over R_a}\dot M_{Bondi}.$$ This shows that convection can have a profound effect on the mass accretion rate in a magnetized spherical accretion flow.
The convective core region in the simulations presented in this paper (Figures 4, 5 and 6) have features that are qualitatively similar to the predictions of the self-similar CDBF solution. Unfortunately, due to limited spatial resolution, we have not been able to make quantitative comparisons between the numerical results and the predictions of the analytical model. The averaged radial profiles of density, velocity, gas and magnetic pressures show significant oscillations, both in space and time. They also show the influence of the inner boundary (black hole) and outer boundary (the shock where the free-falling gas meets the convective core), which cannot be separated out because of the relatively small range of radius covered by the simulations. More extensive numerical work is required to confirm the theoretical predictions in detail. Also, in a real flow, we expect the CDBF zone to extend all the way out to $R_a$, where it would match the ambient density $\rho_\infty$ and ambient pressure $\rho_\infty c_\infty^2$ of the external medium. The simulations have not reached steady state. This is another reason why it is difficult to compare the numerical results with the theoretical predictions.
We should note the close analogy between the CDBF solutions described here and the viscous rotating (non-magnetic) CDAF solution (Narayan et al. 2000; Quataert & Gruzinov 2000). The CDAF is more complex because, in addition to the radial momentum equation and the energy equation, it is also strongly influenced by the angular momentum equation. In particular, there is a competition between viscosity and convection in the angular momentum balance, which plays an important role in determining the structure of the solution. Nevertheless, the particular radial scalings seen in a CDAF, $\rho\propto R^{-1/2}$, $v_R\propto R^{-3/2}$, are identical to those found in a CDBF, and they result from the same physics identified above, namely the presence of an energetically dominant convective flux and the absence of radiative cooling. Furthermore, the accretion rate in a CDAF is reduced compared to that in an equivalent advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF, cf. Narayan & Yi 1994; Abramowicz et al. 1995), for the same outer boundary conditions, by a factor $\sim
R_{in}/R_{out}$, which is similar to the factor given in equation (25). The exact value of $R_{in}$ in the two problems depends on the nature of the flow close to the black hole. This is discussed in a forthcoming paper (Abramowicz et al. 2001).
We should note a few other numerical experiments we have carried out which provide further insights. First, as already mentioned, when we use too large an artificial resistivity in the simulations, such that the magnetic field reconnects long before it reaches equipartition, we find that the flow does not make a transition to a convection-dominated form. This is not surprising since in this case there is very little heating from reconnection and therefore there is not enough entropy production to drive significant convection. Although it is not fully understood how reconnection works in astrophysical plasmas (but see the recent work of Lazarian & Vishniac 1999), it does seem reasonable to assume that significant reconnection occurs only after the field builds up at least to equipartition strength (as proposed by Shvartsman 1971). If this assumption is valid for real astrophysical flows, then the simulations we have presented, and our analytical results, should be relevant.
To further investigate the importance of resistive heating, we have carried out a series of simulations in which we set the artificial resistivity $\eta$ in equations (3) and (4) to zero. In these runs, we find significant magnetic reconnection through numerical resistivity, but there is no corresponding heating of the gas. The flows do not exhibit convection. As in Models A–C described in §3, when the magnetic field reaches equipartition with the gas pressure, a central “core” region is formed, bounded by a quasi-spherical shock. However, the core is more compact and the accretion rate is only slightly reduced with respect to the Bondi rate. The flow pattern in the core is perturbed with respect to the spherical inflow due to the effect of the magnetic field, but the perturbations are not as significant as in Models A–C, and the velocity streamlines are not as chaotic.
To understand how important the magnetic field is for the formation of the convective core, we have carried out three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations with finite bulk and/or shear viscosity, and with two values of $\gamma$: 5/3, 4/3. We expected that the bulk viscosity would heat the accreting gas and that this might lead to efficient convection. Instead, we find that viscous Bondi flows are stable for a wide range of values of the bulk and shear viscosity coefficients. Combined with the experiments described in the previous paragraph, the implication is that both the electromotive forces associated with the magnetic field and the heating effect due to reconnection are important for the flow to become convection-dominated; any one by itself is not enough. Once the CDBF state has been achieved, it appears to be stable and self-sustaining.
We note recent simulations of three-dimensional rotating MHD accretion flows by Hawley, Balbus, & Stone (2001). These flows exhibit the magnetorotational instability, as expected. One might have expected them also to be convective, at least at large radius, and to have a radial structure similar to a CDBF (or a CDAF). However, Hawley et al. (2001) report that they do not observe convective motions in their models. We suspect that this may be because they do not include a resistive heating term. (Stone & Pringle 2001 do include an artificial resistivity, but their simulations are in two dimensions.) In the Hawley et al. simulations, the energy release due to (numerical) reconnection is lost from the system and the total energy is not conserved. As noted above, we have simulated spherical accretion without including an artificial resistivity, and we do not see convection. In this sense, the two studies are consistent.
Accretion flows in many astrophysical systems involve magnetized plasma. We would like to suggest that any astrophysical system that has radiatively inefficient spherical accretion will set up a convection-dominated flow similar to the CDBF solution discussed here, and will behave very differently from the standard Bondi solution. In particular, we suggest that the mass accretion rate will be given by equation (25), which is very much less than the Bondi accretion rate. This has potentially important implications.
In a classic paper, Fabian & Canizares (1988) used the Bondi solution to estimate the mass accretion rate $\dot M$ onto supermassive black holes in the nuclei of nearby giant elliptical galaxies and showed that the observed nuclear luminosities are far below the luminosity expected if the radiative efficiency is the canonical 10%. The problem has become more severe in recent times with improved observations of the nucleus of our own Galaxy (Baganoff et al. 2001) and nuclei of other nearby galaxies (e.g. Di Matteo et al. 2001). One solution to the luminosity problem is to assume that the accretion occurs in a radiatively inefficient mode, e.g. via an ADAF (Narayan, Yi, & Mahadevan 1995; Fabian & Rees 1995; Reynolds et al. 1996). The present work suggests an even simpler solution, namely, the mass accretion rate onto the supermassive black hole may be much less than the Bondi rate assumed by Fabian & Canizares (1988). For conditions typical of galactic nuclei, say $c_\infty\lesssim10^3 ~{\rm
km\,s^{-1}}$, we expect $R_a\sim10^5R_g$. Since $R_{in}$ in equation (25) is likely to be no more than a few tens of $R_g$, we see that $\dot M$ with a CDBF could be smaller than $\dot M_{Bondi}$ by a large factor $\sim10^3-10^4$.
Another application is to isolated neutron stars and black holes accreting from the interstellar medium in the Galaxy. Treves & Colpi (1991) and Blaes & Madau (1993) used the Bondi accretion rate to estimate the likely luminosities of accreting neutron stars and discussed the possibility of detecting them by their EUV and X-ray emission. A number of later papers have discussed theoretical predictions for the emitted spectrum (e.g. Turolla et al. 1994; Zane, Turolla, & Treves 1996). Despite careful searches in the ROSAT all-sky survey, the predicted large number of sources has not been found (e.g. Belloni, Zampieri, & Campana 1997). As in the case of dim galactic nuclei, we suggest that the discrepancy is because the accretion on the neutron stars occurs via a convection-dominated flow, so that the mass accretion rate is far below the Bondi rate. There are similar implications also for accreting stellar-mass black holes (e.g. Fujita et al. 1998).
Yet another possible application is to supernova explosions. In addition to the prompt collapse of a homologous core, current models of supernovae predict fallback of material over an extended period of time after the explosion (Chevalier 1989). This material, which is ejected with less than the escape speed, flows out radially, turns around at some (large) radius and collapses back on the compact core. Some of this material may experience significant magnetic field amplification and may undergo reconnection and heating. If so, it is likely to develop convective motions, resulting in a much reduced rate of mass fallback. This deserves further study.
We gratefully thank Tom Abel, Marek Abramowicz, Axel Brandenburg and Eliot Quataert for helpful discussions and comments. This work was supported by NSF grant AST 9820686, NASA grant NAG5-10780 and RFBR grant 00-02-16135.
Abramowicz, M. A., Chen, X., Kato, S., Lasota, J.-P, & Regev, O. 1995, , 438, L37 Abramowicz, M. A., Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., & Quataert, E. 2001, in preparation Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2001, , in press (astro-ph/0102151) Ball, G., Narayan, R., & Quataert, E. 2001, , 552, 221 Belloni, T., Zampieri, L. & Campana, S. 1997, A&A, 319, 525 Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1974, Astr. Space Sci., 28, 45 Blaes, O., & Madau, P. 1993, , 403, 690 Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, , 303, L1 Bondi, H. 1952, , 112, 195 Chevalier, R. A. 1989, , 346, 847 Clarke, D. A. 1996, , 457, 291 Coker, R., & Melia, F. 2000, , 534, 723 Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174 Das, T. 2000, , 318, 294 Di Matteo, T., Johnstone, R. M., Allen, S. W., & Fabian, A. C. 2001, , 550, L19 Fabian, A. C., & Canizares, C. R. 1988, Nature, 333, 829 Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1995, , 277, L55 Fujita, Y., Inoue, S., Nakamura, T., Manmoto, T., & Nakamura, K. E. 1998, , 495, L85 Gruzinov, A. 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0104113) Hawley, J. F., Balbus, S. A., & Stone, J. M. 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0103522) Houck, J. C., & Chevalier, R. A. 1991, , 376, 234 Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2000, , 130, 463 Igumenshchev, I. V., Abramowicz, M. A., & Narayan, R. 2000, , 537, L27 Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2001, in AIP Conf. Proc., 20th Texas Symp. on Relativistic Astrophysics, ed. J. C. Wheeler & H. Martel (New York: AIP), in press (astro-ph/0102482) Ipser, J. R., & Price, R. H. 1977, , 216, 578 Ipser, J. R., & Price, R. H. 1982, , 255, 654 Ipser, J. R., & Price, R. H. 1983, , 267, 371 Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 1998, Black-Hole Accretion Disks (Kyoto: Kyoto Univ. Press) Kowalenko, V., & Melia, F. 1999, , 310, 1053 Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 1999, , 517, 700 Maraschi, L., Perola, G. C., Reina, C., & Treves, A. 1979, , 230, 243 Maraschi, L., Roasio, R., & Treves, A. 1982, , 253, 312 Mason, A. 1992, , 255, 203 Mason, A. & Turolla, R. 1992, , 400, 170 Melia, F. 1992, , 387, L25 M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. 1975, A&A, 44, 59 Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2000, , 539, 798 Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, , 428, L13 Narayan, R., Yi, I., & Mahadevan, R. 1995, Nature, 374, 623 Nobili, L., Turolla, R., & Zampieri, L. 1991, , 383, 250 Ostriker, J. P., Weaver, R., Yahil, A., & McCray, R. 1976, , 208, 61 Paczy[ń]{}ski, B., & Wiita, J. 1980, A&A, 88, 23 Park, M.-G., & Ostriker, J. P. 1989, , 347, 679 Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 1999, 516, 399 Quataert, E., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, , 539, 809 Reynolds, C. S., Fabian, A. C., Cellotti, A., & Rees, M. J. 1996, , 283, 873 Ryu, D., Jones, T. W., & Frank, A. 1995, , 452, 785 Scharlemann, E. T. 1981, , 246, L15 Scharlemann, E. T. 1983, , 272, 279 Shapiro, S. L. 1973a, , 180, 531 Shapiro, S. L. 1973b, , 185, 69 Shvartsman, V. F. 1971, Soviet Astron. J., 15, 37 Stone, J. M., & Norman, M. L. 1992, , 80, 791 Stone, J. M., Pringle, J. E. & Begelman, M. C. 1999, , 310, 1002 Stone, J. M., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, , 322, 461 Treves, A., & Colpi, M. 1991, A&A, 241, 107 Treves, A., Maraschi, L., & Abramowicz, M. 1988, PASP, 100, 427 Turolla, R., & Nobili, L. 1989, , 342, 982 Turolla, R., Zampieri, L., Colpi, M., & Treves, A. 1994, , 426, L35 Zampieri, L., Colpi, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Wasserman, I. 1998, , 505, 876 Zane, S., Turolla, R., & Treves, A. 1996, , 471, 248 Zeldovich, Ya. B., & Novikov, I. D. 1971, Relativistic Astrophysics, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971
[lcc]{} A & 0.5 & 0.3 B & 0.5 & 0.1 C & 0.3 & 0.3 D & 0 & 0
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In quantum metrology, the Holevo Cramér-Rao bound has attracted renewed interest in recent years due to its superiority over the Helstrom Cramér-Rao bound and its asymptotic attainability for multi-parameter estimation. Its evaluation, however, is often much more difficult than that of the Helstrom version, calling into question the actual improvement offered by the Holevo CRB and whether it is worth the trouble. Here I prove that the Holevo bound is at most thrice the Helstrom version, so the improvement must be limited. The result also shows that the Helstrom version remains a pretty good bound even for multiple parameters and can be approached asymptotically to within a factor of 3.'
author:
- Mankei Tsang
bibliography:
- 'research2.bib'
title: 'The Holevo Cramér-Rao bound is at most thrice the Helstrom version'
---
For any measurement of a quantum system and any unbiased estimator, a quantum generalization of the Cramér-Rao bound (CRB)—first proposed by Helstrom in 1967 [@helstrom]—can be expressed as [@hayashi05] $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}G \Sigma &\ge \min_{X \in \chi} \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q(X) \equiv C^{S},
\label{helstrom}
\\
Q(X) &\equiv \sqrt{G} Z(X)\sqrt{G},
\quad
Z_{jk}(X) \equiv \operatorname{tr}\rho X_jX_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma$ is the error covariance matrix, $G$ is a real, symmetric, and positive-semidefinite cost matrix, $\rho$ is the density operator of the quantum system that depends on real unknown parameters $(\theta_1,\theta_2,\dots,\theta_n)$, $\chi$ is the set of all vectoral Hermitian operators $X = (X_1,X_2,\dots,X_n)$ that satisfy $\operatorname{tr}X_j\partial \rho/\partial \theta_k = \delta_{jk}$, and the real part of a matrix is defined by $(\operatorname{Re}Q)_{jk} = (Q_{jk}+Q_{jk}^*)/2$. The original form of $C^{S}$ in terms of the symmetric logarithmic derivatives of $\rho$ [@helstrom; @hayashi05; @holevo11] is a closed-form solution of Eq. (\[helstrom\]). The Helstrom CRB serves as a fundamental limit to quantum estimation and has found many applications in quantum metrology.
Despite the popularity of the Helstrom CRB, better bounds exist [@holevo11; @personick71; @yuen_lax; @qzzb; @glm2012; @qbzzb; @hall_prx; @qwwb; @nair18; @rubio19; @rubio19a]. In particular, Holevo proposed a bound that can be expressed as [@holevo11; @hayashi05; @gill_guta; @yamagata13] $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}G \Sigma &\ge C^{H} \ge \max{\left\{C^{S},C^{R}\right\}},
\\
C^{H} &\equiv \min_{X \in \chi} {\left[\operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q(X)+ {\lVert \operatorname{Im}Q(X) \rVert}_1\right]},
\label{hcrb}\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{R}$ is another CRB due to Yuen and Lax [@yuen_lax] that is not elaborated here, the imaginary part of a matrix is defined by $(\operatorname{Im}Q)_{jk} = (Q_{jk}-Q_{jk}^*)/(2i)$, the trace norm is defined as ${\lVert A \rVert}_1 \equiv \operatorname{tr}\sqrt{A^\dagger A}$, and $\dagger$ denotes the conjugate transpose. When there are multiple parameters, the Holevo CRB $C^{H}$ is not only tighter but also attainable asymptotically [@gill_guta; @yamagata13; @yang19]. It has attracted renewed interest in recent years [@gill_guta; @yamagata13; @ragy16; @bradshaw17; @bradshaw18; @yang19; @albarelli19], as many applications involve multiple unknown parameters, while its complicated mathematical form also holds a certain allure for some theorists in the area.
Despite the fundamental importance of the Holevo CRB, its evaluation is difficult and daunting numerics is often needed. This is in contrast to the more amenable Helstrom CRB, for which researchers have devised many fruitful computation techniques over the years [@hayashi05; @hayashi; @paris; @escher; @demkowicz15; @alipour; @ng16; @yuan17a; @sidhu19; @genoni19; @tsang19a; @tsang19c]. For the less motivated researchers, this raises the questions how much tighter the Holevo CRB actually is and whether it is worth the trouble after all. The following theorem gives a concrete answer.
$C^{H} \le 3 C^{S}$.
For any $X$, it can be shown that $Z$, $Q$, and $i\operatorname{Im}Q$ are Hermitian, $\sqrt{G}$ and $\operatorname{Re}Q$ are real and symmetric, while $\operatorname{Im}Q$ is real and skew-symmetric. Moreover, $\sqrt{G}$, $Z$, $Q$, and $\operatorname{Re}Q$ are positive-semidefinite. Write $$\begin{aligned}
Q &= \operatorname{Re}Q + i \operatorname{Im}Q,
&
i\operatorname{Im}Q &= Q - \operatorname{Re}Q.\end{aligned}$$ ${\lVert \operatorname{Im}Q \rVert}_1$ is then bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
{\lVert \operatorname{Im}Q \rVert}_1 &= {\lVert i\operatorname{Im}Q \rVert}_1
= {\lVert Q - \operatorname{Re}Q \rVert}_1
\le {\lVert Q \rVert}_1 + {\lVert \operatorname{Re}Q \rVert}_1
\nonumber\\
&= \operatorname{tr}Q + \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q = 2 \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q,
\label{ineq}\end{aligned}$$ where the triangle inequality is used, ${\lVert Q \rVert}_1 = \operatorname{tr}Q$ and ${\lVert \operatorname{Re}Q \rVert}_1 = \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q$ because $Q$ and $\operatorname{Re}Q$ are positive-semidefinite, and $\operatorname{tr}Q = \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q + i \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Im}Q = \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q$ because $\operatorname{Im}Q$ is skew-symmetric. Now write the Helstrom CRB as $$\begin{aligned}
C^{S} &= \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q(X^{S}),
\label{helstrom2}\end{aligned}$$ where $X^{S}$ is the element in $\chi$ that minimizes $\operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q(X)$ in Eq. (\[helstrom\]). Combining Eqs. (\[hcrb\]), (\[ineq\]), and (\[helstrom2\]), one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
C^{H} &\le \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q(X^{S}) + {\lVert \operatorname{Im}Q(X^{S}) \rVert}_1
\\
&\le 3 \operatorname{tr}\operatorname{Re}Q(X^{S}) = 3 C^{S}.\end{aligned}$$
The theorem puts the Holevo CRB in the sandwich $$\begin{aligned}
\max{\left\{C^{S},C^{R}\right\}} \le C^{H} \le 3C^{S},\end{aligned}$$ and researchers can now decide for themselves whether an improvement by at most a factor of 3 warrants the extra effort of evaluating $C^{H}$. The theorem may even be on the generous side, as numerical results often show that the improvement is less than a factor of 2 [@bradshaw17; @bradshaw18; @albarelli19]. On the flip side, the theorem here, together with the asymptotic attainability of $C^{H}$ [@gill_guta; @yamagata13; @yang19], implies that $C^{S}$ is asymptotically approachable to within a factor of 3, so the Helstrom CRB turns out to remain a pretty good option, even for multiple parameters.
Discussions with Francesco Albarelli are gratefully acknowledged. This work is supported by the Singapore National Research Foundation under Project No. QEP-P7.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Coarse resolution numerical ocean models must typically include a parameterisation for mesoscale turbulence. A common recipe for such parameterisations is to invoke down-gradient mixing, or diffusion, of some tracer quantity, such as potential vorticity or buoyancy. However, it is well known that eddy fluxes include large rotational components which necessarily do not lead to any mixing; eddy diffusivities diagnosed from unfiltered fluxes are thus contaminated by the presence of these rotational components. Here a new methodology is applied whereby eddy diffusivities are diagnosed directly from the eddy force function. The eddy force function depends only upon flux divergences, is independent of any rotational flux components, and is inherently non-local and smooth. A one-shot inversion procedure is applied, minimising the mis-match between parameterised force functions and force functions derived from eddy resolving calculations. This enables diffusivities associated with the eddy potential vorticity and buoyancy fluxes to be diagnosed. The methodology is applied to multi-layer quasi-geostrophic ocean gyre simulations. It is found that: (i) a strictly down-gradient mixing scheme has limited success in reducing the mis-match compared to one with no sign constraint on the diffusivity; (ii) negative signals of diffusivities are prevalent around the time-mean jet; (iii) there is some indication that the magnitude of the diffusivity correlates well the eddy energy. Implications for parameterisation are discussed in light of these diagnostic results.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics and Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3FD, United Kingdom'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PU, United Kingdom'
author:
- 'J. Mak'
- 'J. R. Maddison'
- 'D. P. Marshall'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'A new gauge-invariant method for diagnosing eddy diffusivities'
---
quasi-geostrophic ,geostrohpic turbulence ,ocean mixing
Introduction
============
A key challenge in ocean modelling is to improve the representation of turbulent mesoscale eddies in the models used for long-range climate projections, for which routine explicit resolution of the turbulent eddy fluxes is unlikely for the next few decades. Turbulence closures are very commonly based upon mixing principles: small scale “eddy” dynamics should, on average, lead to mixing of large scale “mean” fields. In the atmosphere and ocean this principle is typically applied to the potential vorticity (PV), via the introduction of an eddy PV diffusivity [@Green70; @Marshall81]. For example, it is well-known that PV tends to be mixed in closed ocean gyres [@RhinesYoung82]. More generally, eddy enstrophy is dissipated on small scales, and correspondingly eddy PV fluxes lead to a net generation of eddy enstrophy on average, i.e., eddy PV fluxes are oriented down-gradient in a domain integral sense. The success of a down-gradient PV parameterisation, therefore, is dependent upon the degree to which this mixing principle, which must hold in a domain integral sense, is valid in a local sense.
Locally, however, eddy enstrophy may be significantly transported by mean and eddy advection, and also be influenced by local forcing. While the eddy PV fluxes are oriented down-gradient on average, there is in general no constraint on their local orientation. In particular, the eddy PV fluxes can be separated into advective, rotational, and residual components [e.g. @MedvedevGreatbatch04], with only the latter leading to local mixing. Considerations of the eddy enstrophy budget allows the advective component to be defined in terms of the mean advection of enstrophy [@MarshallShutts81; @McDougallMcIntosh96; @Nakamura98], or the mean and eddy advection (@MedvedevGreatbatch04; see also @Eden-et-al07 for further generalisation). It is known, moreover, that eddy PV fluxes can contain large rotational components [e.g., @Griesel-et-al09], which have no direct effect on the mean dynamics and necessarily lead to no mixing. Formally the dynamics is invariant under the addition of an arbitrary rotational gauge to the eddy PV flux (which vanishes under the divergence). Rotational PV flux components can be removed via a Helmholtz decomposition, although such a decomposition in a bounded domain is non-unique, as there is freedom in the specification of the boundary conditions [@FoxKemper-et-al03]. These issues complicate the diagnosis of eddy diffusivities. Recently, @Maddison-et-al15 have shown that, at least for quasi-geostrophic eddy PV fluxes, one can define an *eddy force function* which simultaneously defines the forcing of the mean flow by the eddies and a unique divergent component of eddy PV fluxes. Moreover, in a simply connected domain, the divergent PV flux thus defined is optimal, in the sense that it has minimum magnitude (specifically minimal domain integrated squared magnitude, or equivalently minimal $L^2$ norm).
In this article an alternative gauge-invariant diagnostic approach is proposed which simultaneously avoids any ambiguity associated with the presence of rotational fluxes, and also takes into account the inherent non-locality of the dynamic influence of eddy PV fluxes. This is achieved via an optimisation procedure. Specifically, given mean fields computed in an eddy resolving calculation, together with a candidate eddy parameterisation, an associated parameterised eddy force function can be calculated via the solution of a Poisson equation. The approach is thus inherently non-local, in the sense that parametised eddy force function depends upon the parameterisation itself through an inverse elliptic operator. A parameterisation quality cost function is defined via a measure of the mis-match between this parameterised eddy force function, and the eddy force function diagnosed from the original eddy resolving calculation. Eddy diffusivities can then be diagnosed via the solution of an inverse problem: seeking the diffusivity which minimises the mis-match between the parameterised and diagnosed force functions. Ill-posedness of the inversion is treated via the introduction of an additional regularisation, acting to smooth the diagnosed diffusivity. The partial differential equation constrained optimisation problem itself is solved via a one-shot approach [@Gunzburger-control §2.2], with the associated optimality system constructed and solved via the use of the FEniCS automated code generation system [see e.g. @Logg-et-al-FENICS].
The layout of this article is as follows. In §2 details regarding the eddy force function are reviewed. The optimisation problem for eddy PV diffusivities is formulated, and the numerical implementation is described. In §3 eddy diffusivities associated with PV and buoyancy mixing are diagnosed using this procedure; the diagnostic is applied to model data based upon the ocean gyre calculations described in @Maddison-et-al15, computed using a three-layer quasi-geostrophic finite element model. The diagnostic calculations are repeated using data from a higher resolution, five-layer finite difference calculation in §4. The paper concludes in §5, and consequences for geostrophic eddy parameterisation are considered.
Formulation
===========
Throughout this article we limit consideration to mesoscale dynamics, and specifically to the quasi-geostrophic (QG) equations. The fundamental principle applied is to formulate a method for the diagnostic calculation of eddy diffusivities in a way that is independent of any rotational eddy flux components – that is, to formulate a gauge invariant diagnostic. This is tackled by constructing a constrained optimisation problem, whereby a parameterised diffusivity is diagnosed by minimising a measure of the mis-match between parameterised and diagnosed eddy force functions, which depend only on the PV flux divergence. The critical step is defining an appropriate measure of the mis-match in order to avoid undue sensitivity to small scale noise in the divergence field.
The optimisation problem used to achieve this is outlined in §\[sec:optimisation\]. A measure of this mis-match is defined via the use of the eddy force function, introduced in [@Maddison-et-al15]. For completeness, mathematical background regarding the eddy force function is provided in §\[sec:force-func\]. A parameterised eddy force function is computed from parameterised eddy fluxes via the solution of an elliptic problem. This leads naturally to the formulation of a PDE constrained optimisation problem which diagnoses the diffusivity. Implementation details are provided in §\[sec:formulation\].
Unconstrained optimisation problem for eddy diffusivities {#sec:optimisation}
---------------------------------------------------------
The mean QGPV equation takes the form $$\label{eq:qgpv}
\ddy{\overline{q}}{t} +
\grad \cdot \left( \overline{\ub}_g \overline{q}\right)
= -\grad \cdot \Fb + \overline{Q},$$ where $q$ is the PV, $\ub_g$ is the non-divergent geostrophic velocity, $\Fb =
\overline{\ub_g' q'}$ is the eddy PV flux, $Q$ represents all forcing and dissipation, $\grad$ is the horizontal gradient operator, and $t$ is time. An overline denotes the mean, a prime the derivation from the mean, and the mean operator is a Reynolds operator which commutes with all relevant derivatives (cf. @MaddisonMarshall13).
Consider a down-gradient PV parameterisation. If the mean PV gradient is non-zero, the eddy PV flux $\Fb$ may expressed as $$\Fb = - \kappa \grad \overline{q} - \sigma \hat{\zb} \times \grad \overline{q} + \Rb,$$ where $\kappa$ is the PV diffusivity and $\sigma$ a skew-diffusion coefficient (equal to a stream function associated with eddy-induced advection; see @Vallis-GFD, §10.6.3), and $\Rb$ is any non-divergent flux. In general $\Rb$ is the sum of rotational and harmonic flux and, as it vanishes under the divergence, it has no direct influence on the mean dynamics. Taking the scalar product with the mean PV gradient leads to a definition for the local PV diffusivity $$\label{eq:kappa_noise}
\kappa = -\frac{\left( \Fb - \Rb \right) \cdot \grad \overline{q}}{\left| \grad \overline{q}\right|^2}.$$ The central issue is ambiguity in the definition of $\Rb$. For example an approximately rotational component of $\Fb$ may be associated with local advection of enstrophy, rather than generation of enstrophy and hence not correspond to local irreversible mixing [@MarshallShutts81]. The mean dynamics are invariant under any choice of the non-divergent gauge $\Rb$, but the diffusivity as defined by equation is not. Moreover a diffusivity field diagnosed in this way may be extremely noisy [cf. @NakamuraChao00], as shown by a sample calculation employing this approach using the simulation data presented in §3. In this diagnostic calculation there are regions of large negative diffusivity, which suggests the presence of strong eddy backscatter (conversion of eddy to mean enstrophy). These negative diffusion regions may be due to pollution of the diagnostic by significant non-divergent eddy PV fluxes and, in this sense, be entirely artificial. Critically, this direct approach fails to unambiguously identify the regions and magnitude of irreversible mixing due to the eddies.
![Local eddy PV diffusivities $\kappa$ (in units of $\mathrm{m}^2\
\mathrm{s}^{-1}$), obtained from with $\Rb = 0$ using the simulation data detailed in §3. Note that the colour scale is saturated.[]{data-label="fig:kappaPV_data"}](figures/kappaPV_data.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
The gauge freedom may be formally addressed using a horizontal Helmholtz decomposition $$\label{eq:helmholtz}
\Fb = -\nabla \tilde{\Psi} + \hat{\zb} \times \nabla \tilde{\Phi} +
\tilde{\Hb},$$ where the first term is the *divergent* component, the second the *rotational* component, and the third a harmonic component. Since only the former is directly dynamically active, a down-gradient parameterisation may now alternatively be expressed in terms of the divergent component $$-\nabla \tilde{\Psi} = - \kappa_{\tilde{\Psi}} \nabla \overline{q} -
\sigma_{\tilde{\Psi}} \hat{\zb} \times \nabla \overline{q},$$ leading to an alternative definition for the local PV diffusivity $$\label{eq:kappa_div}
\kappa_{\tilde{\Psi}} = \frac{\nabla \tilde{\Psi} \cdot \nabla
\overline{q}}{\left| \nabla \overline{q} \right|^2}.$$ Given any divergent component of the eddy PV fluxes one can thus define a local diffusivity (if the mean PV gradient is non-zero) via equation . However, in the presence of boundaries, the divergent component is non-unique due to freedom in the choice of boundary conditions for the potential $\tilde{\Psi}$ [@FoxKemper-et-al03]. Hence the eddy diffusivity as defined by equation is still not uniquely defined.
This ambiguity can be resolved by instead defining a PV diffusivity directly from the eddy PV flux divergence. Specifically, if a pure down-gradient eddy PV flux is postulated, that is, $$\Fb \approx -\kappa \grad \overline{q},$$ then an optimal PV diffusivity can be defined by seeking the spatially varying function $\kappa \left( \xb \right)$ such that the cost function $$\label{eq:mis-match}
\mathcal{J} \left( \kappa \right) = \left\| \grad \cdot \left( -\kappa
\grad\overline{q} - \Fb \right) \right\|^2$$ is minimised. This defines a best-fit for the diffusivity to the eddy flux divergence. The specific norm, which has been left unspecified for the moment, is a key ingredient in the definition of this optimal diffusivity. Note that a perfect match is not typically to be expected and, moreover, the inversion may be highly ill-conditioned (or even ill-posed).
The norm appearing in has an important impact on the structure of the resulting optimal diffusivity. It is clear for example that a simple $L^2$ norm, which leads to $$\label{eq:mis-match_force_function}
\mathcal{J} \left(\kappa\right)
= \left\|\grad\cdot\left(-\kappa \overline{q} - \Fb \right)\right\|_{L^2}^2
= \int_\Omega \left[\grad\cdot\left(-\kappa\overline{q}-\Fb\right)\right]^2
\, \mathrm{d}\Omega,$$ where $\Omega$ is the horizontal domain, will lead to difficulties. The divergence of a flux is an inherently noisy quantity, and hence an attempt to optimise the diffusivity to match local structure in the eddy PV flux divergence is likely to be problematic.
Eddy force function {#sec:force-func}
-------------------
A starting point is to first resolve the non-uniqueness in the definition of the eddy PV flux decomposition in equation . This is addressed in @Maddison-et-al15 by noting a relationship between rotational momentum tendencies and divergent eddy PV fluxes, which is briefly summarised.
First, it is noted that the QG momentum equation may be written $$\ddy{\overline{\ub_g}}{t} = -\hat{\zb}\times\Gb.$$ Since the geostrophic velocity is non-divergent, $\grad\cdot\overline{\ub_g}=0$, so $-\hat{\zb}\times\Gb$ defines a unique rotational momentum tendency. After taking a horizontal curl, $\Gb$ may be identified as a horizontally divergent PV flux. Introducing the stream function $\overline{\psi}$ such that $\overline{\ub_g} = \hat{\zb}\times\grad\overline{\psi}$ yields $\dy\overline{\ub_g}/\dy t = \hat{\zb} \times\grad\Psi$, from which it follows that $$\Psi = \ddy{\overline{\psi}}{t} + c(z,t),$$ Following [@MarshallPillar11], $\Psi$ is a stream function tendency or *force function*. In a simply connected domain with no-normal-flow boundary conditions $\overline{\psi}$ is a (horizontal) constant on all boundaries, and so $\Psi$ inherits a Dirichlet boundary condition. Subject to an appropriate choice of $c(z,t)$ (noting that any other choice vanishes under the horizontal divergence), $\Psi$ satisfies a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition. Insisting that the force function decomposition procedure is linear then implies that a force function associated with any single momentum tendency inherits a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition.
In particular, the eddy force function $\Psi_e$ is related to the eddy PV flux $\Fb = \overline{\ub'q'}$ by $$\label{eq:force-function}
\Fb = -\grad \Psi_e + \hat{\zb}\times\grad\Phi_e +
\boldsymbol{H}_e,$$ where $\Psi_e$ is the solution of a Poisson equation $$\label{eq:ff_poisson}
\nabla^2 \Psi_e = -\grad \cdot \Fb$$ subject to homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.
The eddy force function has a number of important properties. First, since only the divergence of the eddy PV flux appears in the force function equation , it is independent of rotational eddy fluxes. Moreover the eddy force function is inherently smooth. It is shown that, in a simply connected domain, the eddy force function has minimal $H^1_0$ semi-norm, that is, it is a solution to the Poisson equation for which the mean square gradient is minimised [@Maddison-et-al15 §2 and Appendix A]. Note that the eddy force function depends non-locally upon the eddy fluxes — it is related to the flux divergence through an inverse elliptic operator. This suggests that the mis-match function be defined in terms of the mis-match between the eddy force function implied by a parameterisation, and the eddy force function diagnosed from data; that is, $$\label{eq:unconstrained_function}
\mathcal{J} \left( \kappa \right)
= \left\| \Psi_p \left( \kappa \right) - \Psi_e \right\|^2$$ where $\Psi_p$ is the parameterised eddy force function computed via $$\label{eq:ffp_poisson}
\grad^2 \Psi_p = \grad \cdot \left( \kappa \grad \overline{q} \right)$$ subject to homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.
There is now freedom in the definition of the norm appearing in . A simple choice is to define this to be the $L^2$ norm, leading to $$\mathcal{J} \left( \kappa \right)
= \left\|\grad\cdot\left(-\kappa \grad\overline{q} - \Fb \right)\right\|^2
= \left\|\Psi_p \left( \kappa \right) - \Psi_e \right\|_{L^2}^2
= \int_\Omega \left[ \Psi_p \left(\kappa\right) - \Psi_e \right]^2
\, \mathrm{d}\Omega.$$ In technical terms, this is equivalent to defining the norm in the mis-match cost function to be equal to the $H^{-1}_0$ semi-norm. The $H^{-1}_0$ semi-norm places relatively decreased emphasis on high spatial wavenumbers, and hence this definition places relatively increased emphasis on large scale spatial structures in the eddy flux divergence. All results reported in this article use an $L^2$ norm in the definition of the mis-match function, although calculations with other norms (not shown) have been performed and are commented on in the conclusions.
Constrained optimisation problem for eddy diffusivities {#sec:formulation}
-------------------------------------------------------
Since the force function is defined via the solution of a partial differential equation, it is natural to redefine the optimisation problem considered at the end of §\[sec:optimisation\] in terms of a partial differential equation constrained optimisation. For a down-gradient PV parameterisation, letting $V
\subseteq H^1_0 \left( \Omega \right)$ and $V_\kappa \subseteq H^1 \left( \Omega
\right)$ be real Hilbert spaces, a Lagrange constrained cost function $\hat{\mathcal{J}} : V \times V \times V_\kappa \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined, where $$\label{eq:constrained_function}
\hat{\mathcal{J}}(\Psi_p,\lambda,\kappa) = \left\|\Psi_p - \Psi_e
\right\|_{L^2}^2
+ \left\langle\grad\lambda, \grad\Psi_p
- \kappa\grad\overline{q}\right\rangle_{L^2}
+ \epsilon \mathcal{R} \left( \kappa \right).$$ The constrained optimisation problem then seeks a stationary point of the function $\mathcal{J}(\Psi_p,\lambda,\kappa)$.
The first term in is the unconstrained function , penalising the mis-match between the parameterised and diagnosed eddy force functions. The second term is the weak form partial differential equation constraint. At a stationary point of $\mathcal{\hat{J}}$, the derivative of $\mathcal{\hat{J}}$ with respect to $\lambda$ in any direction $\phi \in V$ vanishes, leading to $$\label{eq:weak_form_pde} \left
\langle \grad \phi, \grad \Psi_p - \kappa \grad \overline{q} \right
\rangle_{L^2} = \int_\Omega \grad \phi \cdot \left[ \grad\Psi_p - \kappa \grad
\overline{q} \right] \, \mathrm{d}\Omega = 0 \quad \forall \psi \in V.$$ This is a weak form of the Poisson equation , and hence $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier enforcing the constraint.
If the final term is absent, then the solution to the constrained optimation problem finds the optimal $\kappa$ with minimal force function mis-match. However this problem may be highly ill-conditioned or even ill-posed. The third term can be used to reguarlise the problem by smoothing the resulting diagnosed diffusivity at the expense of optimality. A simple form for this regularisation might, for example, be $$\epsilon \mathcal{R} \left( \kappa \right)
= \epsilon \left\| \kappa \right\|_{H^1_0}^2
= \epsilon \int_\Omega \grad \kappa \cdot \grad \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\Omega,$$ where $\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}$ is some parameter chosen to control the smoothness of the resulting optimal $\kappa$.
At a stationary point of the constrained function $\mathcal{\hat{J}}(\Psi_p,
\lambda, \kappa)$ all derivatives vanish, yielding the optimality system [e.g., @Gunzburger-control §2.2] $$\label{eq:optimality}
\ddy{\hat{\mathcal{J}}}{\Psi_p} = 0,\qquad
\ddy{\hat{\mathcal{J}}}{\lambda} = 0,\qquad
\ddy{\hat{\mathcal{J}}}{\kappa} = 0,$$ where formally the derivatives here are G[â]{}teaux derivatives [e.g., Ch. 17 of @Kantorovich-functional]. This coupled problem can be solved in its entirety (a “one-shot” approach), and where the problem is non-linear Newton’s method can be applied. For cases where the problem is linear Newton’s method formally converges in one iteration. For the applications considered in this article Newton’s method is applied in all cases, and typically further iterations are applied before tight numerical convergence is reached. This possibly reflects the ill-conditioned nature of the problems considered.
A key technical issue encountered here is that the optimality system changes when components of the constrained function are modified; this could arise from a switch of mis-match norm, the form of the parameterisation or the regularisation. If this system is implemented by hand then the code evaluating the left-hand-side needs to be modified for every combination of interest. When Newton’s method is applied, second derivatives are required, exacerbating this issue. To bypass the majority of these problems, the FEniCS automated code generation system is employed [@LoggWells10; @Logg-et-al-FENICS; @Alnaes-et-al14], which enables finite element problems to be described in a high-level syntax and for low-level code to be generated automatically. In the Python front end, the specification of the cost-function $\hat{\mathcal{J}}$, its Jacobian and compiling and solving of the optimality system (via code generation and interfacing with external solver libraries) translates to the code outlined in Figure \[fig:code\]. Different schemes can be implemented via small code changes: editing `kappa` changes the definition of the diffusive closure, `J_1` changes the cost function, and `J_3` changes the regularisation. Although the code may not be as performant as a hand optimised code, a substantial saving in code development time easily offsets this, and allows a sweep of a large parameter set that would have been otherwise be rather inaccessible.
# specify form of kappa
kappa = xi ** 2
# form cost function
J_1 = ((psi - fns["ffd_empb_%i" % (l + 1)]) ** 2) * dx
J_2_res = grad(psi) - kappa * grad(fns["q_%i_n_mean" % (l + 1)])
J_2 = inner(grad(lam), J_2_res) * dx
J_3 = eps_marker * (grad(xi) ** 2) * dx
J = J_1 + J_2 + J_3
# compute directional derivative
dJ = derivative(J, X, du = tests)
# solve for the system
solve(dJ == 0, X, boundary_conditions, solver_options)
For all results presented in the article linear systems are solved via SuperLU and SuperLU\_DIST [@Li05; @Grigori-et-al07], via PETSc [e.g., @Balay-et-al97; @petsc-user-ref].
Diagnostic calculations for the three-layer simulation {#sect:three_lay}
======================================================
In this section the eddy force function and mean fields from an eddy resolving multi-layer QG simulation are used to diagnose eddy diffusivities associated with PV and buoyancy mixing parameterisations. The model is described in [@Maddison-et-al15]. For completeness, the details of the simulation are presented here.
Simulation details
------------------
The multi-layer QG equations employed here are (e.g., @Pedlosky-GFD [§6.16]; @Vallis-GFD [§5.3.2]) $$\ddy{q_i}{t} + \grad\cdot(\ub_{g,i}q_i) = \nu\grad^2 \omega_i
- r\delta_{in}\omega_i + \delta_{i1}Q_w,$$ where the the layer is counted from top (layer $1$) to bottom (layer $n$), the stream function is defined by $\ub_{g,i} = \hat{\zb}\times\grad\psi_i$, with $\omega_i = \grad^2 \psi_i$. The layer-wise PV $q_i$ is related to the stream function $\psi_i$ via $$\begin{aligned}
q_1 &= \grad^2 \psi_1 + \beta y + s_1^+ (\psi_2 - \psi_1),\\
q_i &= \grad^2 \psi_i + \beta y
+ s_i^- (\psi_{i-1} - \psi_i) + s_i^+ (\psi_{i+1} - \psi_i),\\
q_n &= \grad^2 \psi_n + \beta y + s_n^- (\psi_{n-1} - \psi_n),\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:stratification}
s_i^\pm = \frac{f_0^2}{g_{i\pm1/2} H_i} =
\frac{2(f_0^2/N_0^2)_{i\pm1/2}}{(H_i + H_{i\pm1})H_i}$$ are stratification parameters, $H_i$ is the thickness of layer $i$, $g_{i+1/2}$ is the reduced gravity at the interface between layers $i$ and $i + 1$, $N_0$ is the buoyancy frequency, and $f = f_0 + \beta y$ is the Coriolis parameter. The forcing and dissipation parameters are: a Laplacian viscosity coefficient $\nu$; a bottom friction coefficient $r$; and the PV tendency due to the wind $Q_w$, with $$Q_w = \begin{cases}
-\cfrac{\tau_0}{\rho_0}\cfrac{2\pi}{H_1 D} A
\sin\left(\pi \cfrac{y_v + D/2}{y_m + D/2}\right), & y_v < y_m\\
+\cfrac{\tau_0}{\rho_0}\cfrac{2\pi}{H_1 D} \cfrac{1}{A}
\sin\left(\pi \cfrac{y_m - y_v}{D/2 - y_m}\right), & \textnormal{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ where $\tau_0$ is the characteristic magnitude, $\rho_0$ is the reference density, $x,y\in[0,D]$, $y_v = (y-D/2)$ and $y_m = B(x- D/2)$. The zonal and meridional directions are $x$ and $y$ respectively. Zero buoyancy boundary conditions are applied at the top and bottom boundaries [@Bretherton66b]. A partial slip boundary condition $\grad^2 \psi_i = -\alpha^{-1}\grad \psi\cdot
\hat{\nb}$ [@Haidvogel-et-al92], where $\alpha$ is a length scale, is applied on the lateral boundaries.
A three-layer, double gyre configuration as detailed in [@Marshall-et-al12] is used. The equations are discretised in space with a conforming triangle structured mesh with piecewise linear approximation for all fields, a vertex spacing of $\Delta x = 7.5\ \textrm{km}$, and implemented using the FEniCS automated code generation system [@LoggWells10; @Logg-et-al-FENICS; @Alnaes-et-al14]. The model is discretised in time using a third order Adams–Bashforth scheme with time step size $\Delta t = 20\ \textrm{mins}$, using the time-stepping approach detailed in [@MaddisonFarrell14]. The equations are integrated for 20,000 days and time averages are taken after this spin-up period for a further 5,000 days. A summary of the relevant parameters is given in Table \[tbn:FEMQUOD-param\]. For further details about the simulation set up, see @Marshall-et-al12 and Appendix B of [@Maddison-et-al15]; see also @Berloff05a and @Karabasov-et-al09 for related configurations of a similar finite difference code on which the finite element code is based.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
parameter value and units
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- --
$D$ $3840\ \mathrm{km}$
$\beta$ $2\times10^{-11}\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$
$\tau_0$ $0.08\ \mathrm{N}\ \mathrm{m}^{-2}$
$\rho_0$ $1000\ \mathrm{kg}\ \mathrm{m}^{-3}$
$(A, B)$ $(0.9, 0.2)$
$\nu$ $100\ \mathrm{m}^2\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$
$r$ $4\times10^{-8}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$
$\alpha^{-1}$ $120\ \mathrm{km}$
$(H_1, H_2, H_3)$ $(0.25, 0.75, 3.00)\ \mathrm{km}$
$(R_1, R_2)$ $(40, 23)\ \mathrm{km}$
$(s_1^+ H_1 = s_2^- H_2, s_2^+ H_2 = s_3^- H_3)$ $(2.97, 5.60)\times
10^{-7}\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$
$\Delta x$ $7.5\ \mathrm{km}$
$\Delta t$ $1200\ \mathrm{s}$ ($=20\ \mathrm{mins}$)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Summary of simulation parameters used for the three-layer finite element ocean gyre calculation, as per @Marshall-et-al12 and @Maddison-et-al15.[]{data-label="tbn:FEMQUOD-param"}
Additional diagnostic quantities were required for the analyis presented here, absent in the simulation data detailed in [@Maddison-et-al15], and so the averaging stage was restarted after the 20,000 day spinup. Due to the sensitive dependence on initial conditions and changes in details such as the numerical library versions used, the resulting data are not exactly identical to those presented in [@Maddison-et-al15]. Eddy force functions for this calculation are shown in Figure \[fig:simulation\_data\].
![Simulation data for the three-layer finite element ocean gyre calculation over the three layers (columns), with (top to bottom row): final time PV snapshot (in units of $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$); time-averaged stream function $H\overline{\psi}$ (in units of $\mathrm{Sv}$, at 21 contour levels); time-averaged total eddy energy $E_i$ (on a logarithmic scale, in units of $\rho_0\ \mathrm{cm}^2\ \mathrm{s}^{-2}$); eddy force function $H_i
\Psi_{e,i}$ from the eddy PV flux (in units of $\mathrm{Sv}\
\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$); eddy force function $H_i \Psi_{eb,i}$, associated with the buoyancy contribution to the eddy PV flux (in units of $\mathrm{Sv}\
\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$). The black contour is the boundary value of the upper layer mean stream function, which approximately indicates the location of the mean jet.[]{data-label="fig:simulation_data"}](figures/simulation_data.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
Eddy diffusivity definition {#sect:kappa_defn}
---------------------------
Previously, spatially constant PV diffusivity diagnostics have been reported in @Maddison-et-al15; these generally have limited success in minimising the mis-match between the parameterised and target eddy force function, although this is not unexpected when making a strong assumption of constant diffusivity. Here spatially varying diffusivities are considered. Specifically, we consider a:
- general case (GEN), a general signed diffusivity $\kappa(\xi) =
\xi(\xb)$, supplying no additional information regarding the eddy field and applying no constraints;
- positive semi-definite case (POS), where $\kappa(\xi) = \xi^2(\xb) \geq
0$ excluding the possibility of negative diffusivity. Note that the corresponding optimality system is inherently non-linear, and that the zero regularisation case is ill-posed (e.g., $\xi\to-\xi$ does not change the value of the cost function).
Information about the flow may be supplied by, for example, taking $\kappa = f(E)\xi$ where $E$ is the eddy energy. Diagnostics of this type will be discussed in the conclusions.
Considering first diffusion of PV, the layer-wise constrained cost function for PV diffusion takes the form $$\hat{\mathcal{J}}(\Psi_{p,i}, \lambda_i, \xi_i)
= \left\|\Psi_{e,i}-\Psi_{p,i}\right\|^2_{L^2}
+ \left\langle\grad\lambda_i, \grad\Psi_{p,i} -
\kappa\grad\overline{q}_i\right\rangle_{L^2}
+\epsilon\mathcal{R}(\xi).$$ The resulting optimisation problem for PV diffusion is vertically decoupled and may be solved layer-wise. The regularisation applied is $$\epsilon \mathcal{R} \left( \xi_i\right)
= \epsilon \left\| \grad \xi_i \right\|_{H^1_0}^2
= \epsilon \int_\Omega \grad \xi_i \cdot \grad \xi_i \, \mathrm{d}\Omega.$$ For the GEN case this acts to smooth the diffusivity. For the POS case, the regularisation acts on an auxiliary parameter $\xi_i$ as smoothing the diffusivity directly would result in an optimisation problem of higher order in $\xi$, leading to additional numerical difficulties.
In principle the diagnostic may be computed by seeking a value for the regularisation parameter $\epsilon$ which is as small as possible — for example, the value at which the problem becomes sufficiently ill-conditioned for numerical solver failures to be encountered. Instead a desired spatial scale in the parameters is chosen here, seeking a value of the regularisation parameter $\epsilon$ to yield a given spatial “roughness”. For this, a non-dimensional roughness measure $\kappa^r$ is defined via an appropriately normalised measure of the mean square gradient $$\kappa^r
= D^2\frac{\left\|\kappa\right\|^2_{H^1_0}}{\left\|\kappa\right\|^2_{L^2}}
= D^2\frac{\int_\Omega \grad \kappa \cdot \grad \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}
{\int_\Omega \kappa^2\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}.$$ An appropriate value of $\epsilon$ is found via an iterative procedure as summarised in the pseudo-code in Figure \[fig:pseudocode\]. In the majority of cases, this approach yields a final measured roughness that is within $0.5\%$ of a target roughness of $\kappa^r = 7500$; for comparison, a field $\kappa =
\sin(20\pi x/D)\sin(20\pi y/D)$ has $\kappa^r = 2(20)^2\pi^2 \approx7900$. In a minority of cases numerical difficulties mean that small values of $\epsilon$ cannot be reached (due to numerical solver failures), and in these cases the smallest $\epsilon$ at which convergence is achieved is chosen.
# initialise parameters
theta = 0.5
kappa = kappa_init
eps = eps_init
while theta < 0.999:
# initialise accordingly
kappa = solve(..., kappa_init, eps)
# decrease epsilon and continue
if roughness < tolerance:
eps = theta * eps
kappa_init = kappa
# if tolerance exceeded, try again with larger eps initialised
# with previous kappa
elif:
theta = theta * 4/3
eps = theta * eps
To quantify the diagnosed diffusivity, six measures are utilised: (i) the mean diffusivity; (ii) an eddy energy weighted mean diffusivity; (iii) a diffusivity positivity measure; (iv) the $L^2$ correlation between the diffusivity and the eddy energy; (v) the roughness of the diffusivity; (vi) the $L^2$ relative mis-match error between the parameterised and target eddy force function. The mean diffusivity and eddy energy weighted mean diffusivity, are defined via $$\label{eq:kappa_mean}
\kappa^{m} = \frac{\int_\Omega \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}
{D^2},\qquad
\kappa^{m}_E = \frac{\int_\Omega E\kappa\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}
{\int_\Omega E\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}.$$ Positivity is measured via $$\label{eq:kappa_pos}
\kappa^{>0} = \frac{\int_\Omega \mathcal{H}(\kappa)\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}
{D^2},$$ where $\mathcal{H}(\kappa)$ is the Heaviside function, equal to one where $\kappa \geq 0$ and zero otherwise. The correlation between $\kappa$ and the eddy energy is measured via $$\label{eq:correl}
\mbox{corr}\left(\kappa, E \right)
= \frac{\langle \kappa, E \rangle_{L^2}}{\|\kappa\|_{L^2} \|E\|_{L^2}}
= \frac{\int_\Omega \kappa E\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}
{\sqrt{\int_\Omega \kappa^2\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}\sqrt{\int_\Omega E^2\,
\mathrm{d}\Omega}}.$$ Note that the correlation is bounded, $-1 \leq \mbox{corr}\left(\kappa, E
\right) \leq 1$. The (non-dimensional) roughness of the diffusivity is measured via $$\label{eq:kappa_rough}
\kappa^{r}
= D^2
\frac{\left\|\kappa\right\|^2_{H_0^1}}{\left\|\kappa\right\|^2_{L^2}}
= D^2
\frac{\int_\Omega \grad \kappa \cdot \grad \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}
{\int_\Omega \kappa^2\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}.$$ Finally mis-match between parameterised and diagnosed force functions is measured via an $L^2$ relative error $$\label{eq:L2_err}
\mathcal{E}_{L^2}
= \frac{\left\|\Psi_e - \Psi_p\right\|_{L^2}}{\left\|\Psi_e\right\|_{L^2}}
= \sqrt{\frac{\int_\Omega \left(\Psi_e - \Psi_p\right)^2\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}
{\int_\Omega \Psi_e^2\, \mathrm{d}\Omega}}.$$
Results: PV diffusion
---------------------
Informed by resolution tests, the parameterised force function and parameter $\xi$ are computed on a structured conforming triangle mesh with nodal spacing $\Delta x = 15\ \textrm{km}$ for all cases presented in the following sections. The diagnosed model force function $\Psi_{e,i}$ from the finite element simulation at resolution $\Delta x = 7.5\ \textrm{km}$ is interpolated onto this coarser resolution grid via consistent interpolation (evaluation of the higher resolution data at the vertices of the coarse grid). Figure \[fig:kappa\_PV\_vary\_variety\_L2\] shows the diffusivity $\kappa$ diagnosed for the GEN and POS diffusivity variants. The local mis-match is shown in Figure \[fig:kappa\_PV\_L2\_raw\_error\]. Values for the diagnostic quantities from equation to are summarised in Figure \[fig:kappa\_pv\_L2\_bar\].
![The diffusivity $\kappa$ (in units of $\mathrm{m}^2\
\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) associated with PV diffusion over the three layers (columns), for the GEN case $\kappa = \xi$ (top row) and POS case $\kappa =
\xi^2\geq 0$ (bottom row). The colour scale is fixed and saturated.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_PV_vary_variety_L2"}](figures/kappa_PV_vary_variety_L2_fixed_extend.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
![Layer-wise non-dimensional mis-match $D \left(\Psi_{e,i} - \Psi_{p,i}
\right) / \left\| \Psi_{e,i}\right\|_{L^2}$ associated with PV diffusion over the three layers (columns), for the GEN case $\kappa = \xi$ (top row) and POS case $\kappa = \xi^2\geq 0$ (bottom row). The colour scale is fixed and saturated in layer 1.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_PV_L2_raw_error"}](figures/kappa_PV_L2_norm_error.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
![Bar graphs comparing the diagnostic data across the three layers of for the GEN and POS associated with PV diffusion : ($a,b$) the mean $\kappa^m$ and the eddy energy weighted mean $\kappa^m_E$ from equation ; ($c$) the positivity index $\kappa^{>0}$ from equation ; ($d$) the correlation $\mbox{corr}(\kappa, E)$ from equation ; ($e$) the roughness $\kappa^r$ from equation ; ($f$) the relative $L^2$ error $\mathcal{E}_{L^2}$ from equation .[]{data-label="fig:kappa_pv_L2_bar"}](figures/bar_graph_pv.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Starting with the GEN case, there are regions of negative diffusivity towards the eastern boundary in the upper and middle layers, and a correspondingly large positive diffusivity towards the western boundary, at least in the upper layer. This is consistent with the signal that might be associated with a westward propagating of eddy activity. There is a second pool of negative diffusivity towards the down-stream mean jet in the upper layer. This is consistent with an outward flux of activity due to the “wave radiator” mechanism discussed in @WatermanJayne11 [@WatermanJayne12] for the stable down-stream region of an inertial barotropic jet. In the middle layer, a comparison with the mean streamlines $\overline{\psi}$ in Figure \[fig:simulation\_data\] (second row) reveals that the closed streamlines north and south of the jet correlate with regions of positive diffusivity. This is in agreement with the principle of PV homogenisation within closed streamlines [@RhinesYoung82]. A similar correlation exists in the upper layer, though this is less strong; this correlation breaks down to the north of the mean jet, possibly due to the presence of strong wind forcing in this layer. There are signals of negative diffusivity in the upper layer confined close to the northern and southern boundaries. This signal can be expected if there is a local eddy activity backscatter owing to the presence of Fofonoff gyres in these regions [e.g., @Berloff05b; @MarshallAdcroft10]. In the lower layer, the diffusivity is large and positive in the jet, correlating with the location of the largest eddy energy. However in this layer there are meridionally oriented patterns in the diffusivity away from the jet. This “banding” correlates with a similar pattern in the local mis-match in Figure \[fig:kappa\_PV\_L2\_raw\_error\], and so it is possible that this signal is a numerical artefact. A similar effect may account for the alternating diffusivity sign in the upper layer mean jet. It is apparent that there are regions of significant negative diffusivity.
For the GEN case, in the middle layer unweighted and eddy energy weighted means are positive and of a similar magnitude (around $750$ and $1200\ \mathrm{m}^2\
\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ respectively), indicating that the diffusivity is largely positive in this layer. This is supported by the positivity index in the middle layer at around $60\%$. Some degree of correlation between eddy energy and diffusivity is seen. The roughness is found to be well controlled by the solution output criterion; it has been confirmed that the $\kappa$ output is within $0.5\%$ of the fixed target roughness. Given this, we see that the resulting $L^2$ relative error is low, at less than $2\%$. In the lower layer the eddy energy weighted mean is smaller, and the unweighted mean in negative. While the error in the inversion is well controlled, at less than $1\%$, the banding of positive and negative diffusivities away from the jet in this case lead to a negative unweighted mean. This may reflect difficulties in the diagnostic in this region. In the upper layer the diffusivity, while positive in the means, exhibits almost no correlation with the eddy energy and, for a given roughness, the relative $L^2$ mis-match is greater than in the other two layers.
The POS case shows similar patterns of positive diffusivity around the location of the mean jet and towards the western boundary. However, this diagnostic shows large regions of very low diffusivity, which typically correlate with regions of negative diffusivity seen in the GEN case. In the middle and lower layer the correlation between diffusivity and eddy energy has increased compared to the GEN case. The corresponding relative $L^2$ mis-match is slightly larger than the GEN case, by at less than $5\%$ for a similar level of roughness. In the upper layer the $L^2$ mismatch is much larger, at around $30\%$, and a very low correlation between diffusivity and eddy energy is observed. On closer inspection of the spatial distribution of error, seen in Figure \[fig:kappa\_PV\_L2\_raw\_error\], the errors are generally large around the mean jet. This is particularly the case in the upper layer.
In summary, the diagnostic calculations produce a diffusivity field that correlates with some physical processes that are known to occur. In the middle and lower layer, both diffusivity variants shows a strong positive signal that has some correlation with the eddy energy and, for a given roughness, the resulting $L^2$ mis-match is low. The same cannot be said for the diganosed diffusivity in the upper layer, where the correlation between eddy energy and diffusivity is low, and the errors are significantly larger for a given roughness. It appears that a negative signal is a prevalent especially in the upper layer; for a given roughness, the POS case has associated with it significantly larger mis-match error.
Results: Buoyancy mixing
------------------------
An analogous procedure may be applied to the down-gradient mixing of buoyancy $$\label{eq:GM-param}
\overline{\ub'b'} = -{\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}\grad\overline{b},$$ which, in the QG setting, is equivalent to the Gent–McWilliams (GM) parameterisation (@GentMcWilliams90; see also @Treguier-et-al97). The analogous constrained cost function in the continuously stratified setting is given by $$\label{s4:J-cont}
\hat{\mathcal{J}}\left(\Psi_p, \lambda, {\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}\right)
= \int_{z=-H}^0 \left[\left\|\Psi_{eb}-\Psi_p\right\|_{L^2}^2 +
\left\langle\grad\lambda, \grad\Psi_p
- \ddy{}{z}\left(\frac{f_0}{N_0^2}{\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}\grad\overline{b}\right)
\right\rangle_{L^2}
+\epsilon\left\|\grad{\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}\right\|_{L^2}^2\right] \, \mathrm{d}z,$$ where all inner products and norms are defined via integration over the horizontal domain. The eddy force function associated with the buoyancy fluxes is shown in the lower row of Figure \[fig:simulation\_data\].
In the multi-layer quasi-geostrophic equations the buoyancy flux and $\grad\overline{b}$ are defined on interfaces and so, via equation , ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ is also interfacial. The corresponding PV flux is related to the interfacial buoyancy flux via a vertical derivative operator [@GreatbatchLamb90]. This introduces vertical coupling, and as such the corresponding optimisation problem for ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ is fully three-dimensional, unlike the previous PV diffusion case. An alternative method, not pursued here, is to define an interfacial eddy stress function [@Maddison-et-al15 Appendix C], and use this as the basis for an ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ diagnostic computed separately on each interface.
The eddy buoyancy fluxes on each interface $(R,S) = (f_0^2/N_0^2)
\overline{\ub'(\dy\psi'/\dy z)}$ may be defined $$R_{i+1/2} = -\frac{1}{2}\left(\ddy{}{y}(\psi_i + \psi_{i+1})\right)
H_i s_i^+ (\psi_i - \psi_{i+1}),\qquad
S_{i+1/2} = +\frac{1}{2}\left(\ddy{}{x}(\psi_i + \psi_{i+1})\right)
H_i s_i^+ (\psi_i - \psi_{i+1}),$$ with stratification parameters $s_i^+$ as given by . Vertical differencing then leads to a discrete eddy PV flux associated with the eddy buoyancy fluxes (i.e. these are the vertical stresses appearing in a vertically discrete Taylor–Bretherton identity [@Maddison-et-al15 appendix B]. The interfacial GM coefficient is then defined via $$\left(R_{i+1/2}, S_{i+1/2}\right) =
H_i s_i^+ \left(-({\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}})_{i+1/2}
\grad\left(\overline{\psi}_i - \overline{\psi}_{i+1}\right)\right).$$ Again, the GEN case ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}= \xi$ and POS case ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}= \xi^2$ are considered. The vertically discrete cost function for the buoyancy mixing case is given by $$\label{s4:J}
\hat{\mathcal{J}} = \sum_{i=1}^3 \left\|H_i(\Psi_{eb,i}-\Psi_{p,i})\right\|^2_{L^2}
+ \sum_{i=1}^{2}\left(\left\langle\grad\lambda_i, \grad\Psi_{p,i} +
H_i s_i^+ ({\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}})_{i+1/2}
(\overline{\psi}_i - \overline{\psi}_{i+1})\right\rangle_{L^2}
+\epsilon\frac{H_i+H_{i+1}}{2}
\left\|\grad\xi_{i+1/2}\right\|_{L^2}^2
\right).$$ The regularisation again penalises gradients in ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$, but without increasing the order for the resulting optimisation problem for the POS case. The procedure for implementation, solving the variational problem, simulation details, manner of decreasing $\epsilon$ and output of solution based on the roughness criteria (with target roughness of 7500 as for the PV diffusion case) are as detailed in the previous subsection, where the roughness is now defined to be $$\label{eq:GMroughness}
\kappa^r_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}} =
D^2 \cfrac{\mathlarger{\sum\limits_{i=1}^2}\left(\cfrac{H_i + H_{i+1}}{2}
\left\|\grad\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm},\ i+1/2}\right\|_{L^2}^2\right)}{
\mathlarger{\sum\limits_{i=1}^2}\left(\cfrac{H_i + H_{i+1}}{2}
\left\|\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm},\ i+1/2}\right\|_{L^2}^2\right)}.$$
The resulting interfacial GM coefficients are shown in Figure \[fig:kappa\_gm\_vary\_variety\_L2\], and the local mis-matches are shown in Figure \[fig:kappa\_gm\_raw\_error\]. The same diagnostic quantities from equation to are employed to assess the resulting diffusivity, and these are summarised in Figure \[fig:kappa\_gm\_L2\_bar\].
![The diffusivity ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ (with units of $\mathrm{m}^2\
\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) on the interfaces associated with buoyancy mixing. ($a$) the GEN case ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}= \xi$ for both interfaces; ($b$) the POS case with ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}= \xi^2$ for upper interface only, as the lower interface is the zero solution. The colour scale is fixed and saturated.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_gm_vary_variety_L2"}](figures/kappa_gm_vary_variety_L2_fixed_extend.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
![Layer-wise non-dimensional mis-match $D \left(\Psi_{eb,i} -
\Psi_{p,i} \right) / \left\| \Psi_{eb,i}\right\|_{L^2}$ associated with buoyancy mixing over the three layers (columns), for the GEN case ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}=
\xi$ (top row) and the POS case ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}= \xi^2 \geq 0$ (bottom row). The colour scales are fixed and saturated in the upper and bottom layer for the GEN case and across all layers in the POS case.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_gm_raw_error"}](figures/kappa_gm_L2_norm_error.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
![Bar graph comparing the diagnostic data across the two interfaces and three layers of the GEN and POS case for buoyancy mixing: ($a,b$) the mean $\kappa^m$ and the eddy energy weighted mean $\kappa^m_E$ from equation ; ($c,d$) the positivity index $\kappa^{>0}$ and eddy energy weighted positivity index $\kappa^{>0}_E$ from equation ; ($e$) the roughness $\kappa^r$ from equation ; ($f$) the relative $L^2$ error $\mathcal{E}_{L^2}$ from equation . Note that the lower interface solution for the POS case is zero.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_gm_L2_bar"}](figures/bar_graph_gm.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Consider first the GEN case, shown in Figure \[fig:kappa\_gm\_vary\_variety\_L2\]($a$). In the upper interface ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ is positive in the north-west and south-west corners. A large region of positive ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ exists in the southern gyre. There is a significant pattern of negative ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$, particularly to the north of the mean jet and in the downstream mean jet. In the lower interface, ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ is predominantly negative around the down-stream mean jet. This negative coefficient is consistent with previously reported signals of baroclinic stability here, described in [@Berloff05a] and [@Maddison-et-al15]. Away from the jet there is a positive ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ region towards the north-east, but negative ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ in the southern gyre. The unweighted and the eddy energy weighted means are negative, especially in the lower interface. The positivity index is low, below 50%, and the correlation between ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ and the eddy energy is low and negative, indicating the prevalence of a negative signal and a weak correlation with eddy energy. The $L^2$ relative errors however are reasonable, at less than $10\%$ for both interfaces. An observation to be made here is that, unlike the PV diffusion case, here the upper layer has the lowest mis-match. That is, the use of a global mis-match cost function here has led to a preferential decrease in the upper layer mis-match, at the expense of the lower two layers.
Now considering the POS case, the lower layer diffusivity is zero (not shown). This was found to be robust even after, in the algorithm of Figure \[fig:pseudocode\], choosing multiple initial values of $\epsilon$ and multiple initial guesses for the $\xi$ field. The existence of a global minimum with non-zero lower interface ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ cannot be ruled out. In the upper interface, however, a non-zero solution is found, with a strong positive signal in the southern gyre and towards the north-western and south-western boundaries. Here, regions of low diffusivity correlate well with the regions of negative diffusivity previously observed in the GEN case. The associated error is large almost everywhere, as seen in Figure \[fig:kappa\_gm\_raw\_error\] and Figure \[fig:kappa\_gm\_L2\_bar\]($f$).
In summary, the GEN case diagnosed diffusivity shows strong negative signals, for example in the lower interface down-stream mean jet. Enforcing positive semi-definite diffusivity in the POS case leads to very significantly increased mis-match errors, and difficulty in diagnosing a non-trivial diffusivity in the lower interface. The correlation with eddy energy is, in both cases, low.
A key issue encountered here is that, in a three-layer configuration, each of the two interfaces is coupled to layers which experience either direct wind forcing or bottom dissipation. Hence more significant influence from forcing and dissipation may be expected in these diagnostics. This is addressed in the following section by adding an increased number of model layers.
Results: Five layers, potential vorticity and buoyancy mixing
=============================================================
A five layer simulation is performed using a higher horizontal resolution model with a grid spacing of $\Delta x = 3.25\ \textrm{km}$, using a finite difference code (see e.g., @Berloff05a, and particularly @Karabasov-et-al09 for the CABARET numerical scheme which is used here). Parameter values that differ from the earlier three-layer calculation are given in Table \[tbn:PEQUOD-param\]. Stratification parameters are based upon stratification profiles from the World Ocean Circulation Experiment [@GouretskiKolterman04; @Kolterman-et-al11] data, employing a density profile of the form $\rho(z) = a + b\ex^{z/c}$ (noting that $z=0$ is the top of the ocean); specific values of $a$, $b$ and $c$ as well as $f_0$ are also given in Table \[tbn:PEQUOD-param\]. Note that the leading baroclinic deformation radii are somewhat lower than the earlier three-layer calculation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
parameter value and units
----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --
$\nu$ $10\ \mathrm{m}^2\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$
$(H_1, H_2, H_3, H_4, H_5)$ $(0.15, 0.29, 0.58, 1.16, 2.32)
\ \mathrm{km}$
$(R_1, R_2, R_3, R_4)$ $(33, 17, 11, 10)\ \mathrm{km}$
$s_1^+ H_1 = s_2^- H_2$ $ 8.09 \times 10^{-7}\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$
$s_2^+ H_2 = s_3^- H_3$ $ 7.24 \times 10^{-7}\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$
$s_3^+ H_3 = s_4^- H_4$ $ 1.16 \times 10^{-6}\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$
$s_4^+ H_4 = s_5^- H_5$ $ 5.90 \times 10^{-6}\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$
$\Delta x$ $3.25\ \mathrm{km}$
$\Delta t$ variable, based on the Courant number
$a$ $1000 \ \mathrm{kg}\ \mathrm{m}^{-3}$
$b$ $1.2 \ \mathrm{kg}\ \mathrm{m}^{-3}$
$c$ $500 \ \mathrm{m}$
$f_0$ $\cfrac{2\pi}{3600\times24}
\sin\left(\cfrac{50^{\circ}\pi}{180^{\circ}}\right)
\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Simulation parameters used for the five-layer finite difference ocean gyre calculation. Other parameters employed are as per Table \[tbn:FEMQUOD-param\].[]{data-label="tbn:PEQUOD-param"}
Diagnostic calculations are repeated for this case via interpolation of the finite difference data onto the earlier finite element mesh with a nodal spacing of $\Delta x = 15\ \mathrm{km}$. Diffusivities are then diagnosed as before.
Potential vorticity diffusion
-----------------------------
The corresponding eddy force function $\Psi_e$ and total eddy energy distribution $E$ for the five-layer calculation are largely similar in structure to the three layer case shown in Figure \[fig:simulation\_data\]. As a consequence of this the resulting PV diffusivities associated with the GEN and POS cases, displayed in Figure \[fig:kappa\_archer\_PV\_L2\], show largely similar structures to the three-layer case. The associated diagnostic quantities from equation to are summarised in Figure \[fig:kappa\_pv\_archer\_L2\_bar\].
![Contours of $\overline{\psi}$ (with units of $\mathrm{Sv}$) at 21 contour levels (top row) and the diffusivity $\kappa$ (with units of $\mathrm{m^2}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$) associated with the GEN case $\kappa = \xi$ (middle row) and POS case $\kappa = \xi^2 \geq 0$ (bottom row) for PV diffusion over the five layers (columns). The colour scale for the diffusivity is saturated.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_archer_PV_L2"}](figures/kappa_archer_PV_L2_fixed_extend.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Bar graph comparing the diagnostic data across the five layers of the GEN and POS case associated with down-gradient PV diffusion: ($a,b$) the mean $\kappa^m$ and the eddy energy weighted mean $\kappa^m_E$ from equation ; ($c,d$) the positivity index $\kappa^{>0}$ and eddy energy weighted positivity index $\kappa^{>0}_E$ from equation ; ($e$) the roughness $\kappa^r$ from equation ; ($f$) the relative $L^2$ error $\mathcal{E}_{L^2}$ from equation . The lowest layer for the POS case has not been returned via triggering the roughness criterion, and instead the last converged solution has been returned.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_pv_archer_L2_bar"}](figures/bar_graph_archer_pv.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Considering first the GEN case, the resulting diffusivity is predominantly positive over all layers, though still possessing significant local negative signals particularly in the upper layer. The rapidly varying structure within the mean jet is present but may again be seen to be correlated with the locations of largest local error (not shown; cf. Figure \[fig:kappa\_PV\_L2\_raw\_error\]). In layer three there are suggestions of a boundary confined negative signal near the north and southern boundaries. There is also a suggestion of a negative signal around the mean jet in the second and third layers. There is again correlation between locations of positive diffusivity within contours of closed stream lines $\overline{\psi}$, especially in the third and fourth layers. The overall positivity for the diagnosed diffusivity is generally high (see Figure \[fig:kappa\_pv\_archer\_L2\_bar\]$a,b,c$). Further, there is mild correlation between the diffusivity and the eddy energy and, for the same given roughness as in the three layer case, the resulting $L^2$ mis-match errors are all less than $10\%$. The mis-match is particularly low away from the upper layer.
For the POS case, the observations are again similar to those made for the three layer case. The regions of positive diffusivity in the GEN and POS case largely coincide, with strong positive diffusivity in the southern gyre and western boundary. These regions of positive diffusivity again correlate well with the locations where there are closed mean stream lines. Regions of low diffusivity also correlate well with the regions of negative diffusivity present in the GEN case. There is again evidence of correlation between the diffusivity and the eddy energy especially in the lower layers and, for a given roughness, the $L^2$ mis-match is reasonable away from the upper layer. It should be noted that the bottom layer solution for the POS case has not converged to the target roughness, though the errors are still less than $10\%$.
Buoyancy mixing
---------------
In the five-layer configuration there are two interfaces which are free from the direct influence of upper layer forcing and bottom drag. These internal interfaces are therefore likely to show a signal more consistent with the quasi-adiabatic ocean interior, and hence more likely to correlate with the action of down-gradient buoyancy mixing. The resulting ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ for the GEN and POS case are shown in shown in Figure \[fig:kappa\_archer\_gm\_L2\]. The relevant diagnostic quantities are summarised in Figure \[fig:kappa\_archer\_gm\_L2\_bar\].
![The diffusivity ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ (with units of $\mathrm{m^2}\
\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) associated with the GEN case ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}= \xi$ (top layer) and POS case ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}= \xi^2$ (bottom layer) for buoyancy mixing over the four interfaces (column). The colour scale is saturated to show the spatial structures. Note that the GEN solution has not converged at the target global roughness of 7500 (see equation \[eq:GMroughness\]), but instead the last converged solution at $\kappa^r_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}} \approx 1100$ is displayed here.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_archer_gm_L2"}](figures/kappa_archer_gm_L2_fixed_extend.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Bar graph comparing the diagnostic data across the four interfaces and five layers for the GEN and POS case associated with buoyancy mixing parameterisations: ($a,b$) the mean $\kappa^m$ and the eddy energy weighted mean $\kappa^m_E$ from equation ; ($c,d$) the positivity index $\kappa^{>0}$ and eddy energy weighted positivity index $\kappa^{>0}_E$ from equation ; ($e$) the roughness $\kappa^r$ from equation ; ($f$) the relative $L^2$ error $\mathcal{E}_{L^2}$ from equation . Note here is that the GEN case did not converge around the target global roughness of $\kappa^r_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}} = 7500$ (see equation \[eq:GMroughness\]); instead, the last converged solution at $\kappa^r_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}
\approx 1100$ is displayed here.[]{data-label="fig:kappa_archer_gm_L2_bar"}](figures/bar_graph_archer_gm.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
The first thing to note here is that the GEN case did not converge around the target global roughness of $\kappa^r_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}} = 7500$; instead, the last converged solution at $\kappa^r_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}} \approx 1100$ is displayed here. This fact is perhaps noticeable in that the diagnosed diffusivity is rather smooth, certainly compared to the three-layer case displayed in Figure \[fig:kappa\_gm\_vary\_variety\_L2\]($a$). However, the physical features are still robust, with the presence of the negative signal down-stream of the mean jet across all interfaces, and the positive diffusivity in the southern gyre, the western boundary and in the north-west region. The mean is now largely positive except in the lowest interface, where it is mildly negative. The eddy energy weighted mean however is mostly negative and small in magnitude. The positivity index shows the diffusivity generally takes positive values over the domain, although clear negative signals around the mean jet are observed. The correlation between the diffusivity and the eddy energy is generally small and negative. The roughness varies over the interfaces because of the layer weighting employed in the definition of the global roughness $\kappa^r_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}$. Given the resulting calculation possesses a rather low roughness, the relative $L^2$ mis-match is respectable, at less than $20\%$ over all fiver layers. The upper layer again has the lowest mis-match.
For the POS case a non-zero solution is now found over all interfaces, in marked contrast the earlier three layer case. The locations of positive signals again correlate well with the locations of the positive signals observed in the GEN case. The locations of low diffusivity in the POS case also correlate well with the locations of negative signals in the GEN case. The unweighed mean and especially the eddy energy weighted mean are by construction positive — the latter has a value of order $1300\ \textrm{m}^2\ \textrm{s}^{-1}$. The correlation between the diffusivity and the eddy energy is larger than in the GEN case. However, given that the POS case has a higher parameter roughness (noting the less rough GEN case solution), the associated mis-match is still significantly larger. This suggests that negative ${\kappa_{\scriptsize\mbox{gm}}}$ is required for an accurate match between the target and the parameterised eddy force functions.
Conclusions
===========
A new method for diagnosing eddy diffusivities in a gauge-invariant fashion, independent of dynamically inactive rotational flux components, has been presented. This is achieved by seeking to match diagnosed and parameterised eddy force functions through a one-shot optimisation procedure. The eddy force function depends only upon eddy flux divergences, through an inverse elliptic operator, and hence the force function is inherently smooth and non-local. The optimisation problem allows control over the roughness of the resulting diffusivity field. Combined, this method yields an optimal diffusivity that is gauge-invariant, non-local and has controlled smoothness.
The approach has been applied to multi-layer quasi-geostrophic ocean gyre simulations. Results have been shown here for data obtained from a three-layer finite element simulation and a five-layer higher resolution finite difference simulation. The diagnostic method has been applied for down-gradient PV mixing and buoyancy mixing with a general unconstrained diffusivity and a positive semi-definite diffusivity. The resulting optimality systems were implemented using the FEniCS automated code generation system. Here the code generator greatly facilitates parameterisation testing, as new methods can be implemented and tested via small code modifications, and these changes are propagated automatically. In particular, cost function Jacobians and Hessians are formulated automatically via high-level algorithmic differentiation, and specific code for the assembly of these discrete operators is generated automatically.
Regarding down-gradient PV mixing parameterisations, the key conclusions are that: (i) there are robust locally negative diffusivities that are present even in the absence of rotational fluxes, although the mean diffusivity over the horizontal domain is positive; (ii) the optimisation has success in matching the eddy force function diagnosed from an eddying calculation in the lower layers, but has less success in the upper layer where there is strong wind forcing present; (iii) the locations of closed mean recirculations often correlate with signals of positive diffusivity; (iv) there is positive correlation between the eddy energy and the diffusivity in the lower layers.
For down-gradient buoyancy mixing, negative signals are again present, although in this instance some of this is attributed to the lack of vertical resolution in the three-layer calculation. The five-layer calculations indicate predominantly positive eddy diffusivities away from the location of the mean jet, albeit with some strong negative signals in the southern part of the lower two interfaces. Notwithstanding this exception, this is consistent with the action of down-gradient momentum transfer input by the wind through the action of baroclinic instability. However, within the mean jet, and particularly in the lower layer and down-stream jet regions, the eddy diffusivity is strongly negative, suggesting local baroclinic stability, and forcing of the mean jet baroclinicity by the eddy buoyancy fluxes. These results are consistent with the earlier observations reported in [@Berloff05a] and [@Maddison-et-al15].
Throughout this paper the mis-match measure was defined via an $L^2$ norm, measuring the mis-match between the diagnosed and parameterised eddy force functions. Additional calculations were performed using a $H^1_0$ mis-match measure, which measures the mis-match between diagnosed and parameterised divergent eddy fluxes. The solutions obtained from the $H_0^1$ based mis-match norms result in higher relative $L^2$ mis-matches; this may be attributed to the fact that the $H^1_0$ case places more emphasis on the local, small-scale features over the global, large-scale features. Calculations which attempted to directly match diagnosed and parameterised eddy flux divergences (respectively, $\grad^2 \Psi_e$ and $\grad\cdot(-\kappa\grad\overline{q})$) were not successful.
It is possible to consider diagnostics which seek diffusivities which are themselves defined in terms of the eddy energy [e.g., @Rodi87; @EdenGreatbatch08]. For example, one could consider the definition $\kappa =
\sqrt{E} \xi$, where $\xi$ a mixing length, or alternatively $\kappa = E \xi$, where here $\xi$ is a time-scale. Via either of these approaches a given roughness in the underlying parameter $\xi$ permits an increased roughness in $\kappa$; that is, the eddy energy may be used to provide additional information on the spatial structure of the diffusivity. Such diagnostics have been investigated (not shown) and yield a root-mean-square mixing length of $15$–$40~\mathrm{km}$, and a root-mean-square time scale of $3$–$10$ days. The latter time-scale is similar to that described in [@McWilliamsGent94] for an eddy kinetic energy dependent variant of GM with a spatially varying coefficient.
For the purposes of eddy parameterisation, the diagnosed PV diffusivities exhibit some desirable features. The mean diffusivity (either unweighted or eddy energy weighted) is positive, and is generally also locally positive (notwithstanding some regions of strong negative diffusivity, particularly in the upper layer). The positive correlation of the diffusivity with eddy energy, while somewhat modest, provides some additional support to the principle of eddy energy based eddy parameterisations, for example as discussed in, [@EdenGreatbatch08], [@Cessi08], [@MarshallAdcroft10] and [@JansenHeld14]. Enforcing a positive semi-definite diffusivity leads to an increased error at the selected parameter roughness. Indeed this latter approach generally leads to a similar spatial diffusivity pattern as obtained with an unconstrained diffusivity, but with negative diffusivities deleted, and somewhat larger positive diffusivities elsewhere.
Diagnosed interfacial buoyancy diffusivities are, for the purposes of eddy parameterisation, potentially more problematic. In particular, at least in the five layer calculation, where the influence of forcing and dissipation is weaker for the intermediate layers, there are large scale and large magnitude negative diffusivity signals, particularly in the region of the mean jet. While there are also strong postive signals away the jet, the eddy energy weighted mean and the correlation with the eddy energy are both negative. Enforcing a positive semi-definite diffusivity again generally leads to a similar pattern of positive spatial diffusivies, with larger magnitude, and with negative signals deleted. The mis-match in this latter case, at the selected roughness, is also significantly increased.
There do appear to be some robust structures appearing in the diagnosed potential vorticity diffusivities. The five layer calculations suggest signals broadly consistent with down-gradient diffusivities, hinting that such a closure may be tractable here. This observation comes with the caveat that, in general, a down-gradient potential vorticity closure violates momentum conservation [e.g., @Marshall81; @Marshall-et-al12] through the failure to preserve the underlying tensorial structure resulting from the Taylor-Bretherton identity [e.g., @Griffies-ocean; @PopovychBihlo12; @MaddisonMarshall13].
The diagnosed buoyancy diffusivities imply a region near the mean jet with a robust negative diffusivity imply a region with robust negative diffusivity, consistent with the action of baroclinic stability. This suggests that, at least in the regions of strong lateral shear, a closure for eddy buoyancy fluxes should permit a degree of backscatter. This is not typically captured within current eddy parameterisation schemes.
The optimisation procedure may potentially be extended to the primitive equations, provided an analogous eddy force function may be defined. One could consider, for example, a force function defined as in @MarshallPillar11. A practical limitation here is likely to be the difficulty of solving the associated ill-conditioned optimality systems. In this article this was addressed by reducing the size of the problems, through interpolation onto a coarser mesh, combined with the use of direct solvers which are practical for these problem sizes. For larger problems more advanced methods, such as the use of iterative methods with appropriate pre-conditioners for the relevant linear systems, are likely to be required.
In practice a parameterisation quality may not necessarily be determined by its ability to represent eddy statistics themselves. That is, it may be acceptable for a given parameterisation to imply a differing eddy diffusivity if it nevertheless yields a high quality mean state. A more advanced method of diagnosing eddy diffusivities, for example, could seek to invert for a diffusivity which yields an optimal mis-match between high resolution and parameterised mean states. Such a diagnostic would apply the dynamical equations themselves as a constraint on the optimisation, and replace the unconstrained cost function used here with a mis-match measure defined in terms of the deviation of the parameterised model from the target high resolution reference.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council grant NE/L005166/1. This work used the ARCHER UK National Supercomputing Service (`http://www.archer.ac.uk`). The parallel finite difference code used in this article is based upon an earlier code provided by P. S. Berloff [see also @Karabasov-et-al09]. The data used for generating the plots in this article is available through the Edinburgh DataShare service at `http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/ds/366`.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Next generation cellular networks will consist of multiple tiers of cells and users associated with different network tiers may have different priorities (e.g., macrocell-picocell-femtocell networks with macro tier prioritized over pico tier, which is again prioritized over femto tier). Designing efficient joint power and admission control (JPAC) algorithms for such networks under a co-channel deployment (i.e., underlay) scenario is of significant importance. Feasibility checking of a given target signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SINR) vector is generally the most significant contributor to the complexity of JPAC algorithms in single/multi-tier underlay cellular networks. This is generally accomplished through iterative strategies whose complexity is either unpredictable or of $O(M^3)$, when the well-known relationship between the SINR vector and the power vector is used, where $M$ is the number of users/links. In this paper, we derive a novel relationship between a given SINR vector and its corresponding uplink/downlink power vector based on which the feasibility checking can be performed with a complexity of $O(B^3+M B)$, where $B$ is the number of base stations. This is significantly less compared to $O(M^3)$ in many cellular wireless networks since the number of base stations is generally much lower than the number of users/links in such networks. The developed novel relationship between the SINR and power vector not only substantially reduces the complexity of designing JPAC algorithms, but also provides insights into developing efficient but low-complexity power update strategies for prioritized multi-tier cellular networks. We propose two such algorithms and through simulations, we show that our proposed algorithms outperform the existing ones in prioritized cellular networks.'
author:
- 'Mehdi Monemi, Mehdi Rasti, and Ekram Hossain [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'Mybib.bib'
title: 'Low-Complexity SINR Feasibility Checking and Joint Power and Admission Control in Prioritized Multi-tier Cellular Networks '
---
5G cellular, multi-tier prioritized networks, underlay channel access, power and admission control, SINR assignment.
Introduction
============
To satisfy the ever-increasing demand from the new wireless applications and services such as 3D HD multimedia, VOIP, broadband internet services, HDTV, the fifth generation (5G) wireless communications technologies are being developed, which are expected to attain much higher mobile data volume per unit area, longer battery life, and reduced latency [@5G_metis]. 5G cellular wireless networks are expected to be a mixture of network tiers with different sizes, quality-of-service (QoS) requirements, transmit power levels, backhaul connections, and different radio access technologies. Fig. \[fig:multi\_tier\] shows an instance of such a four-tier wireless network in which a macrocell with a wide coverage area coexists with several picocells and several in-house femtocells together with a set of device-to-device (D2D) communication links. In such a multi-tier network, a priority level may also be assigned to each network tier so that admission of users in some tiers is prioritized over that in other tiers. For example, the macro tier, where the base stations (BSs) are installed in a planned manner, may have a higher priority compared to the femto tier where the BSs could be installed in an unplanned manner by the users. Again, the priority of the D2D tier may be lower than both the macro and pico tiers so that the D2D links do not cause QoS violations of the cellular links. As another example, a cellular network serving cognitive radios may be considered as a prioritized two-tier network in which the primary radio network (PRN) serving the primary users (PUs) is the high-priority tier while the secondary network or the cognitive radio network (CRN) serving a set of secondary users (SUs) is the low-priority tier. Therefore, admission of any of the SUs should not cause any QoS violation of any of the PUs. Depending on the operator’s perspective, different number of priority levels may be considered.
Prioritized wireless networks may be employed using either overlay or underlay dynamic spectrum access strategies. In the overlay spectrum access strategy, links are assigned with orthogonal channels (e.g., frequency bands). The channels which are unused by high-priority users are detected and exploited by low-priority users. In the underlay scenario, the entire frequency spectrum is shared by all of the users and thus the admission of each user causes interference to other users. Therefore, the interference caused by low-priority users must be controlled through power control strategies such that high-priority users are protected (i.e., achieve their target signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios \[target-SINRs\]). In this paper, we consider an underlay system model wherein all users operate in a single shared channel.
Ideally, it is desirable to satisfy the QoS requirements (e.g., target-SINRs) of all users in the network. However, in an infeasible system, where all users may not be simultaneously supported with their target-SINRs, it is generally desirable to devise a joint power and admission control (JPAC) algorithm that protects the maximum number of users by considering their admission priority levels (e.g., in a prioritized two-tier CRN, the algorithm must protect all PUs, if possible, together with maximum number of admitted SUs). However, finding the maximum feasible set of prioritized users (i.e., the set with maximum cardinality) is generally an NP-hard problem ([@12; @andersin_gradual]). It requires an exhaustive search through all possible subsets of prioritized admitted users, leading to an unaffordable computational complexity in large-scale systems. Therefore, the existing algorithms look for sub-optimal solutions. For example, in [@andersin_gradual; @rasti_topc; @rasti_DFC; @monemi_MTPC; @single_tier_2015_lq], several JPAC algorithms are proposed to obtain sub-optimal solutions to the problem of finding the maximum feasible set of users in single-tier networks. In [@distributed_JPAC_antenna_arrays], a distributed algorithm is introduced to minimize the total transmit power of primary and secondary links using antenna arrays. In [@JPAC_SSA1; @ISMIRA; @xing_dynamic_spectrum; @LGRA; @monemi_ESRPA; @rasti_error_free; @energy_feasibility_trade_off; @rasti_distributed_uplink_2015; @successiveGP1; @Hoang_downlink_centralized_JPAC; @JPAC_by_color_graph], several centralized and distributed JPAC algorithms are proposed for two-tier CR networks to obtain sub-optimal solutions to the problem of finding the maximum feasible set of supported SUs subject to the constraint that all PUs are protected. Considering a higher priority for macrocell users, in [@femto_tow_tier_ngo_1; @femto_tow_tier_ngo_2; @hierarchical_tow_tier_guruacharya], the problem of finding the maximum feasible set of femtocell users is investigated in two-tier macrocell-femtocell networks.
There are two major issues related to the existing maximum feasible set JPAC algorithms in the literature. First, the computational complexities of the existing feasibility checking mechanisms are large, and therefore, may not be suitable for large-scale networks (e.g., dense multi-tier cellular networks). Besides, the existing JPAC algorithms in the literature support a maximum of two priority levels. In this context, the main contributions of our paper can be stated as follows.
- The admission of a subset of users in the network is only possible if the corresponding power vector resulting in the target-SINRs of the admitted users is feasible (i.e., the corresponding transmit power of each link is non-negative and limited to the maximum allowed threshold). Feasibility checking of a given SINR vector is generally the most significant contributor to the complexity of JPAC algorithms in single/multi-tier underlay cellular networks. This is generally accomplished through iterative strategies (e.g., [@ISMIRA; @rasti_error_free; @successiveGP1; @tuan_JPAC]) whose complexity is either unpredictable[^2], or of $O(M^3)$, when the well-known relationship between the target SINR vector and the power vector (e.g., [@Hoang_downlink_centralized_JPAC; @JPAC_by_color_graph; @active_link_protection]) is used, where $M$ is the number of users/links. Recently a low-complexity centralized feasibility checking mechanism has been proposed in [@monemi_ESRPA], however the derived relations are only applicable to a cognitive radio network having only one primary and one secondary base station. In this paper, we derive novel relationships between a given SINR vector and its corresponding uplink/downlink power vector, based on which the feasibility checking can be performed with a complexity of $O(B^3+M B)$, where $B$ is the number of BSs. For many existing cellular networks at high traffic loads, this is considerably smaller than $O(M^3)$ since each BS serves several users in its coverage area. Therefore, the developed relationships between the SINR and power vector substantially reduce the complexity of designing JPAC algorithms, and it also provide insights into developing new low-complexity and efficient power update strategies for prioritized multi-tier cellular networks.
- While there exist many JPAC algorithms in the literature for non-prioritized single-tier networks (e.g., [@andersin_gradual; @rasti_topc; @rasti_DFC; @monemi_MTPC; @single_tier_2015_lq]), prioritized two-tier CRNs (e.g., [@distributed_JPAC_antenna_arrays; @JPAC_SSA1; @ISMIRA; @xing_dynamic_spectrum; @LGRA; @monemi_ESRPA; @rasti_error_free; @energy_feasibility_trade_off; @rasti_distributed_uplink_2015; @successiveGP1; @Hoang_downlink_centralized_JPAC; @JPAC_by_color_graph]), and hierarchical two-tier macrocell-femtocell networks (e.g., [@femto_tow_tier_ngo_1; @femto_tow_tier_ngo_2; @hierarchical_tow_tier_guruacharya]), there exist very few research studies on prioritized multi-tier networks (e.g., see [@ekram_twoard_5G]). Based on the obtained relationships between SINR and power vector (for uplink and downlink communication scenarios), we devise two efficient but low-complexity centralized JPAC algorithms for prioritized multi-tier cellular networks. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first algorithms proposed in the literature for finding the maximum feasible set of users for prioritized multi-tier networks supporting more than two priority levels. Regardless of the number of priority levels, the complexities of our proposed algorithms are far below those of related existing algorithms. We show through simulations that the performance of our algorithms is superior to that of existing ones in terms of average outage ratio of low-priority users (i.e., the ratio of the number of low-priority users who have not obtained their desired QoS to the total number of low-priority users).
{width="254pt"}\
\[fig:multi\_tier\]
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:system\_model\] we describe the system model. A formal statement of the problem is given in Section \[sec:problem\_statement\]. The novel feasibility checking mechanism is obtained in Section \[sec:feasibility\_checking\] based on which our JPAC algorithms are proposed and studied in Section \[sec:proposed\_algorithms\]. Numerical results and conclusions are finally given in Sections \[sec:performance\_evaluation\_results\] and \[sec:conclusions\], respectively.
System Model and Assumptions {#sec:system_model}
============================
Consider underlay uplink/downlink transmission links in a prioritized multi-tier cellular wireless network consisting of $M$ users denoted by ${\mathcal{M}}=\{1,2,...,M\}$, $B$ BSs denoted by ${\mathcal{B}}=\{1,2,...,B\}$, $T$ tiers denoted by ${\mathcal{T}}=\{1,2,...,T\}$, and $K$ admission priority levels denoted by ${\mathcal{K}}=\{1,2,...,K\}$. Each user $i\in{\mathcal{M}}$ is assigned with a BS $b_i\in{\mathcal{B}}$, each BS $b\in{\mathcal{B}}$ belongs to a tier $t_b\in{\mathcal{T}}$ and each tier $t\in{\mathcal{T}}$ has an admission priority $k_t\in{\mathcal{K}}$ where $k_t=1$ and $k_t=K$ correspond to the case where tier $t$ is with the highest and lowest admission priorities, respectively. We assume that association of users to the BSs is such that it does not violate the backhaul constraints of the BSs. Also, we assume that each user is associated with only one network tier and all the users in a network tier have the same admission priority. In order not to lose the generality, we consider that a subset of tiers may be assigned to the same admission priority level; therefore, we have $K\leq T$, and thus for the case where each tier is assigned a unique admission priority, we have $K=T$. Also, let ${\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}$, ${\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{T}}}$, and ${\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ denote the subset of users associated with BS $m\in{\mathcal{B}}$, tier $n\in{\mathcal{T}}$ and admission priority $q\in{\mathcal{K}}$, respectively, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3231}
{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}=\{i\in{\mathcal{M}}|\ b_i=m \},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3232}
{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{T}}}=\{i\in{\mathcal{M}}|\ t_m=n,\ \mathrm{where}\ m=b_i \},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3233}
{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}=\{i\in{\mathcal{M}}|\ k_n=q, \ \mathrm{where}\ n=t_{b_i} \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, let ${\mathcal{B}}_n^{{\mathcal{T}}}$ denote the subset of BSs associated with tier $n\in{\mathcal{T}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ denote the subset of BSs whose users have the admission priority $q\in{\mathcal{K}}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3234}
{\mathcal{B}}_n^{{\mathcal{T}}}=\{b\in{\mathcal{B}}|\ t_b=n \},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3235}
{\mathcal{B}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}=\{b\in{\mathcal{B}}|\ k_{t_b}=q\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We model the wireless fading environment by large-scale path-loss and shadowing. The channels between different links experience independent fading and the network operates in a slow fading environment.
Uplink System Model
-------------------
At any given snapshot in time, let ${p}_i$ be the transmit power of user $i$ and assume that ${h_{m i}}$ denotes the uplink path-gain from user $i$ toward BS $m\in{\mathcal{B}}$ (e.g., ${h_{b_j i}}$ is the uplink path-gain between user $i$ and the BS that user $j$ is associated with). The noise at BS $m$ is considered to be zero-mean additive white Gaussian whose power is denoted by ${N_{m}}$. The transmit power $p_i$ is always limited to a maximum value denoted by ${p^{\mathrm{max}}}_i$ (i.e., ). Considering the receivers to be conventional matched filters, for any given uplink transmit power vector $\mathbf{p}$ (${\mathbf{p}}=\![p_1,p_2,...,p_M]^\mathrm{T}$), [the total uplink interference plus noise caused to user]{} $i$ [at its receiver is]{} ${I_i=\sum\limits_{\substack{j\in{\mathcal{M}}, j \ne i}}{\!\!{h_{b_i j}} p_j}+{N_{b_i}}}$ [and thus]{} the [*normalized*]{}[^3] uplink SINR of user $i$ at its BS denoted by $\gamma_i$ is
$$\label{eq:1}
\gamma_i({\mathbf{p}})=
\dfrac {{h_{b_i i}} p_i}
{\sum\limits_{\substack{j\in{\mathcal{M}}, \\ j \ne i}}{\!\!{h_{b_i j}} p_j}+{N_{b_i}}}, \ \forall i\in{\mathcal{M}}.$$
Given an uplink SINR vector ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}=[\gamma_1,\gamma_2,...,\gamma_M]^{\mathrm{T}}$, we can rewrite in matrix form and obtain the corresponding power vector ${\mathbf{p}}$ as $$\label{eq:40}
{\mathbf{p}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})=\big(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{F}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})\big)^{-1}\mathbf{U}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}),$$ where $\mathbf{I}$ is an $M\times M$ identity matrix, and $\mathbf{U}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})$ is an $M \times 1$ column vector wherein $U_i=\frac{\gamma_{i} {N_{b_{i}}}}{{h_{b_{i} i}}}$ and $\mathbf{F}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})$ is $M \times M$ matrix with $F_{ij}=0$ for any $i=j$ and $F_{ij}=\frac{\gamma_i {h_{b_i j}}}{{h_{b_i i}}}$ for any $i \neq j$.
An uplink SINR vector ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ is said to be feasible if it belongs to the set of feasible SINR vectors $\mathbf{F}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:feasible_uplink_sinr}
{\mathbf{F}}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}=\{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}| 0\leq p_i({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}) \leq {p^{\mathrm{max}}}_i, \ \ \forall i\in{\mathcal{M}}\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Downlink System Model
---------------------
In the downstream communication scenario, at any given snapshot in time, let ${\widetilde{p}}_i$ be the power level for the signal transmitted toward user $i$ by the BS serving user $i$ and assume that ${\widetilde{h}_{i m}}$ denotes the downlink path-gain from BS $m\in{\mathcal{B}}$ toward user $i$ (e.g., ${\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}}$ is the downlink path-gain between the BS, that user $j$ is associated with, toward user $i$).
[Let ]{}${\widetilde{P}}_m$ [be the total transmit power of BS ]{}$m\in{\mathcal{B}}$, [i.e.]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pdown_m}
{{\widetilde{P}}_m=\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{{\widetilde{p}}_j}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The aggregate transmission power of each BS $m\in{\mathcal{B}}$ is limited to a maximum threshold ${\widetilde{P}^{\mathrm{max}}}_m$ (i.e., ${\widetilde{P}}_m\leq \!\! {\widetilde{P}^{\mathrm{max}}}_m, \forall m\in{\mathcal{B}}$). Consider ${\widetilde{N}_{i}}$ to be the noise power of user $i$, which is assumed to be zero-mean additive white Gaussian. Considering the receivers to be conventional matched filters, for any given downlink transmit power vector ${\widetilde{\mathbf{p}}}$ (${\widetilde{\mathbf{p}}}=\![{\widetilde{p}}_1,{\widetilde{p}}_2,...,{\widetilde{p}}_M]^\mathrm{T}$), [the total downlink interference plus noise at user $i$ is]{} ${\widetilde{I}_i=\sum_{m \ne b_i}{\!\!{\widetilde{h}_{i m}} {\widetilde{P}}_m}+{\widetilde{N}_{i}}=\sum\limits_{\substack{j\in{\mathcal{M}}, j \ne i}}{\!\!{\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}} {\widetilde{p}}_j}+{\widetilde{N}_{i}}}$ and thus the downlink SINR of user $i$ denoted by ${\widetilde{\gamma}}_i$ is
$$\label{eq:1down}
{\widetilde{\gamma}}_i({\widetilde{\mathbf{p}}})=
\dfrac {{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}} {\widetilde{p}}_i}
{\sum\limits_{\substack{j\in{\mathcal{M}}, \\ j \ne i}}{\!\!{\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}} {\widetilde{p}}_j}+{\widetilde{N}_{i}}}, \ \forall i\in{\mathcal{M}}.$$
For any given downlink SINR vector ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}=[{\widetilde{\gamma}}_1,{\widetilde{\gamma}}_2,...,{\widetilde{\gamma}}_M]^{\mathrm{T}}$, the corresponding power vector ${\widetilde{\mathbf{p}}}$ is obtained from as: $$\label{eq:40down}
{\widetilde{\mathbf{p}}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})=\big(\mathbf{I}-\widetilde{\mathbf{F}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})\big)^{-1}\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}),$$ where $\mathbf{I}$ is an $M\times M$ identity matrix, and $\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})$ is an $M \times 1$ column vector wherein $\widetilde{U}_i=\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i} {\widetilde{N}_{i}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}}$, and $\widetilde{\mathbf{F}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})$ is an $M \times M$ matrix with $\widetilde{F}_{ij}=0$ for any $i=j$ and $\widetilde{F}_{ij}=\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_i {\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}}$ for any $i \neq j$.
A downlink SINR vector ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$ is said to be feasible if it belongs to the set of feasible SINR vectors $\widetilde{\mathbf{F}}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}$, where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:feasible_downlink_sinr}
\widetilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}= \{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}| \ {\widetilde{p}}_i({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}) \geq 0, \forall i \in{\mathcal{M}}\ \ \mathrm{and} \\ \sum_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\!\!{\widetilde{p}}_i({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})\leq {\widetilde{P}^{\mathrm{max}}}_m, \ \forall m\in{\mathcal{B}}}
\}.
\end{gathered}$$
Problem Statement {#sec:problem_statement}
=================
In what follows, we first state the problem of uplink JPAC for prioritized multi-tier wireless networks and then we present a similar problem statement for the downlink network model. After stating the problems, we clarify how the existing solutions lead to relatively high-complexity algorithms due to the complexity of feasibility checking of SINR vectors. Then we show how to reduce the complexity of JPAC algorithms through devising low-complexity feasibility checking mechanisms for uplink and downlink transmission scenarios in cellular networks.
Uplink Case
-----------
For a given modulation scheme and a given maximum tolerable bit-error-rate (BER), the minimum allowed data rate for each user $i\in{\mathcal{M}}$ corresponds to a minimum acceptable SINR for that user (known as the uplink target-SINR denoted by ${\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i$). For any uplink power vector ${\mathbf{p}}$, the priority constraints force that if some user is provided with its target-SINR, all users having higher priorities are also provided with their target-SINRs. Let $\mathbf{G}_{{\mathbf{p}}}$ be the space of uplink power vectors for which the priority constraints hold, i.e., $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:hp}
\mathbf{G}_{{\mathbf{p}}} \!=\! \{{\mathbf{p}}| \mathrm{if}\ \exists i \in \! {\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\ \mathrm{for \ any}\ 1 < q \leq K \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ {\gamma_i}({\mathbf{p}})\geq{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i \\ \mathrm{then} \
{\gamma_j}({\mathbf{p}})\geq{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_j\
\mathrm{for\ each\ } q' < q \ \mathrm{and}\ j\in{\mathcal{M}}_{q'}^{{\mathcal{K}}}\}.
\end{gathered}$$ Given an uplink power vector ${\mathbf{p}}$, let ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathbf{p}})$ denote the set of users who attain their desired target-SINRs, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:supported}
{\mathcal{S}}({\mathbf{p}})\!=\!\left\{i\!\in\!{\mathcal{M}}|\gamma_i({\mathbf{p}})\geq {\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ For any given target-SINR vector [${\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{\mathrm{tar}}}=[{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_1,{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_2,\dots,{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_M]^{\mathrm{T}}$]{}, it is desirable to obtain an uplink power vector ${\mathbf{p}}$ (where $0\leq p_i \leq {p^{\mathrm{max}}}_i, \forall i \in{\mathcal{M}}$) for which the maximum possible number of users are provided with their target-SINRs while all the priority constraints hold as well. Therefore, we formally state the problem of finding the maximum feasible set of users (i.e., the feasible set with maximum cardinality) in uplink prioritized multi-tier wireless networks as the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opt1}
\underset{{\mathbf{p}}}{\mathrm{maximize}}& \ \ \ |{\mathcal{S}}({\mathbf{p}})| \ \ \
\nonumber
\\
\mathrm{subject\ to} & \ \ \ 0\leq p_i \leq {p^{\mathrm{max}}}_i, \ \ \ \forall i\in{\mathcal{M}},
\nonumber
\\
& \ \ \ {\mathbf{p}}\in \mathbf{G}_{{\mathbf{p}}} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $|.|$ denotes the cardinality of the corresponding vector. The first and second constraints correspond to the *feasibility* of the power vector and *priority* constraints, respectively.
The optimal solution to the above problem is not generally unique, i.e., there may be many transmit power vectors belonging to the set of solutions of (\[eq:opt1\]). To show this, consider a system with two active users wherein user 1 is associated with a BS in a higher priority tier compared to that of user 2. Fig. \[fig:Region\_Example\] shows a 2-D space whose $x$ axis and $y$ axis are the transmit power levels of users 1 and 2, respectively. The solid lines are ${f_1(p_1,p_2)=\frac{p_1 h_{11}}{{\mathit{\widehat{\gamma}}}_1} - p_2 h_{12}-\sigma^2_1} $ and ${f_2(p_1,p_2)=\frac{p_2 h_{22}}{{\mathit{\widehat{\gamma}}}_2} - p_1 h_{21}-\sigma^2_2} $. Fig. \[fig:Region\_Example\](a) shows the case where both users can be supported with their desired target-SINRs (i.e., for all power vectors ${\mathbf{p}}$ located in the solid-filled region we have ${\gamma_1({\mathbf{p}})\geq {\mathit{\widehat{\gamma}}}_1}$ and ${\gamma_2({\mathbf{p}})\geq {\mathit{\widehat{\gamma}}}_2}$, or correspondingly, ${f_1(p_1,p_2)\geq 0}$ and ${f_2(p_1,p_2)\geq 0}$). In Fig. \[fig:Region\_Example\](b), it is seen that it is not possible to serve both users simultaneously while satisfying their QoS requirements, however since user 1 is of higher priority, all feasible power vectors for which ${\gamma_1({\mathbf{p}})\geq {\mathit{\widehat{\gamma}}}_1}$ (all points located in the solid-filled region of this figure) correspond to the solution of (\[eq:opt1\]).
{width="254pt"}
\[fig:Region\_Example\]
Among all power vectors corresponding to the solution of (\[eq:opt1\]), we are specially interested in obtaining the ones that correspond to the minimum aggregate transmit powers of the users. Such optimal transmit power vectors ensure that supported users exactly meet their target-SINRs (i.e., equality in holds for the second constraint in ). To characterize these optimal solutions, the optimization problem in can be transformed into an SINR assignment problem as explained below.
Consider the SINR assignment problem where each user $i$ may be assigned an SINR ${\gamma_i}\in\left\{{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i,0\right\}$, where ${\gamma_i}={\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i$ means that user $i$ is included in the set of active supported users, and ${\gamma_i}=0$ means that the potentially non-supported user $i$ is removed (i.e., its transmit power is zero) so as not to cause any extra interference to other users[^4]. Let $\mathbf{T}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$ be the space of SINR vectors that may be assigned to the users, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:T_gamma}
\mathbf{T}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}= \prod_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}}{\{{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i,0\}},
\end{aligned}$$ and similar to , let $\mathbf{G}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$ be the space of SINR vectors for which the priority constraints hold, i.e., $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:hgamma}
\mathbf{G}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}=\{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}| \mathrm{if}\ \exists i\in {\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\ \mathrm{for \ any}\ 1 < q \leq K \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ {\gamma_i}\geq{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i
\\ \mathrm{then} \
{\gamma_j}\geq{\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_j\
\mathrm{for\ each\ } q' < q\ \mathrm{and}\ j\in{\mathcal{M}}_{q'}^{{\mathcal{K}}}\}.
\end{gathered}$$ Also, let ${\mathcal{A}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})\subset{\mathcal{M}}$ be the subset of users assigned with non-zero SINR values referred to as the admitted users (i.e., ${\mathcal{A}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})=\{i\in{\mathcal{M}}| \gamma_i>0\}$). We modify the power allocation problem in to the following SINR assignment and admission control problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opt_admission}
\underset{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\in \mathbf{T}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}{\mathrm{maximize}}& \ \ \ |{\mathcal{A}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})|
& \nonumber \\
\mathrm{subject\ to }&\ \ \ {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\in \mathbf{F}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}} \cap \mathbf{G}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{F}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$ and $\mathbf{G}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$ are given in and , respectively.
\[th:1\] The SINR vector obtained from corresponds to a minimal[^5] power vector of the set of solutions of .
It can be proved by taking the steps similar to those for the proof of Proposition 1 in [@monemi_ESRPA].
Proposition \[th:1\] states that the optimal SINR vector given by the optimization problem in results in the minimum aggregate transmit power required for the maximum feasible set of prioritized users obtained from the optimization problem in .
Downlink Case
-------------
Let ${\widetilde{\gamma}^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i$ be the downlink minimum acceptable SINR (downlink target-SINR) of user $i$. Similar to , the problem of SINR assignment and admission control for finding the maximum feasible set of prioritized users in multi-tier downlink communication model is stated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opt_admissiondown}
\underset{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}\in \mathbf{T}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}}{\mathrm{maximize}}& \ \ \ |{\mathcal{A}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})|
& \nonumber \\
\mathrm{subject\ to }&\ \ \ {\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}\in \widetilde{\mathbf{F}}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}} \cap \widetilde{\mathbf{G}}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{A}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})=\{i\in{\mathcal{M}}| {\widetilde{\gamma}}_i>0\}$ is the set of admitted downlink connections, $\mathbf{T}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}=\prod_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}}{\{{\widetilde{\gamma}^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i,0\}}$, $\widetilde{\mathbf{F}}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}$ is given by , and $\widetilde{\mathbf{G}}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}$ represents the space of downlink SINR vectors for which the priority constraints hold, i.e.,
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:hthetadown}
\widetilde{\mathbf{G}}_{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}=\{{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}| \mathrm{if}\ \exists i\in {\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\ \mathrm{for \ any}\ 1 < q \leq K \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ {\widetilde{\gamma}}_i\geq{\widetilde{\gamma}^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i
\\ \mathrm{then} \
{\widetilde{\gamma}}_j\geq{\widetilde{\gamma}^{\mathrm{tar}}}_j\
\mathrm{for\ each\ } q' < q \ \mathrm{and}\ j\in{\mathcal{M}}_{q'}^{{\mathcal{K}}}\}.
\end{gathered}$$
In what follows, we construct novel relationships between a power vector and its corresponding SINR vector for devising low-complexity feasibility checking mechanisms for both uplink and downlink communication models. Then, using the derived relationships, we devise novel admission metrics and propose two efficient but low-complexity JPAC algorithms to solve each of the problems in and for prioritized multi-tier cellular wireless networks for both uplink and downlink communications.
Low-Complexity Feasibility Checking Mechanism {#sec:feasibility_checking}
=============================================
The problem of finding the maximum feasible set of users for admission control with/without the priority constraints is generally NP-hard ([@andersin_gradual; @JPAC_adhoc_convex_relaxation_single_PU; @p_norm_proof_for_NP_Hardness]), and needs exhaustive search through all possible SINR vectors ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\in \mathbf{T}_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$. Therefore, practical JPAC algorithms generally obtain a sub-optimal solution of the maximum feasible set problem by iteratively removing the unsupported users according to some admission metric and checking the feasibility of the remaining set of users at each iteration until the system becomes feasible. The process of checking the feasibility of admitted users at each iteration is generally the most significant contributor to the complexity of all such algorithms. This is mostly accomplished by checking the feasibility of the power vector corresponding to the desired SINR vector through (\[eq:40\]) or (\[eq:40down\]) which needs matrix inversion with the complexity of $O(M^3)$. Another way is to obtain the equilibrium power vector from the iterative constrained target-SINR tracking power control (TPC) algorithm proposed in [@foschini_base_TPC; @grandhi_base_TPC; @grandhi_zander_base_constrained_TPC] whose complexity and speed of convergence are not known in advance and depends on the network parameters.
In what follows, for the uplink scenario, wherein the transmit power of each user is limited to a maximum threshold, we first obtain a novel and low-complexity relationship that maps the uplink SINRs of the users to the corresponding transmit powers of the users based on which a low-complexity feasibility checking mechanism for cellular networks is devised for the uplink system model. On the other hand, the downlink total transmit power of each BS must be limited. Therefore, for the downlink scenario, we obtain a similar novel relationship between the downlink SINRs of the users and the total downlink transmit powers of the BSs. The derived relations can be employed in the JPAC algorithms instead of the feasibility checking mechanisms in (\[eq:40\]) or (\[eq:40down\]) to decrease the complexity of such algorithms substantially.
Uplink Low-Complexity Feasibility Checking
------------------------------------------
\[prop:2\] Given an uplink SINR vector ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}=[\gamma_1, \gamma_2, ..., \gamma_{M}]^{\mathrm{T}}$, the corresponding power vector ${\mathbf{p}}$ that results in ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p_i}
p_i= {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}\dfrac{\Phi_{b_i}}{{h_{b_i i}}} , \ \ \ \ \ \forall i\in{\mathcal{M}},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{\Phi}}=[\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2}, ..., \Phi_{B}]^{\mathrm{T}}$ is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi}
{\boldsymbol{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})=\left(\mathbf{I-H({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})}\right)^{-1} \mathbf{N},
\end{aligned}$$ in which $\mathbf{I}$ is a $B\times B$ identity matrix, $\mathbf{N}=[N_{1}, N_{2}, ..., N_{B}]^{\mathrm{T}}$, and $\mathbf{H}$ is a $B\times B$ matrix whose elements are obtained by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H_elements}
H_{mn}=
\begin{cases}
\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\!\! {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m=n, \\
\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\!\! \frac{{h_{m i}}}{{h_{n i}}} {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m\neq n.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
See **Appendix [\[apx:1\]]{}**.
An uplink SINR vector ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ is feasible if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fisible_phi}
0 \leq \Phi_m({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}) \leq \Phi^{\mathrm{max}}_m({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}) , \ \ \forall m\in{\mathcal{B}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_m({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})$ is obtained from and $\Phi^{\mathrm{max}}_m({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})= \min\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} {\{ \frac{p_i^{\mathrm{max} } {h_{m i}}(\gamma_i + 1) } {\gamma_i} \} }$.
Downlink Low-Complexity Feasibility Checking
--------------------------------------------
\[prop:3\] Given a downlink SINR vector ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}=[{\widetilde{\gamma}}_1, {\widetilde{\gamma}}_2, ..., {\widetilde{\gamma}}_{M}]^{\mathrm{T}}$, the corresponding power vector ${\widetilde{\mathbf{p}}}$ that results in ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$ is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p_idown}
{\widetilde{p}}_i= \frac{1}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} \times \left( \sum\limits_{n\in{\mathcal{B}}}{ {\widetilde{h}_{i n}}{\widetilde{P}}_n } + {\widetilde{N}_{i}} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}}=[{\widetilde{P}}_{1}, {\widetilde{P}}_{2}, ..., {\widetilde{P}}_{B}]^{\mathrm{T}}$ is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pdown}
{\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})=\left(\mathbf{I-\widetilde{H}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})}\right)^{-1} \widetilde{\mathbf{N}}^{*},
\end{aligned}$$ in which $\mathbf{I}$ is a $B\times B$ identity matrix, $\widetilde{\mathbf{N}}^{*}=[{\widetilde{N}_{1}}^{*}, {\widetilde{N}_{2}}^{*}, ..., {\widetilde{N}_{B}}^{*}]^{\mathrm{T}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{N}_{m}}^{*}=\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\dfrac{1}{{\widetilde{h}_{i m}}}{\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} {\widetilde{N}_{i}} },
\end{aligned}$$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$ is a $B\times B$ matrix whose elements are obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H_elements_down}
\widetilde{H}_{mn}=
\begin{cases}
\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\!\! {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m=n, \\
\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\!\! \frac{{\widetilde{h}_{i n}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i m}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m\neq n.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
See **Appendix [\[apx:2\]]{}**.
A downlink SINR vector ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$ is feasible if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fisible_simple_down}
0 \leq {\widetilde{P}}_m({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})\leq {\widetilde{P}}_m^{\mathrm{max}}, \ \ \ \forall m\in{\mathcal{B}},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\widetilde{P}}_m({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})$ is obtained from .
The computational complexities of calculating $(\mathbf{I-H({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})})$ in from and $(\mathbf{I-\widetilde{H}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}})})$ in from are both of $O(M\!\times\!B)$. Thus, together with the complexity of the inversion of the corresponding matrices, the overall complexity of feasibility checking of a given uplink or downlink SINR vector through or , respectively, is only of $O(B^3+M\!\times\! B)$. This is significantly smaller compared to the complexity of the traditional feasibility checking mechanisms through or which is of $O(M^3)$. This is because, the number of users ($M$) is generally much higher than the number of BSs ($B$). Considering the fact that feasibility checking is generally the most significant contributor to the complexity of JPAC algorithms in traditional non-prioritized single-tier or prioritized multi-tier cellular networks, by applying our proposed feasibility checking mechanism, the complexities of the existing JPAC algorithms can be significantly reduced. Also, the proposed mechanism provides insights into developing efficient JPAC algorithms for multi-tier wireless networks.
Proposed JPAC Algorithms and their Properties {#sec:proposed_algorithms}
=============================================
In what follows, based on the low-complexity SINR-to-power relations obtained in the previous section, we propose two low-complexity and efficient JPAC algorithms, namely, the **M**ulti-tier **E**ffective **S**tepwise user removal with high-priority user **P**rotection **A**lgorithm (MESPA), and **M**ulti-tier **L**ow-complexity **S**tepwise user removal with high-priority user **P**rotection **A**lgorithm (MLSPA). The properties of the proposed algorithms are also investigated. With the objective of maximizing the number of supported users, the key idea in both algorithms is to devise low-complexity removal metrics based on the obtained SINR-to-power relations. The removal metrics are then employed in the proposed JPAC algorithms by iteratively finding and removing the candidates according to the removal metrics and checking the feasibility of the system through the proposed low-complexity feasibility checking mechanisms until the system becomes feasible. In finding the removal candidates, we first find the BS with maximum infeasibility measure and then, among the users served by that BS, we find the user whose removal results in the maximal decrease in the infeasibility measure and approximal infeasibility measure of that BS in the MESPA and MLSPA, respectively, as formally described in the following subsection.
Proposed JPAC Algorithms
------------------------
In what follows, we first present the MESPA and then we revise the admission metric of MESPA to form a new admission metric with lower complexity and propose the MLSPA. The lower complexity of MLSPA leads to a slight degradation in network performance compared to that for MESPA as will be shown in the numerical results.
### MESPA
Assume that all users in the network are initially admitted and assigned with their target-SINRs (i.e., ${\mathcal{A}}\leftarrow {\mathcal{M}}$ and $\gamma_i={\gamma^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i$ for the uplink and ${\widetilde{\gamma}}_i={\widetilde{\gamma}^{\mathrm{tar}}}_i$ for the downlink communication scenarios for all $i\in{\mathcal{M}}$). Simultaneous admission of all users may result in the infeasibility of the system. For such a scenario, we devise a low-complexity iterative strategy through which at each step, some users are removed (aiming at a small number of removals) from the set of active users until the remaining set of active users results in a feasible prioritized system. The process of determining the removal candidate for an infeasible system at each step is accomplished in two phases: determination of the candidate BS/BSs from which some users have to be removed and then finding the removal candidate among the users associated with the corresponding BS/BSs.
The BS/BSs from which some users have to be removed is/are determined as the one/ones with the lowest priority which has/have at-least one active user. Suppose that BSs ${\mathcal{B}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\subset{\mathcal{B}}$ with the priority level $q$ have been chosen as such BSs. In what follows we describe how the removal candidate is determined from ${\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ where ${\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\subset{\mathcal{M}}$ is the subset of users having the admission priority of $q\in{\mathcal{K}}$ associated with BSs ${\mathcal{B}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}$.
Let ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}$ denote the SINRs of the users when all admitted users (any user $i\in{\mathcal{A}}$) are assigned with their target-SINRs and other removed users are assigned with zero SINR in the uplink and downlink communication scenarios, respectively. Also, assume that ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}$ are infeasible SINR vectors. This means that and do not hold for at least one BS $m\in{\mathcal{B}}$ in the uplink and downlink scenarios, respectively. Let ${n}^{*}\in{\mathcal{B}}$ and $\widetilde{n}^{*}\in{\mathcal{B}}$ be the BSs with maximum infeasibility measure for the uplink and downlink communications, respectively, defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ncandid}
n^{*}\!\! = \!
\begin{cases}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{\ \ \ \ \ \ n\in{\mathcal{B}}| \Phi_n\!({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})<0}{ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \{ \Phi_n({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}) \} },
\hspace{20pt}
\mathrm{if}\ \exists n \! \in \! {\mathcal{B}}\ \mathrm{s.t.}\ \Phi_n({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}) \! < \! 0
\\
\hspace{-46pt}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ n\in{\mathcal{B}}| \Phi_n\!({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})>\Phi_n^{\mathrm{max}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}})} {\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \{ \Phi_n({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}) \! - \! { {\Phi}_n^{\mathrm{max}}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}) \} },
\hspace{20pt}
\mathrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ncandid_down}
\widetilde{n}^{*}\! = \!
\begin{cases}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{\ \ \ \ \ \ n\in{\mathcal{B}}| {\widetilde{P}}_n\!({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})<0}{ \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \{ {\widetilde{P}}_n({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}) \} },
\hspace{20pt}
\mathrm{if}\ \exists n \! \in \! {\mathcal{B}}\ \mathrm{s.t.}\ {\widetilde{P}}_n({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}) \! < \! 0
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ n\in{\mathcal{B}}| {\widetilde{P}}_n\!({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})>{\widetilde{P}}_n^{\mathrm{max}}} {\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \{ {\widetilde{P}}_n({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}) \! - \! { {{\widetilde{P}}}_n^{\mathrm{max}}} \} },
\hspace{20pt}
\mathrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $n^{*}$ and $\widetilde{n}^{*}$ in and , respectively, are first selected from the BSs for whom the lower-bound feasibility condition is violated (i.e., BSs $m$ for which or ) and therefore BSs with lower-bound infeasibility are supposed to have more degree of infeasibility as compared with those with upper-bound infeasibility (i.e., BSs $m$ for which or ). This is because, for a given BS $m\in{\mathcal{B}}$ with lower-bound infeasibility, successive removals of active users first leads to the lower-bound feasibility ( or ) and then results in the upper-bound feasibility ( or ).
At each removal iteration, we may determine the removal candidate $i^{*}\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\cap {\mathcal{A}}$ or $\widetilde{i}^{*}\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\cap{\mathcal{A}}$ as the one whose removal leads to the maximal decrease in the infeasibility measure of the BSs ${n}^{*}\in{\mathcal{B}}$ or $\widetilde{n}^{*}\in{\mathcal{B}}$ in the uplink and downlink communications, respectively, i.e.,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:removal_candidate_up}
i^{*}\!\! = \!\!
\begin{cases}
\hspace{-106pt}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{\hspace{110pt} i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\cap {\mathcal{A}}| \Phi_{n^{\!*}}\!({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}}\!)>
\Phi_{n^{\!*}}^{\mathrm{max}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}}\!) }
{
\hspace{-105pt}
\{ \Phi_{n^{\!*}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus \{i\} }) - \Phi_{n^{\!*}}^{\mathrm{max}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}}\!) \} }, \ \ \ \
\\
\hspace{45pt}
\mathrm{if}
\ \exists i\!\in\!{\mathcal{M}}_{n^{\!*}}^{{\mathcal{B}}} \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ \Phi_{\!n^{\!*}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}}) \!> \! \Phi_{n^{\!*}}^{\mathrm{max}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}}\!)
\\
\hspace{-62pt}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\cap{\mathcal{A}}| \Phi_{n^{\!*}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}})<0} \!\! {\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\{ \Phi_{n^{\!*}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus \{i\} }\! ) \} },
\hspace{85pt} \mathrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:removal_candidate_down}
\widetilde{i}^{*}\!\! = \!\!
\begin{cases}
\hspace{-78pt}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{\hspace{70pt} \ \ \ \ i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\cap {\mathcal{A}}| {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}\!({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}}\!)>
{\widetilde{P}}_{n^{\!*}}^{\mathrm{max}} }
{
\hspace{-80pt}
\{ {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus \{i\} }) - {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}^{\mathrm{max}}) \} }, \ \ \
\\
\hspace{70pt}
\mathrm{if}\ \exists i\!\in\!{\mathcal{M}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}^{{\mathcal{B}}} \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}}) \!> \! {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}^{\mathrm{max}}
\\
\hspace{-63pt}
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\cap{\mathcal{A}}| {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\{i\}})<0} \!\! {\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\{ {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}\setminus \{i\} }\! ) \} },
\hspace{80pt}
\mathrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
Based on what has been discussed so far, the MESPA JPAC for prioritized multi-tier wireless networks is proposed in **Algorithm 1**.
**Initialization:**
Let all users be initially admitted (i.e., ) and assigned with their target-SINRs.
Let $q \leftarrow K$ to start removing users from the cells having the lowest priority.
**Admission Control:**
Calculate ${\boldsymbol{\Phi}}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})$ from for the uplink case or ${\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})$ from for the downlink case.
**Power Calculation:**
Calculate the power vector corresponding to ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}$ for the uplink case using or the power vector corresponding to ${\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}}$ for the downlink case using .
It is seen from step 7 of MESPA and from and that the determination of the removal candidate at each iteration needs $|{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}\cap{\mathcal{A}}|$ times of matrix inversions. In what follows, we propose another algorithm with less complexity which needs only one matrix inversion in the calculation of the removal candidate at each iteration. We first consider the uplink scenario and then extend the results for the downlink scenario as well.
### MLSPA
Similar to the previous algorithm, consider that all users in the uplink communication are initially admitted and also assume that at each iteration, $n^{*}\in{\mathcal{B}}$ is determined from . We determine the removal candidate $i^{*}$ from the set of users associated with BSs ${\mathcal{B}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ as the one with maximum approximal decrease in the infeasibility measure of BS $n^{*}$. To do this, we use the first-order sensitivity analysis of matrix ${\boldsymbol{\Phi}}$. From , let $\mathbf{A=I-H}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})$ and ${\boldsymbol{\Phi}}=\mathbf{A}^{-1} \mathbf{N}$. The partial derivative of $\Phi_{n^{*}}$ with respect to the coefficients of $\mathbf{A}$ is obtained as follows [@sensativity_analysis]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \Phi_{n^{*}}}{\partial A_{mn}}= - (\mathbf{A}^{-1})_{n^{\!*}m} \Phi_n.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by using the first-order Taylor series expansion, the variation of $\Phi_{n^{*}}$ (denoted by $\Delta \Phi_{n^{*}}$) with respect to the marginal variation of the coefficients of $\mathbf{A}$ (denoted by $\Delta A_{mn}$) is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Delta_phi_n}
\Delta \Phi_{n^{*}} = \sum\limits_{m,n\in{\mathcal{B}}} -(\mathbf{A}^{-1})_{n^{\!*}m} \Phi_{n} \Delta A_{mn}.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Delta \Phi_{n^{*}}^{i}$ denote the variation of $\Delta \Phi_{n^{*}}$ when user $i\in{\mathcal{M}}$ is removed from the set of admitted users. From and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Delta_phi_n_i}
\Delta \Phi_{n^{*}}^{i} = \sum\limits_{m,n\in{\mathcal{B}}} -(\mathbf{A}^{-1})_{n^{\!*}m} \Phi_{n} \Delta A_{mn}^{i},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Delta_A}
\Delta A_{mn}^{i}=
\begin{cases}
- {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m=n\ \mathrm{and}\ i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}, \\
- \frac{{h_{m i}}}{{h_{n i}}} {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m\neq n\ \mathrm{and}\ i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}},\\
0, & \mathrm{else}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ It can be verified from and that $\Delta \Phi_{n^{\!*}}^{i}$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Delta_phi_n_i_2}
\Delta \Phi_{n^{\!*}}^{i} = - \Phi_{{b_i}} \sum\limits_{m\in{\mathcal{B}}} (\mathbf{A}^{-1})_{n^{\!*}m} \Delta\!'\! A_{m}^{i},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Delta_A_2}
\Delta\!'\! A_{m}^{i}=
\begin{cases}
- {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m=b_i, \\
- \frac{{h_{m i}}}{{h_{b_i i}}} {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m\neq b_i.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the removal candidate $i^{*}$ among the users having the admission priority of $q$ is obtained as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:i_star}
i^{*} &={\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}}{ |\Delta \Phi_{n^{\!*}}^{i}| } \nonumber \\
&= {\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}}{ |\Phi_{{b_i}} \! \sum\limits_{m\in{\mathcal{B}}} { \!\!\! (\mathbf{A}^{-1})_{n^{\!*}m} \Delta\!'\! A_{m}^{i}}| }.
\end{aligned}$$
Similar to the uplink communication scenario, the removal candidate $\widetilde{i}^{*}$ at each iteration of the removal process in the downlink scenario is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:i_stardown}
\widetilde{i}^{*} &={\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}}{ |\Delta {\widetilde{P}}_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}}^{i}| } \nonumber \\
&=
{\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_q^{{\mathcal{K}}}}{ | {\widetilde{P}}_{b_i} \sum\limits_{m\in{\mathcal{B}}} { \!\!\! (\widetilde{\mathbf{A}}^{-1})_{\widetilde{n}^{\!*}m} \Delta\!'\! \widetilde{A}_{m}^{i}}| },
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}=I-\widetilde{H}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})$ and ${\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}}=\widetilde{\mathbf{A}}^{-1} \widetilde{\mathbf{N}}^{*}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Delta_A_2_down}
\Delta\!'\! \widetilde{A}_{m}^{i}=
\begin{cases}
- {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m=b_i, \\
- \frac{{h_{i b_i}}}{{h_{i m}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}}, & \mathrm{if\ } m\neq b_i.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, MESPA may be revised to obtain the new JPAC algorithm (**Algorithm 2**).\
**Initialization:**
This is same as the initialization phase of **MESPA**
**Admission Control:**
For the uplink case, calculate $\mathbf{A\!=\!I \! - \! H}({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})$ from and ${\boldsymbol{\Phi}}=\mathbf{A}^{-1} \mathbf{N}$ and for the downlink case, calculate $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}\!=\! I \! - \! \widetilde{H}}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})$ from and ${\boldsymbol{\Phi}}=\widetilde{\mathbf{A}}^{-1} \widetilde{\mathbf{N}}^{*}$.
**Power Calculation:**
This is same as the power calculation phase of **MESPA**.
Complexity Analysis of the Proposed Algorithms
----------------------------------------------
We consider the worst-case complexity of the algorithms where all users are removed from the set of active users. First note that in the calculation of ${\boldsymbol{\Phi}}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}}$, the coefficients of $\mathbf{I-H({\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})}$ and $\mathbf{I-\widetilde{H}({\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}_{\!{\mathcal{A}}})}$ may be computed once at the initialization phase with complexity of $O(M\!\times\! B)$ and updated for the next steps/iterations with complexity of $O(1)$. In MESPA, for feasibility checking, at each iteration of the removal process, we need matrix inversion $|{\mathcal{A}}|$ times. Since there could be at-most $M$ iterations, the overall complexity of MESPA is of $O(M\!\times\! B)+\sum_{|{\mathcal{A}}|=1}^{M}{|{\mathcal{A}}|O(B^3)}=O(M^2\!\times\! B^3)$. In MLSPA, we need only one matrix inversion at each of the removal iterations. Therefore, the complexity of MLSPA is obtained as $O(M\!\times\! B)+\sum_{|{\mathcal{A}}|=1}^{M}{O(B^3)}=O(M\!\times\! B^3)$.
Comparison Among the Proposed and Existing Algorithms
-----------------------------------------------------
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & & & & &\
& & & & **single-cell** & **multi-cell** &\
&
-------------------
iterative and not
predictable
-------------------
& $O(M_s B_p)$ &
----------------------------------------------
$O\big(M_s(M_s^2 + M_s B_p$ + compl. of
feas. checking of low-priority users $\big)$
+ compl. of calculating ITLs
----------------------------------------------
& & & 2\
& $O(M_s^3)$ & $O(M_s B_p)$ &
-------------------------------
$O(M_s^3(M_s^3 + M_s B_p))$ +
compl. of calculating ITLs
-------------------------------
& & & 2\
& $O(M_s^3)$ & $O(M_s B_p)$ &
-----------------------------
$O(M_s(M_s^3 + M_s B_p))$ +
compl. of calculating ITLs
-----------------------------
& & & 2\
& $O(M_s^3)$ & $O(M_s B_p)$ &
---------------------------------
higher than $O(M_s^2(M_s+B_p))$
+ compl. of calculating ITLs
---------------------------------
& & & 2\
& & $O(M_s^2)$ & & & 2\
& & $O(M_s \log(M_s))$ & & & 2\
& MESPA & & $O(M^2 B^3)$ & & & $K\geq 1$\
& MLSPA & & $O(M B^3)$ & & & $K\geq 1$\
\[tbl:comparison\_of\_algorithms\]
Table \[tbl:comparison\_of\_algorithms\] shows the main features of our proposed algorithms compared with those of the most well-known JPAC algorithms for two-tier prioritized cellular networks (i.e., cognitive radio networks), namely, ISMIRA [@ISMIRA], CIGSA, and CPCSA [@JPAC_by_color_graph], LGRA [@LGRA], and ESRPA and ELGRA [@monemi_ESRPA][^6]. In the process of checking whether a subset of admitted low-priority users (i.e., SUs) guarantee the protection of all high-priority users (i.e., PUs), it is assumed in ISMIRA, CIGSA, CPCSA and LGRA that the interference imposed from SUs to each primary BS must be kept under a constant value known as the interference temperature limit (ITL) of that BS. The complexity of checking this is of $O(M_s)$ for each primary BS and of $O(B_p M_s)$ for all primary BSs at each iteration of the removal process, where $M_s$ and $B_p$ denote the total number of SUs and the total number of primary BSs, respectively. This together with the complexity of the calculation of the ITLs is integrated into the total complexity of the aforementioned algorithms.
Note that the complexity of ESRPA and ELGRA are much less than that of ISMIRA, CIGSA, CPCSA, and LGRA, but they are designed based on the single-cell model for PRN and CRN and they do not apply to multi-cell primary and secondary networks as other algorithms do. It is seen that the complexities of our proposed algorithms are far below those of others for multi-cell wireless networks. Besides, all algorithms other than ours only work for two-tier cognitive radio networks while both MESPA and MLSPA work for single-tier, two-tier, and prioritized multi-tier networks.
Performance Results and Discussions {#sec:performance_evaluation_results}
===================================
In this section, we first show the performances of our proposed algorithms for downlink communication scenario in a network consisting of three tiers and then present numerical results to evaluate the performance of our proposed algorithms for the uplink power control scenario in two-tier cognitive radio networks as compared to the well-known existing uplink JPAC algorithms, namely, ISMIRA [@ISMIRA] and LGRA [@LGRA].
For all the following simulation scenarios, the noise power level at the receivers of all links is assumed to be $5\times{10}^{-13}$ Watts and the carrier frequency is 1.9 GHz. The path-gain of the links are considered to be obtained from the statistical path-loss and fading model [@path_loss_model1] where we set the path-loss exponent to 3 and consider different values for the standard deviation of log-normal shadowing for different simulation scenarios. Note that in the simulations we use normalized values of the SINRs. The actual SINR of each user is its normalized SINR multiplied by the processing gain. For example, if the processing gain is equal to 100, the actual SINR is 20 dB higher than the normalized SINR.
![The three-tier network structure to show the performance of our proposed algorithms in the downlink communication scenario, consisting two macrocells (tier 1), several picocells (tier 2), and several femtocells (tier 3).[]{data-label="fig:downlink_sim_structure"}](pictures/structure/downlink_sim_structure.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
Downlink Scenario for a Three-tier Network
------------------------------------------
To show the performance of our proposed algorithms in multi-tier downlink communication scenario, we consider a three-tier wireless network as shown in Fig. \[fig:downlink\_sim\_structure\] in which there exist two rectangular 1000m $\times$ 1000m macrocells (tier 1), together with several circular picocells (tier 2) each having a radius of 100m and several square-like femtocells (tier 3) each having the dimensions of 20m $\times$ 20m located inside the coverage area of the two macrocells. The BSs of the two macrocells are located at a distance of $d$ m according to the figure. The BSs of the picocells and femtocells together with all users of the macrocells, picocells and femtocells are randomly located inside the corresponding coverage areas according to homogeneous *Poisson Point Processes* (PPPs) with different intensities. The BS of each femtocell and picocell is located at the centre of the corresponding cell. We have considered $d=300$m, the heights of the macrocell, picocell, and femtocell BSs are 20m, 20m, and 0m, respectively, and the maximum allowed transmit power of the macrocell, picocell, and femtocell BSs are considered to be 50W, 0.5W, and 0.1W, respectively. We also assume that the admission of the macrocell, picocell, and femtocell users has the highest, medium, and lowest priority, respectively. To consider the fading effect of outdoor-to-indoor and indoor-to-outdoor propagations, the standard deviation of log-normal fading is considered to be 6 dB for all links whose one side is within a femtocell and the other side is in some picocell or macrocell. The standard deviation of fading for all other links is considered to be 4 dB.
![The outage ratio for each tier versus total number of users of the network for a single snapshot of the downlink three-tier communication for the network according to Fig. \[fig:downlink\_sim\_structure\].[]{data-label="fig:downlink_performance_single_snapshot"}](pictures/downlink/downlink_performance_single_snapshot.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
Figs. \[fig:downlink\_performance\_single\_snapshot\] and \[fig:downlink\_performance\_multiple\_snapshots\] show the performances of our proposed algorithms in terms of outage ratio of users for a single snapshot and average outage ratio of users for 750 independent snapshots, respectively, versus average total number of users. The outage ratio for each tier at each snapshot is calculated as the ratio of the number of users in that tier who have been admitted and provided with their target-SINRs and the total number of users of that tier. To obtain the results, we assume that there exist an average of 10, 2, and 2 users initially distributed (according to PPP) in each cell of the tiers 1, 2, and 3, respectively (initially an average of 10, 12, and 20 users in tiers 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Then, at each step, an average of 2 users are added to each of the tiers (i.e., an average of 6 users are added to the network) according to PPP inside some of the cells in the corresponding tier. It is seen from Fig. \[fig:downlink\_performance\_single\_snapshot\] that the priority constraints are satisfied by considering that in both MESPA and MLSPA and for each of the total number of users, if the outage of the users of some tier is higher than zero and less than unity, then the outage ratio of tiers of higher and lower priorities are zero and unity, respectively. It is also seen from Fig. \[fig:downlink\_performance\_multiple\_snapshots\] that, for both MESPA and MLSPA, the average outage ratio of users associated with a higher priority tier is less than that of users associated with lower priority tiers. Besides, as seen in both Figs. \[fig:downlink\_performance\_single\_snapshot\] and \[fig:downlink\_performance\_multiple\_snapshots\], MESPA slightly outperforms MLSPA in terms of outage ratio.
![The average outage ratio for each network tier versus total number of users of the network for 750 independent snapshots of the downlink three-tier communication for the network according to Fig. \[fig:downlink\_sim\_structure\].[]{data-label="fig:downlink_performance_multiple_snapshots"}](pictures/downlink/downlink_performance_multiple_snapshots.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
Uplink Scenarios for Two-tier Networks
--------------------------------------
\
\[fig:sim\_Topology\]
To compare MESPA and MLSPA with the existing JPAC algorithms for uplink two-tier networks (e.g., a network of cognitive radios), we consider three scenarios. In the first two scenarios, we consider two networks each with the area of 1000m $\times$ 1000m. Each of the networks consists of a primary network (PRN) with 2 primary base stations (PBSs) and a CRN with two secondary base stations (SBSs) according to Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b). In the third scenario, we consider a 7-cell hexagonal network as shown in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c) in which there exist 4 primary cells (cells 1, 3, 5, and 7) and 3 secondary cells (cells 2, 4, and 6). In Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a), all PUs and SUs are randomly spread in the whole coverage area of the network and in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c) all PUs and SUs are randomly located in the area closer to their serving BSs. We have considered $d=150$m in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and the radius of each hexagonal cell to be $600$m in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c). The heights of all BSs are considered to be 20 m and the maximum allowed transmit power to be $0.1$W for all users. In all the simulations, we assume that there exist an average of 8 PUs distributed in each cell according to a PPP (an average of 16 PUs in the networks shown in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and average of 32 PUs in the network shown in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c)). We evaluate the performances of our proposed algorithms in terms of average outage ratio for the low-priority users (e.g., SUs). The standard deviation of log-normal fading is assumed to be 4 dB for all links. All the results for all of the following simulation scenarios are obtained by averaging over 2500 independent snapshots.
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_4cell1_versus_SUs"}](pictures/versus_noof_SUs/SUs_outage_4cell1.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
### Performance under varying number of low-priority users
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_4cell2_versus_SUs"}](pictures/versus_noof_SUs/SUs_outage_4cell2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_Hex_versus_SUs"}](pictures/versus_noof_SUs/SUs_outage_Hex.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
Consider the case where different number of SUs are distributed according to PPP in each of the cells of the CRN. The average number of SUs in each cell varies from 6 to 12 with the step-size of one SU (average total of 12 to 24 SUs with the step size of 2 SUs in the 4-cell network shown in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and average total of 18 to 36 SUs with the step size of 3 SUs in the network shown in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c)). We consider that the target-SINR for each user is randomly chosen from the set $\{-16, -22\}$ dB for the 4-cell network shown in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a), and from the set $\{-10, -16\}$ dB for the networks shown in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c). Figs. \[fig:SUs\_outage\_4cell1\_versus\_SUs\], \[fig:SUs\_outage\_4cell2\_versus\_SUs\], and \[fig:SUs\_outage\_Hex\_versus\_SUs\] show the average outage ratio of SUs for the networks shown in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a), \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c), respectively. In addition to the lower computational complexity of MESPA and MLSPA as shown in Table \[tbl:comparison\_of\_algorithms\], from all of these figures it is observed that, with these algorithms, a higher average number of SUs can be supported when compared with ISMIRA and LGRA, for all values of total number of SUs in all the scenarios. It is also seen that MESPA offers a slightly superior performance when compared with MLSPA at the cost of a higher computational complexity.
### Performance under varying target-SINR of users
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_4cell1_versus_gamma"}](pictures/versus_gamma/SUs_outage_4cell1.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_4cell2_versus_gamma"}](pictures/versus_gamma/SUs_outage_4cell2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_Hex_versus_gamma"}](pictures/versus_gamma/SUs_outage_Hex.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
To show how the performances of the algorithms are affected by different values of the target-SINRs of the users, we consider the case where there exist an average of 8 SUs distributed (according to PPP) in each cell (average of 16 SUs in the networks according to Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and average of 24 SUs in the network according to Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c)). We consider that the target-SINR of each user (PU or SU) is randomly chosen from the set of $\{\gamma, \gamma-6\}$ dB in all scenarios for all algorithms. Here $\gamma$ varies from -18 to -12 dB with the step size of 1 dB for the network in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a), and varies from -14 to -8 dB with the step size of 1 dB for the networks in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c). Figs. \[fig:SUs\_outage\_4cell1\_versus\_gamma\], \[fig:SUs\_outage\_4cell2\_versus\_gamma\], and \[fig:SUs\_outage\_Hex\_versus\_gamma\] show the average outage ratio of SUs of the networks in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a), \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c), respectively. It is observed that our proposed algorithms offer a lower average outage ratio for the SUs in comparison to that for ISMIRA and LGRA for all values of $\gamma$.
### Performance under varying standard deviation of shadow fading
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_4cell1_versus_fading"}](pictures/versus_fading/SUs_outage_4cell1.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_4cell2_versus_fading"}](pictures/versus_fading/SUs_outage_4cell2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
.[]{data-label="fig:SUs_outage_Hex_versus_fading"}](pictures/versus_fading/SUs_outage_Hex.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
Finally, the effect of different values of the standard deviation of log-normal fading is studied. As in the previous scenario, we consider the case where there exist an average of 8 SUs distributed according to PPP in each cell (average of 16 SUs in the networks shown in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and average of 24 SUs in the network shown in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c)). We consider that the target-SINR for each user is randomly chosen from the set $\{-16, -22\}$ dB for the 4-cell network shown in Fig. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a), and from the set $\{-10, -16\}$ dB for the networks shown in Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b) and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c). Figs. \[fig:SUs\_outage\_4cell1\_versus\_fading\], \[fig:SUs\_outage\_4cell2\_versus\_fading\], and \[fig:SUs\_outage\_Hex\_versus\_fading\] show the average outage ratio of the SUs for the networks scenarios according to Figs. \[fig:sim\_Topology\](a), \[fig:sim\_Topology\](b), and \[fig:sim\_Topology\](c), respectively, versus different values of the standard deviation of log-normal fading varying from 0 to 6 dB with the step size of 1 dB. It is seen that as the standard deviation of the fading increases, all algorithms show higher average outage ratio. Besides, the performances of our proposed algorithms are always better than those of ISMIRA and LGRA.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusions}
==========
We have studied the problem of obtaining the maximum feasible set of users in prioritized multi-tier infrastructure-based cellular networks. We have first obtained a simple relationship between a given SINR vector and its corresponding uplink/downlink power vector based on which we have devised two novel JPAC algorithms for underlay cellular wireless networks. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed algorithms are the first JPAC algorithms for prioritized multi-tier cellular networks in the literature supporting more than two priority levels. The complexities of our proposed algorithms are much lower than those of existing algorithms. Numerical results show that, when compared to existing algorithms, our proposed algorithms support higher number of users with their QoS requirements by considering the priority constraints. The effects of channel gain uncertainties on the performances of the proposed JPAC algorithms and development of robust JPAC algorithms for prioritized multi-tier cellular networks will be considered in our future work.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:2\] {#apx:1}
===============================
Let $\Phi_{b_i}$ be the total received power plus noise at the BS serving user $i$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi_i}
\Phi_{b_i}=\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}}{\!\!{h_{b_i j}} p_j} \! + {N_{b_i}}.
\end{aligned}$$ From and , we have $$\label{eq:11}
{\gamma_i}=
\dfrac {{h_{b_i i}} p_i}
{\Phi_{b_i}-{h_{b_i i}} p_i}, \ \forall i\in{\mathcal{M}}.$$ This results in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pi_versus_phi}
p_i= {\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}} \dfrac{\Phi_{b_i}}{{h_{b_i i}}}. \end{aligned}$$ From , for each $m,n\in{\mathcal{B}}$, the following is obtained: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:22}
\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{p_i {h_{m i}}} = \Phi_{n} \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\frac{{h_{m i}}}{{h_{n i}}}{\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ By letting $m=n$ and adding $\sum_{i\notin{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\!\!p_i {h_{m i}}}+N_{m}$ to both sides of , $\Phi_{m}$ is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:23}
\Phi_{m}
= & \frac{\sum\limits_{i\notin{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} {\!\!\!\big(p_i {h_{m i}} \big)} + N_{m}} {1- \! \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}\!\!\! \left({\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}\right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ From and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:24}
\Phi_{m}
= & \dfrac{\sum\limits_{\substack{n\in{\mathcal{B}}\\ n\neq m}} \ \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}}} {\!\!\!\big(p_i {h_{m i}} \big)} + N_{m}} {1- \! \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}\!\!\! \left({\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}\right)} \nonumber \\
= &
\frac{\sum\limits_{\substack{n\in{\mathcal{B}}\\ n\neq m}} \ \Phi_{n} \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{ \frac{{h_{m i}}}{{h_{n i}}}{\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}} + N_{m}} {1- \! \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}\!\!\! \left({\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}\right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ This results in $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:25}
\Phi_{m} \left( 1- \! \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}\!\!\! \left({\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}\right) \right) -
\sum\limits_{\substack{n\in{\mathcal{B}}\\ n\neq m}} \ \Phi_{n} \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_n^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{ \dfrac{{h_{m i}}}{{h_{n i}}}{\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{i}+1}}}
\\ = N_{m},\ \ \ \ m=1,2,...,B.
\end{gathered}$$ Writing in matrix form results in .
Proof of Proposition \[prop:3\] {#apx:2}
===============================
Let ${\widetilde{\Phi}}_{i}$ be the total received power plus noise at user $i$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi_i_down}
{\widetilde{\Phi}}_{i} &=\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}} p_j} \! + {\widetilde{N}_{i}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Similar to , from we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pidown_versus_phi}
{\widetilde{p}}_i= \dfrac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_i}{({\widetilde{\gamma}}_i+1)} \dfrac{{\widetilde{\Phi}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}}, \ \ \ \forall i\in{\mathcal{M}}.
\end{aligned}$$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi_i_down_sum_P}
{\widetilde{\Phi}}_{i} &=\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}} p_j} \! + {\widetilde{N}_{i}} \nonumber \\
&= \sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}_1}{\!\!\! {\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}} p_j} +
\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}_2}{\!\!\!{\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}} p_j} + \dots +
\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}_B}{\!\!\!{\widetilde{h}_{i b_j}} p_j} + {\widetilde{N}_{i}} \nonumber \\
&= {\widetilde{h}_{i 1}}\!\!\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}_1}{\!\! p_j} +
{\widetilde{h}_{i 2}}\!\!\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}_2}{\!\! p_j} + \dots +
{\widetilde{h}_{i B}}\!\!\sum\limits_{j\in{\mathcal{M}}_B}{\!\! p_j} + {\widetilde{N}_{i}} \nonumber \\
&= \sum\limits_{n\in{\mathcal{B}}} {\widetilde{h}_{i n}}{\widetilde{P}}_n + {\widetilde{N}_{i}}.
\end{aligned}$$ From and , for each $i\in{\mathcal{M}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pidown_versus_Pdown}
{\widetilde{p}}_i= \frac{1}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} \times \left( \sum\limits_{n\in{\mathcal{B}}}{ {\widetilde{h}_{i n}}{\widetilde{P}}_n } + {\widetilde{N}_{i}} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ For any $m\in{\mathcal{B}}$, summing the two parts of over all $i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}$ results in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pidown_versus_Pdown_sum}
\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \! {\widetilde{p}}_i
&= \! \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}
{ \sum\limits_{n\in{\mathcal{B}}} \dfrac{{\widetilde{h}_{i n}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} {\widetilde{P}}_n
} + \!\!
\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \! \! \frac{1}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} {\widetilde{N}_{i}}
\nonumber \\
&= \! \sum\limits_{n\in{\mathcal{B}}}
{ {\widetilde{P}}_n \left( \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \dfrac{{\widetilde{h}_{i n}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} \right)
} \!\! + \!\!
\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \!\! \frac{1}{{\widetilde{h}_{i b_i}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} {\widetilde{N}_{i}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:pidown_versus_Pdown_sum2}
{\widetilde{P}}_m = \sum\limits_{\substack{n\in{\mathcal{B}}\\ n\neq m}}
{ {\widetilde{P}}_n \!\! \left( \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \dfrac{{\widetilde{h}_{i n}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i m}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} \right)}
+{\widetilde{P}}_m \!\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \!{\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}}
\\
+
\!\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \!\!\!\ \frac{1}{{\widetilde{h}_{i m}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}}{\widetilde{N}_{i}},
\end{gathered}$$ and thus $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:pidown_versus_Pdown_sum3}
{\widetilde{P}}_m \left( 1 \!- \!\!\!\sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}}{\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} \!\!\right)
- \sum\limits_{\substack{n\in{\mathcal{B}}\\ n\neq m}}
{ {\widetilde{P}}_n \left( \sum\limits_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \dfrac{{\widetilde{h}_{i n}}}{{\widetilde{h}_{i m}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}} \right)}
= \\
\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{M}}_m^{{\mathcal{B}}}} \!\! \frac{1}{{\widetilde{h}_{i m}}} {\frac{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}}{{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{i}+1}}{\widetilde{N}_{i}}.
\end{gathered}$$ Writing in matrix form results in .
[Mehdi Monemi]{} received the B.Sc., M.Sc. degrees all in electrical and computer engineering from Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran, and Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran, in 2001 and 2003, respectively. He has recently received Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering from Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. His current research interests include resource allocation in wireless networks, and traffic engineering in computer networks.
[Mehdi Rasti]{} (S’08-M’11) received his B.Sc. degree from Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees both from Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran, all in Electrical Engineering in 2001, 2003 and 2009, respectively. From November 2007 to November 2008, he was a visiting researcher at the Wireless@KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. From September 2010 to July 2012 he was with Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Iran, after that he joined the Department of Computer Engineering and Information Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, where he is now an assistant professor. From June 2013 to August 2013, and from July 2014 to August 2014 he was a visiting researcher in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. His current research interests include radio resource allocation in wireless networks and network security.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\] [Ekram Hossain]{} (F’15) is a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. He received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from University of Victoria, Canada, in 2001. Dr. Hossain’s current research interests include design, analysis, and optimization of wireless/mobile communications networks, cognitive radio systems, and network economics. He has authored/edited several books in these areas (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/$\sim$hossaina). He was elevated to an IEEE Fellow “for contributions to spectrum management and resource allocation in cognitive and cellular radio networks". Dr. Hossain has won several research awards including the IEEE Communications Society Transmission, Access, and Optical Systems (TAOS) Technical Committee’s Best Paper Award in IEEE Globecom 2015, University of Manitoba Merit Award in 2010 and 2014 (for Research and Scholarly Activities), the 2011 IEEE Communications Society Fred Ellersick Prize Paper Award, and the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference 2012 (WCNC’12) Best Paper Award. He is a Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Communications Society (2012-2015). He is a registered Professional Engineer in the province of Manitoba, Canada.
[^1]: M. Monemi is with the Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Neyriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Neyriz, Iran (email: m\[email protected]). M. Rasti is with the Dept. of Computer Engineering and Information Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (email: [email protected]). E. Hossain is with the Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Manitoba, Canada (email: [email protected]).
[^2]: The complexity of any iterative algorithm is related to the number of iterations required for that algorithm to converge. However, this is not known in advance or may not easily be calculated for iterative power control algorithms due to the variety of parameters that affect the convergence time of these algorithms. For example, path-gains for all users, noise powers, target-SINR values and even the precision of the convergence error affect the convergence time.
[^3]: In a general radio transmission scenario (which includes spread-spectrum transmission), the actual SINR for each user is the normalized SINR multiplied by the processing gain.
[^4]: The proposed admission control method is for service types for which a minimum acceptable target-SINR (or equivalently, target-data-rate) must be satisfied for all active users in the system.
[^5]: A minimal power vector is the one among feasible power vectors that is not greater (component-wise) than any other feasible power vector.
[^6]: ISMIRA [@ISMIRA] and LGRA [@LGRA] are two well-known power control algorithms for CRNs against which most of the existing works are compared. CIGSA and CPCSA [@JPAC_by_color_graph] are two power control algorithms whose removal metrics are devised based on the theory of graph coloring and have been shown to offer good performance. ESRPA and ELGRA [@monemi_ESRPA] algorithms are computationally very efficient; however, they consider only one primary BS and one cognitive BS.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the possibility of charged pion condensation in the presence of parallel rotation and magnetic field within the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with quarks as the fundamental degrees of freedom. Previous study based on non-interacting Klein-Gordon theory for pions showed that the charged pions will undergo Bose-Einstein condensation under this circumstance \[Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**120**]{}, 032001 (2018)\]. In this work, we take into account the internal quark structures of charged pions self-consistently through quark polarization loops in an interacting theory, i.e., the Nambu–Jona-Lasino model. The stability of the system against the formation of charged pion condensation, i.e., a nonzero expectation value of the composite charged pion field $\bar{u}i\gamma_5d$, is explored. We find that two competing effects are induced by the rotation: the isospin enhancement which favors charged pion condensation and the spin breaking which disfavors the condensation. For a strong magnetic field ($\sqrt{eB}\sim1{\rm GeV}$) and system size of a few fermi, the isospin enhancement effect is stronger than the spin breaking one, and the charged pion condensation becomes energetically favored beyond a critical angular velocity of a few MeV.'
author:
- 'Gaoqing Cao$^1$ and Lianyi He$^{2}$'
title: |
Rotation induced charged pion condensation in a strong magnetic field:\
A Nambu–Jona-Lasino model study
---
Introduction
============
Relativistic heavy ion collisions are able to realize several extreme conditions ever found in our Universe: ultra-high temperature [@Adare:2008ab; @Wilde:2012wc], strong electromagnetic (EM) field [@Skokov:2009qp; @Deng:2012pc], and fast rotation [@Liang:2004ph; @STAR:2017ckg; @Becattini:2016gvu]. The properties of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) at ultra-high temperature, i.e., the quark-gluon plasma, can be experimentally studied in central collisions [@Adler:2004zn; @Aamodt:2010cz]. On the other hand, it has been noticed in recent years that strong EM field and fast rotation can be realized in peripheral collisions where large electric charges of the spectators and angular momentum are involved [@Bloczynski:2012en; @Deng:2016yru; @Karpenko:2016jyx; @Niida:2018hfw; @Guo:2019joy]. However, the properties of QCD matter at strong EM field and fast rotation are quite mysterious, including several unsolved problems such as the inverse magnetic catalysis effect [@Bali:2011qj; @Bali:2012zg] and the “sign puzzles” of the local polarizations of $\Lambda$ hyperon [@Niida:2018hfw; @Becattini:2017gcx; @Xia:2018tes; @Becattini:2019ntv; @Xia:2019fjf]. Moreover, at high enough temperature where the chiral symmetry is restored and the quarks become almost massless, the QCD matter shows intriguing features at strong EM field and fast rotation induced by the quantum anomaly of chiral fermions, such as the chiral magnetic effect and the chiral vortical effect [@Liao:2014ava; @Kharzeev:2015znc; @Huang:2015oca].
In this work, we focus on QCD matter in a specific circumstance with parallel rotation and magnetic field (PRM), for which there are already several interesting findings. The effect of PRM on the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking was studied in [@Chen:2015hfc]. It shows that the rotation plays the same role as the baryon chemical potential and thus leads to chiral symmetry restoration even in a strong magnetic field. The transport properties of chiral fermions in PRM was investigated in [@Hattori:2016njk]. It was found that in the lowest Landau level (LLL) approximation, PRM would induce axial current along the direction of the magnetic field or angular velocity, i.e., the so called “anomalous magnetovorticity effect". While these studies were based on theories with quarks as elementary degrees of freedom, another exploration based on theories with mesons (or explicitly pions) as elementary degrees of freedom [@Liu:2017spl] found that charged pion condensation (CPC) forms at sufficiently fast rotation, due to the energy splitting of $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ mesons under PRM.
Although it is very interesting to explore the interplay among the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, the charged pion condensation, and the magnetovorticity effect under PRM, this work is devoted to study the possibility of CPC based on an interacting chiral effective model with quarks as elementary degrees of freedom, i.e., the Nambu–Jona-Lasino (NJL) model [@Nambu:1961tp; @Nambu:1961fr; @Klevansky:1992qe]. It is known that in a strong magnetic field, even the neutral pion is strongly influenced through its internal quark structure [@Bali:2017ian; @Wang:2017vtn; @Mao:2018dqe; @Liu:2018zag; @Cao:2019res]. However, previous study based on non-interacting Klein-Gordon theory of charged pions ignored their internal quark structures [@Liu:2017spl]. Therefore, it is necessary to check the possibility of CPC induced by PRM using an interacting theory with quarks as elementary degrees of freedom. Our motivation is as follows. We take $\pi^+=\bar{d}i\gamma^5u$ for example. Applying a magnetic field will align both the spins of $u$ and anti-$d$ quarks along its direction because both quarks have positive charges. If we further turn on a parallel rotation in the system, the situation does not change. Finally, we would expect the total spin of $u$ and anti-$d$ quarks to be $1$ because of the polarization effect, which contradicts with the pseudoscalar nature of $\pi^+$. According to this spin breaking picture, we may conclude that CPC is not favored in PRM, similar to the pure magnetic field case [@Cao:2015xja].
The CPC was previously predicted to the ground state of QCD at finite isospin density, when the isospin chemical potential becomes larger than the vacuum pion mass [@Son2001; @Cohen:2003kd; @Barducci2004; @Loewe2004; @He2005; @He2006; @Ebert2006; @Zhang2007; @Andersen2007; @Carignano2017; @Brandt2018]. With increasing isospin density, the system undergoes a crossover from a Bose-Einstein condensation of charged pions to a Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superfluid of Cooper pairs of quarks and anti-quarks [@He2006]. The effect of a magnetic field on the CPC at finite isospin density was also studied within the NJL model [@Cao:2015xja], Lattice QCD simulation [@Endrodi:2014lja], linear sigma model [@Loewe:2013coa], and Klein-Gordon theory [@Ayala:2016awt]. It was shown that the critical temperature of CPC increases with increasing magnetic field at a given isospin density [@Loewe:2013coa; @Ayala:2016awt]. Besides, the chiral soliton lattice, an inhomogeneous state of neutral pion condensation was predicted in the chiral perturbation theory at finite baryon chemical potential with magnetic field [@Brauner:2016pko]. However, it was shown to be unstable to CPC at large magnetic field or baryon chemical potential [@Brauner:2016pko].
In this work, we focus on the possibility of CPC induced by rotation in a strong magnetic field. In addition to the spin breaking effect in a magnetic field, the rotation will play the role of an effective isospin chemical potential, which favors the CPC. We study the stability of the system against the formation of CPC, i.e., a nonzero expectation value of the composite charged pion field $\bar{u}i\gamma_5d$. We show that in the presence of PRM, there exist two competing effects: the isospin enhancement which favors charged pion condensation and the spin breaking which disfavors the condensation. For a strong magnetic field ($\sqrt{eB}\sim1{\rm GeV}$) and system size of a few fermi, the isospin enhancement effect is stronger than the spin breaking one. We find that the charged pion condensation becomes energetically favored beyond a critical angular velocity of a few MeV, much smaller than the energy scale of the magnetic field.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\[model\], we present the NJL model in rotating frame with a parallel magnetic field, construct the quark propagator and then obtain the gap equation for the dynamical quark mass. In Sec.\[numerical\], the stability of the QCD system against CPC is studied via a Ginzburg-Landau-like approach and the numerical results are illuminated. We summarize in Sec.\[conclusions\]. The natural units $c=\hbar=k_{\rm B}=1$ is used throughout.
Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model in rotating frame {#model}
==========================================
In order to explore the influence of the internal structures of pions on the formation of charged pion condensation, we adopt the two-flavor NJL model with $u$ and $d$ quarks as the fundamental degrees of freedom [@Klevansky:1992qe]. We consider a system under the circumstance of a global rotation with angular velocity $\boldsymbol{\Omega}=\Omega\hat{z}$ and a constant parallel magnetic field ${\bf B}=B\hat{z}$. In the rotating frame, the action of the system can be conveniently given in curved spacetime by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}=\int d^4x \sqrt{-\det(g_{\mu\nu})}{\cal L}(\bar{\psi},\psi),\end{aligned}$$ where the Lagrangian density is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lcv}
{\cal L}&=&\bar\psi\left[i\gamma^\mu(D_\mu\!+\!\Gamma_\mu)\!-\!m_0\right]\psi\!+{\cal L}_{\rm int}\nonumber\\
{\cal L}_{\rm int}&=&\!G\left[(\bar\psi\psi)^2\!+\!(\bar\psi i\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath{$\tau$}}\psi)^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here $\psi=(u,d)^{\rm T}$ represents the two-flavor quark field, $m_0$ is the current quark mass, $G$ is the coupling constant, $\tau_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are the Pauli matrices in the flavor space, and $$\begin{aligned}
D_\mu=\partial_\mu+i\hat{q}A_\mu\end{aligned}$$ is the covariant derivative, with the electric charge matrix $\hat{q}={\rm diag}(q_u,q_d)$ and the vector potential $A_\mu$ presenting EM field in curved spacetime.
The rotating frame is characterized by the spacetime metric given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gcv}
g_{\mu\nu}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1-(x^2+y^2)\Omega^2&y\Omega&-x\Omega&0\\
y\Omega&-1&0&0\\
-x\Omega&0&-1&0\\
0&0&0&-1
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ then $\det(g_{\mu\nu})=-1$. The coupling to spin is presented by the affine connection $\Gamma_\mu$ which is defined in terms of the spin connection $\omega_{\mu ij}$ and the vierbein $e_{i}^\mu$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gammacv}
&&\Gamma_\mu=-{i\over4}\omega_{\mu ij}\sigma^{ij}, \nonumber\\
&&\omega_{\mu ij}=g_{\alpha\beta}e^\alpha_i\left(\partial_\mu e^\beta_j+\Gamma^\beta_{\mu\nu}e^\nu_j\right),\nonumber\\
&&\sigma^{ij}=\frac{i}{2}\left[\gamma^i,\gamma^j\right].\end{aligned}$$ The Greek and Latin letters denote the indices in coordinate and tangent spaces, respectively, and $\Gamma^\beta_{\mu\nu}$ is the Christoffel symbol related to the derivatives of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ with respect to the coordinates. In the following, we can choose $e_0^t=e_1^x=e_2^y=e_3^z=1$, $e_0^x=y\Omega$, $e_0^y=-x\Omega$, and other components are zero [@Jiang:2016wvv].
The symmetric gauge will be chosen for the vector potential in the inertial frame, that is $A_i=(0,By/2,-Bx/2,0)$, which just results in ${\bf B}=B\hat{z}$. By substituting Eq.(\[gcv\]) and (\[gammacv\]) into Eq.(\[Lcv\]), we eventually obtain [@Chen:2015hfc]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NJL}
{\cal L}&=&\bar\psi\Big\{\gamma^0\left[i\partial_t+\Omega \left(\hat{L}_z+\hat{S}_z\right)\right]+i\gamma^1D_x+i\gamma^2D_y \nonumber\\
&&+\ i\gamma^3\partial_z-m_0\Big\}\psi+{\cal L}_{\rm int},
\end{aligned}$$ with the orbital angular momentum operator $\hat{L}_z\equiv-i(x\partial_y-y\partial_x)$ and the spin operator $\hat{S}_z\equiv \sigma^{12}/2$. We have defined $D_x=\partial_x+i\hat{q}By/2$ and $D_y=\partial_y-i\hat{q}Bx/2$ for convenience. Note that in the rotating frame, the vector potential is given by $A_\mu=A_ie_\mu^i=(-B\Omega r^2/2,By/2,-Bx/2,0)$, which leads to an electric field. However, $A_0=-B\Omega r^2/2$ does not appear in Eq.(\[NJL\]) because the gamma matrix $\gamma^0=\gamma^i e_i^t$ cancels it out [@Chen:2015hfc].
Fermion propagator {#propagator}
------------------
We first derive the fermion propagator under PRM background. To this end, we consider the one-flavor fermion with constant mass $m$ and electric charge $q$ for convenience. The Dirac equation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L1f}
&&\Big\{\gamma^0\left[i\partial_t+\Omega \left(\hat{L}_z+\hat{S}_z\right)\right]+i\gamma^1D_x+i\gamma^2D_y \nonumber\\
&&\ \ +\ i\gamma^3\partial_z-m\Big\}\psi=0.
\end{aligned}$$
Consider the case $qB>0$ first. Working in cylindrical coordinate system with $x=r\cos\theta$ and $y=r\sin\theta$, the solution of this Dirac equation with energy $E$ can be expressed as [@Chen:2015hfc] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\psi=e^{-i\, (E t-p_zz)}H_{n,l}(\theta,r)~u_{n,l}(p_z),\nonumber\\
&&H_{n,l}(\theta,r)={\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal P}_{\uparrow,\downarrow}={1\over2}(1\pm\sigma^{12})$ are the spin projectors, and the normalized wave function $\chi_{n,l}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)=\left[{qB\over2\pi}{ n!\over(n+l)!}\right]^{1\over2}{e^{i\, l\theta}}~\tilde{r}^le^{-\tilde{r}^2/2}L_n^l\left(\tilde{r}^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{r}^2=|qB|r^2/2$. The Laguerre polynomial $L_n^l(x)$ is nonvanishing only for $n\ge0$ and $l\in\left[-n,N-n\right]$, where the degeneracy factor $N$ for each Landau level reads $$\begin{aligned}
N=\left \lfloor \frac{qBS}{2\pi} \right \rfloor,\end{aligned}$$ with $S$ being the area of the $xy$-plane. Using the identity $$i\gamma^1D_x+i\gamma^2D_y=\left[{\cal P}_\downarrow(D_x+iD_y)-{\cal P}_\uparrow(D_x-iD_y)\right]\gamma^2$$ and the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_x=\cos\theta\,\partial_r-{\sin\theta\over r}\,\partial_\theta,\ \
\partial_y=\sin\theta\,\partial_r+{\cos\theta\over r}\,\partial_\theta,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(i\gamma^1D_x+i\gamma^2D_y\right)H_{n,l}(\theta,r)=-H_{n,l}(\theta,r)\gamma^2\sqrt{2n qB}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this result into the Dirac equation (\[L1f\]), we obtain the eigenvalue equation for $u_{n,l}(p_z)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\gamma^0\varepsilon^+-\gamma^3p_z-\gamma^2\sqrt{2n qB}-m\right)u_{n,l}(p_z)=0,\end{aligned}$$ with $\varepsilon^+\equiv E+\Omega \left(l+{1\over2}\right)$. One branch of solutions, corresponding to the positive-energy ones in the absence of magnetic field and rotation, can be expressed in a compact form as [@Peskin1995] $$\begin{aligned}
u_{n,l}^s(p_z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{p\cdot{\sigma}}\xi^s\\\sqrt{p\cdot\bar{\sigma}}\xi^s\end{array}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $s=\pm$, $p_\mu=(\varepsilon_n,0,\sqrt{2n qB},p_z)$ with $\varepsilon_n\equiv(2n qB+p_z^2+m^2)^{1/2}$, $\sigma^\mu=(1,\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}})$, and $\bar{\sigma}^\mu=(1,-\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}})$. The two-component spinors $\xi^\pm$ are given by $\xi^+=(1,0)^{\rm T}$ and $\xi^-=(0,1)^{\rm T}$.
With the solutions of the Dirac equation, we can construct the fermion Green’s function by following Ref. [@Cao:2014uva]. In the following, we use the notation $x= (t,r,\theta,z)$ for convenience. For $t>t^\prime$, the retarded Green’s function can be evaluated as
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm R}(x,x^\prime)&\equiv&\Theta(t-t^\prime)\langle0|\{\psi(x)\bar{\psi}(x^\prime)\}|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\!\sum_{n=0}^\infty\!\sum_l\!\!\!\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\!{dp_z\over2\pi}{1\over{2\varepsilon_n}}e^{-i\left[\varepsilon_n-\Omega \left(l+{1\over2}\right)\right](t-t^\prime)+ip_z(z-z^\prime)}
H_{n,l}(\theta,r)\left[\sum_{{\rm s}=\pm}u_{n,l}^s(p_z)u_{n,l}^{s\dagger}(p_z)\right]H_{n,l}^\dagger(\theta',r')\gamma^0\nonumber\\
&=&\!\sum_{n=0}^\infty\!\sum_l\!\!\!\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\!{dp_z\over2\pi}{e^{-i\left[\varepsilon_n-\Omega \left(l+{1\over2}\right)\right](t-t^\prime)+ip_z(z-z^\prime)}\over{2\varepsilon_n}}
\Bigg\{\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')\!+\!{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')\right]\nonumber\\
&&(\gamma^0\varepsilon_n-\gamma^3p_z+m)-\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')\right]\sqrt{2n qB}\gamma^2\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$
Accordingly, the Feynman Green’s function can be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{propogator}
S_{\rm F}(x,x')&\equiv&\langle0|{\rm T}\psi(x)\bar{\psi}(x^\prime)|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_l\int\int{dp_0dp_z\over(2\pi)^2}{i~e^{-ip_0(t-t^\prime)+ip_z(z-z^\prime)}\over\left({p}_0^{l+}\right)^2-\varepsilon_n^2+i\epsilon}
\Bigg\{\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')\right]\nonumber\\
&&\left(\gamma^0{p}_0^{l+}-\gamma^3p_z+m\right)-\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')\right]\sqrt{2n qB}\gamma^2\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$
with ${p}_0^{ls}=p_0+\Omega \left(l+s{1\over2}\right)$. It is easy to show that this propagator can be derived straightforwardly from the one in the absence of rotation ($\Omega=0$) by a coordinate shift $\theta\rightarrow\theta+\Omega t$ and including the spin-rotation coupling ${1\over2}\Omega$. The lowest Landau level (LLL) contribution comes from the term $\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')$ as should be.
The correctness of the above fermion propagator can be briefly checked in the vanishing rotation limit, where only the function $\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)$ and its conjugate depend on the orbital angular quantum number $l$. For the lowest Landau level with $n=0$, the summation over $l$ can be completed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L0}
&&\sum_{l=0}^\infty\chi_{0,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{0,l}^*(\theta',r')\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{l=0}^\infty{{qB}\over l!}{e^{i\,l(\theta-\theta')}\over2\pi}\left({qB\over2}rr'\right)^le^{-{qB\over4}(r^2+{r'}^2)}\nonumber\\
&=&{qB\over2\pi}e^{iq\int_x^{x'} A_\mu dx_\mu-{qB\over4}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'})^2}\end{aligned}$$ with the exponent in Schwinger phase $iq\int_x^{x'} A_\mu dx_\mu=i{qB\over2}\sin(\theta-\theta')rr'$. For the first Landau level with $n=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L1}
&&\sum_{l=-1}^\infty\chi_{1,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{1,l}^*(\theta',r')\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{l=-1}^\infty{{qB}\over (l+1)!}{\left(e^{i\,(\theta-\theta')}{qB\over2}rr'\right)^l\over2\pi ~e^{{qB\over4}(r^2+{r'}^2)}}L_1^{l}\left(\tilde{r}^2\right)L_1^{l}\left({\tilde{r}^{\prime2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&{qB\over2\pi}e^{iq\int_x^{x'} A_\mu dx_\mu-{qB\over4}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'})^2}\left[1-{qB\over2}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'})^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ We find that the summations over $l$ give the well-known Schwinger phase consistently. Apart from the Schwinger phase, by taking Fourier transformation of Eqs.(\[L0\]) and (\[L1\]), we can exactly reproduce the corresponding terms of the effective fermion propagator in Euclidean space [@Miransky:2015ava]. However, in the presence of rotation, the situation becomes quite different. Because $p_0^{l+}$ depends on $l$, the summation over $l$ does not give rise to a simple Schwinger phase. Therefore, the full propagator cannot be decomposed into a translation invariant part multiplying by a general Schwinger phase.
For the case $qB<0$, the solution can be obtained by making the replacements $H_{n,l}\rightarrow H_{n,l}^{-}$ and $\chi_{n,l}\rightarrow\chi_{n,l}^{-}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
&&H_{n,l}^{-}(\theta,r)=\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n-1,l-1}^{-}(\theta,r)+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n,l}^{-}(\theta,r)\right],\nonumber\\
&&\chi_{n,l}^{-}(\theta,r)=\left({|qB|\over2\pi}{ n!\over(n-l)!}\right)^{1\over2}{e^{i\, l\theta}}~\tilde{r}^{-l}e^{-\tilde{r}^2/2}L_n^{-l}\left(\tilde{r}^2\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here the Laguerre polynomial $L_n^{-l}(x)$ is nonvanishing only for $n\ge0$ and $-l\in\left[-n,N-n\right]$, with $N=\left \lfloor|qB|S/(2\pi) \right \rfloor$. The eigenvalue equation for $u_{n,l}(p_z)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\gamma^0\varepsilon^--\gamma^3p_z+\gamma^2\sqrt{2n |qB|}-m\right)u_{n,l}(p_z)=0\end{aligned}$$ with $\varepsilon^-\equiv E+\Omega \left(l-{1\over2}\right)$, which can be solved in a similar way as the case $qB>0$. The Feynman Green’s function is finally given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{qn}
S_{\rm F}(x,x')&=&\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_l\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0dp_z\over(2\pi)^2}{i~e^{-ip_0(t-t^\prime)+ip_z(z-z^\prime)}\over\left({p}_0^{l-}\right)^2-\varepsilon_n^2+i\epsilon}
\left\{\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n-1,l-1}^{-}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l-1}^{-*}(\theta',r')+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n,l}^{-}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^{-*}(\theta',r')\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left(\gamma^0{p}_0^{l-}-\gamma^3p_z+m\right)+\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n-1,l-1}^{-}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^{-*}(\theta',r')+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n,l}^{-}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l-1}^{-*}(\theta',r')\right]\sqrt{2n |qB|}\gamma^2\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Gap equation for dynamical quark mass {#gapcoefficient}
-------------------------------------
Now we investigate the dynamical quark mass induced by the four fermion interaction under the circumstance of PRM. Here we first consider the state with vanishing pion condensate, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VPC}
\langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle\neq0, \ \ \ \langle\bar{\psi}i\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath{$\tau$}}\psi\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$ In the mean-field approximation, the effective action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Actionm}
\Gamma_{\rm eff}(m)&=&\int d^4x\frac{(m-m_0)^2}{4G}\nonumber\\
&&-\ i\ln{\rm Det}\left[i\gamma^\mu(D_\mu\!+\!\Gamma_\mu)\!-\!m\right],\end{aligned}$$ where dynamical quark mass $m$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
m=m_0-2G\langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of rotation, the area $S$ of the $xy$-plane cannot be infinitely large. We set $S=\pi R^2$ with $R$ being the radius of the $xy$-plane, then causality requires that $\Omega R<1$. Due to the existence of a boundary $(r=R)$, the chiral condensate or the dynamical quark mass becomes generically inhomogeneous, i.e., $m=m(r)$. From the variational condition, $\delta \Gamma_{\rm eff}/\delta m=0$, we obtain the gap equation [@Wang:2019nhd] $$\begin{aligned}
m(r)-m_0=2G{\rm Tr} \left[S_{\rm F}(x,x)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Generalization to finite temperature is straightforward, by using the standard imaginary time formalism.
Considering the spatial dependence of the dynamical quark mass is rather complicated. For sufficiently large $R$, the inhomogeneity appears only in a narrow regime near the boundary $r=R$ [@Chen:2015hfc; @Wang:2019nhd; @NJL-Rotation01; @NJL-Rotation02; @NJL-Rotation03]. As a good approximation, we treat $m$ as a constant. The effective action and the gap equation can be conveniently evaluated. We employ a regularization scheme where the divergent vacuum part is explicitly separated out [@Cao:2015xja; @Cao:2014uva]. The gap equation at finite temperature is explicitly given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{gap}
{m-m_0\over 2GN_c}&=&{m^2\over\pi^2}\left[\Lambda\sqrt{1+{\Lambda^2\over m^2}}-m\ln\left({\Lambda\over m}
+\sqrt{1+{\Lambda^2\over m^2}}\right)\right]+\frac{m}{4\pi^2}\sum_{{\rm f}=u,d}\int_0^\infty{{\rm d}s\over s^{2}} e^{-sm^2}\left({q_{\rm f}Bs\over\tanh{q_{\rm f}Bs}}-1\right)\nonumber\\
&&-\ m\sum_{{\rm f}=u,d}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{1\over S}\sum_{l=0}^{N_{{\rm f}}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over\pi}{\alpha_n\over\varepsilon_{n{\rm f}}}
\Big[f(\varepsilon_{n{\rm f}}+\Omega_{nl})+f(\varepsilon_{n{\rm f}}-\Omega_{nl})\Big],
\label{masseqn1}
\end{aligned}$$
where $N_c=3$ is the color degree of freedom, $\Lambda$ is the three-momentum cutoff as in the vacuum case, $\alpha_n=(2-\delta_{n0})/2$, $\Omega_{nl}=\left(l-n+1/2\right)\Omega$, the cutoff for the $l$-sum is given by $N_{{\rm f}}=\left \lfloor|q_{\rm f}B|S/(2\pi) \right \rfloor$, and $f(E)=1/(e^{ E/T}+1)$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function with $T$ the temperature. For vanishing rotation $\Omega=0$, the $l$-sum ${1\over S}\sum_l$ in the last term just gives the well-known degeneracy factor $|q_{\rm f}B|/(2\pi)$. However, for nonzero rotation $\Omega\neq0$, states with different $l$ are no longer degenerate due to the quantity $\Omega_{nl}$ in the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, which acts like a baryon chemical potential. The $l$-sum is divergent if we take $R\rightarrow\infty$. Here we consider a finite-size cylindrical system, of which the radius satisfies $1/\sqrt{|q_{\rm f}B|}\ll R\leq 1/\Omega$ [@Chen:2015hfc].
For numerical calculations, we use the model parameter set: $m_0=5~$MeV, $\Lambda=653~$MeV, $G=4.93~$GeV$^{-2}$ and study the cases where the magnetic field is sufficiently strong: $eB=0.5~$GeV$^2$ and $eB=1~$GeV$^2$ for illuminations. In Fig. \[B05\](a) and Fig. \[B1\](a), we show the dependence of the dynamical mass $m$ on the angular velocity $\Omega$. In the calculations, we considered two values of the system size: $R_1=20/\sqrt{2eB}$ and $R_2=20/\sqrt{eB}$, which are of a few fermi. The results are qualitatively consistent with the findings in [@Chen:2015hfc]: The dynamical quark mass keeps a constant for small angular velocity and starts to decrease at a critical angular velocity $\Omega=\Omega_m$. For the magnetic field and system size we choose, $\Omega_m$ is of order $O({\rm MeV})$.
Stability against charged pion condensation {#numerical}
===========================================
In this section, we explore the possibility of charged pion condensation induced by rotation in a strong magnetic field. To this end, we consider the state with a nonzero dynamical mass and charged pion condensate, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\bar{\psi}\psi\rangle\neq0, \ \ \ \langle\bar{\psi}i\gamma_5\tau_\pm\psi\rangle\neq0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_\pm=\tau_1\pm i\tau_2$. For convenience, we define the CPC order parameter as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta=2G \langle\bar{\psi}i\gamma_5\tau_+\psi\rangle=4G\langle\bar{u}i\gamma_5d\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Because of the residual isospin U$(1)$ symmetry, $\Delta$ can be chosen to be real without loss of generality.
![The dependence of the dynamical quark mass $m$ (a) and the coefficient ${\cal A}$ (b) on the angular velocity $\Omega$ for two system sizes $R_1=20/\sqrt{2eB}$ (red dashed lines) and $R_2=20/\sqrt{eB}$ (blue solid lines) at magnetic field $eB=0.5~{\rm GeV}^2$.[]{data-label="B05"}](Am_05){width="42.00000%"}
![The dependence of the dynamical quark mass $m$ (a) and the coefficient ${\cal A}$ (b) on the angular velocity $\Omega$ for two system sizes $R_1=20/\sqrt{2eB}$ (red dashed lines) and $R_2=20/\sqrt{eB}$ (blue solid lines) at magnetic field $eB=1~{\rm GeV}^2$.[]{data-label="B1"}](Am_1){width="42.50000%"}
The brute-force method is to derive coupled gap equations for $m$ and $\Delta$, and solve them simultaneously. However, because the charged pion condensate couples different Landau levels of $u$ and $d$ quarks, the corresponding quark propagator matrix mixes all Landau levels and the calculation becomes rather complicated [@Cao:2015xja]. Thus we study the stability of the system against formation of CPC based on the state given by Eqs.(\[VPC\]) and (\[gap\]). The effective potential can be expressed as the form in Ginzburg-Landau theory $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thermo}
V_{\rm eff}(m,\Delta)=V_{\rm eff}(m,0)+{\cal A}~\Delta^2+{\cal B}~\Delta^4+\dots,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\rm eff}(m,0)$ is given by Eq.(\[Actionm\]) divided by the volume of the system. In a pure magnetic field, it has been shown that the coefficient ${\cal B}$ of the quartic term is positive [@Cao:2015xja]. As we will see in the numerical results, the transition to the CPC occurs at relatively small angular velocity $\Omega$, so we can set ${\cal B}>0$ in our study. The coefficient ${\cal A}$ in the quadratic term thus characterizes the stability against formation of CPC. If ${\cal A}<0$, the true ground state of the system prefers a nonzero charged pion condensate.
In the absence of rotation, the coefficient ${\cal A}$ is given by $${\cal A}={1\over4G}+{\cal A}_{FL}$$ with the contribution from fermion loop as $$\label{AFL0}
{\cal A}_{FL}={i\over V_4}{\rm Tr}\left[S_{\rm F}^u(x,y)i\gamma^5S_{\rm F}^d(y,x)i\gamma^5e^{-ie\int_x^y{A}_\mu(z) d{z}_\mu}\right],$$ where $V_4$ is the space-time volume and the trace is taken over the internal and coordinate spaces. Note that we have compensated the gauge link contribution (the phase term) from the charged pion condensate in order to keep ${\cal A}$ gauge invariant [@Cao:2015xja]. This process is equivalent to define a local condensate with a Wilson line: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Delta}(y)=e^{-ie\int_0^y[{A}_\mu(z)+{1\over2}F_{\mu\nu}{z}^\nu] d{z}_\mu}\Delta,\end{aligned}$$ which guarantees that the effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(m,\Delta)$ is formally gauge invariant and we can expand it in powers of the gauge-independent quantity $\Delta$. When rotation is turned on, the gauge link contribution may be ambiguous because we cannot read out a general phase term that does not only depend on the relative distance between $u$ and $d$ quarks in the Minkowski coordinate system from the pion propagator. Taking LLL for example, the gauge-link term in pion propagator looks like that in Eq.(\[L0\]) but with the polar angle shifted: $\theta\rightarrow\theta+\Omega t$. The same argument also applies to higher Landau levels. Nevertheless, the integral path in the gauge link can be shown to be geodesic; see Ref. [@Chen:2019tcp] for more detailed discussions.
In this work, we consider the case that the magnetic field is sufficiently strong ($\sqrt{eB}\sim1{\rm GeV}$) and the rotation is relatively slow ($\Omega$ of order a few MeV). Thus, we can assume that the charged pions condense in the static Landau state in the laboratory frame and hence does not feel the rotation, which is in analogy to that found in $^3$He superfluid for small rotation [@he3]. In this case, the coefficient ${\cal A}_{FL}$ is also given by Eq.(\[AFL0\]), but with the induced scalar potential $A_0=-B\Omega r^2/2$ neglected, i.e., $A_\mu=(0,By/2,-Bx/2,0)$ as in the laboratory frame. For this static Landau state of the charged pion condensate, the coefficient ${\cal A}_{FL}$ can be evaluated as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{AFL}
{\cal A}_{FL}
&=&-{N_c\over 2S}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{l=0}\sum_{n'=0}^\infty\sum_{l'=0}\sum_{s=\pm}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over(2\pi)}{\tanh\left({\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega(l-n+{1\over2})\over2T}\right){n!n'!\over l!l'!}\left({q_uB\over 2}\right)^{l-n+1}\left({|q_dB|\over 2}\right)^{l'-n'+1}\over\varepsilon_n^u\left[\left(\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega_{nl,n'l'}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2\right]}\nonumber\\
&&\Bigg\{\Bigg[{|q_dB|\over n'}G_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)+{q_uB\over n}G_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB)\Bigg]\left[\left(\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega_{nl,n'l'}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2-\Omega_{nl,n'l'}^2\right]\nonumber\\
&&+H_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)\Bigg\}+\left(\varepsilon_{n'}^d\leftrightarrow\varepsilon_{n}^u,nl\leftrightarrow n'l',q_u\leftrightarrow |q_d|\right),\end{aligned}$$
where $\varepsilon_n^u=(p_z^2+2nq_uB+m^2)^{1/2}$, $\varepsilon_n^d=(p_z^2+2n|q_dB|+m^2)^{1/2}$, and $\Omega_{nl,n'l'}=(l+l'-n-n'+1)\Omega$. The details of the calculations and the definitions of the auxiliary functions $G_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)$ and $H_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)$ can be found in Appendix \[coefficient\]. Again, following the “vacuum regularization" scheme [@Cao:2014uva], the coefficient ${\cal A}$ can be divided into three parts: ${\cal A}={\cal A}_{0}+{\cal A}_{\rm B}+{\cal A}_\Omega$, where ${\cal A}_{0}$ and ${\cal A}_{\rm B}$ are the contributions from the vacuum and the pure magnetic field effect, respectively [@Cao:2015xja]. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A0B}
{\cal A}_0 &=&{1\over4G}-{N_c\Lambda^2\over 2\pi^2}\Bigg[\sqrt{1+{m^2\over \Lambda^2}}-{m^2\over \Lambda^2}\ln\left({\Lambda\over m}
+\sqrt{1+{\Lambda^2\over m^2}}\right)\Bigg],\\
{\cal A}_{B}&=&-{N_c\over 8\pi^2}\int_0^\infty {e^{-s\,m^2}ds\over s^2}\int_{-1}^1 dv\left\{\left[{(1\!-\!g_{\rm u}^2(s,v))(1\!-\!g_{\rm d}^2(s,v))\over \left({g_{\rm u}(s,v)\over q_{\rm u}Bs}+{g_{\rm d}(s,v)\over q_{\rm d}Bs}\right)^2}-1\right]+\left(s m^2\!+\!1\right)\left[{1\!+\!g_{\rm u}(s,v)g_{\rm d}(s,v)\over {g_{\rm u}(s,v)\over q_{\rm u}Bs}+{g_{\rm d}(s,v)\over q_{\rm d}Bs}}-1\right]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{\rm u}(s,v)\equiv\tanh ({1+ v\over2}q_{\rm u}Bs)$ and $g_{\rm d}(s,v)\equiv\tanh ({1-v\over2}q_{\rm d}Bs)$. The rotation contribution as well as the temperature effect is included in ${\cal A}_\Omega$ which is explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AO}
{\cal A}_\Omega&=&-{N_c\over 2S}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{l=0}^{N_u}\sum_{n'=0}^\infty\sum_{l'=0}^{N_d}{{n!n'!\over l!l'!}\!\!\left({q_uB\over 2}\right)^{l-n+1}\!\!\!\left({|q_dB|\over 2}\right)^{l'-n'+1}}\left\{\Bigg[{|q_dB|\over n'}G_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)\!+\!{q_uB\over n}G_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB)\Bigg]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\sum_{s=\pm}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over(2\pi)}\left[ {\tanh\left({\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega(l-n+{1\over2})\over2T}\right)-1\over\varepsilon_n^u}-{\Omega_{nl,n'l'}^2\tanh\left({\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega(l-n+{1\over2})\over2T}\right)\over\varepsilon_n^u\left[\left(\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega_{nl,n'l'}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2\right]}\right]+H_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)\nonumber\\
&&\sum_{s=\pm}\left.\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over(2\pi)}{1\over\varepsilon_n^u }\left[{\tanh\left({\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega(l-n+{1\over2})\over2T}\right)\over\left(\varepsilon_n^u-s~\Omega_{nl,n'l'}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2}-{1\over\left(\varepsilon_n^u\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2}\right]\right\}+\left(\varepsilon_{n'}^d\leftrightarrow\varepsilon_{n}^u,nl\leftrightarrow n'l',q_u\leftrightarrow |q_d|\right).\end{aligned}$$
The coefficient ${\cal A}$ can be computed once we have solved the dynamical mass $m$ from the gap equation Eq.(\[gap\]). Since the magnetic field is strong, we can analytically work out the functions $G_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)$ and $H_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)$ up to the $10$-th Landau levels ($n_{\rm max}=n'_{\rm max}=10$) by using [*Mathematica*]{}. We have checked that the truncations of the Landau level summations give very accurate value of the coefficient ${\cal A}$ for the chosen magnetic fields $eB=0.5~{\rm GeV}^2$ and $eB=1~{\rm GeV}^2$. Again, we also consider two system sizes $R_1=20/\sqrt{2eB}$ and $R_2=20/\sqrt{eB}$.
The dependence of the coefficient ${\cal A}$ on the angular velocity $\Omega$ is shown in Fig. \[B05\](b) and Fig. \[B1\](b). For the magnetic fields and system sizes we considered, we find that the coefficient ${\cal A}$ becomes negative if $\Omega$ exceeds a critical value $\Omega_{\rm PC}$, which is of order $O(1~{\rm MeV})$. In the regime with ${\cal A}<0$, CPC becomes energetically favored. Another important observation is that the critical angular velocity $\Omega_{\rm PC}$ at which CPC occurs is much smaller than another critical value $\Omega_m$ observed in the last section at which the dynamical mass $m$ starts to decrease if only the chiral condensate is considered. As a result, if the CPC is taken into account, the chiral condensate or the dynamical mass $m$ will start to decrease at $\Omega_{\rm PC}$. This phenomenon is quite similar to the case with finite isospin chemical potential $\mu_I$, where the CPC occurs and the dynamical quark mass $m$ gets reduced at the critical isospin chemical potential equal to the vacuum pion mass [@He2005]. Without considering the CPC, $m$ will start to decrease at $\mu_I=2m$ according to the Silver-Blaze theorem [@Cohen:2003kd], just like the case with baryon chemical potential. It is also found that for a given value of the magnetic field, a larger system size leads to a smaller value of $\Omega_{\rm PC}$. The reason is that the quantity $\Omega_{nl,n'l'}$ plays the role of an effective isospin chemical potential and the upper limits for the $l$- and $l'$-sums become also larger for larger system size.
The final question is that how we can reconcile the contradiction between the initial expectation from spin argument which disfavors CPC and the above numerical results which shows that the CPC becomes energetically favored beyond $\Omega_{\rm PC}$. The key point is that our initial spin argument is based on the LLL approximation where only one option of the spin is available for each quark flavor. Actually, for LLL, we have $G_{0l,0l'}=H_{0l,0l'}=0$ regardless the values of $l$ and $l'$, then ${\cal A}_\Omega=0$ in the LLL approximation and ${\cal A}$ is positive definite. In this case we may conclude that the CPC is not favored, consistent with our initial expectation. However, the contribution from higher Landau levels, with both spin up and down components for each quark, are also important. From the explicit form of ${\cal A}_\Omega$ in Eq.(\[AO\]), we find that the rotation induces the effect of isospin chemical potential, i.e., the quantity $\Omega_{nl,n'l'}$ plays the role of an effective isospin chemical potential [@He2005]. Therefore, there exist two competing effects: the spin breaking effect functioning through the LLL and the isospin enhancement effect functioning through the higher Landau levels. The numerical calculations indicate that the later overwhelms the former, leading to CPC when a sufficiently rapid rotation is turned on.
Summary {#conclusions}
=======
Based on the non-interacting Klein-Gordon theory of charged pions, the previous study of QCD system predicted that charged pions would get condensed for sufficiently rapid rotation in a strong parallel magnetic field, which can be realized in relativistic heavy ion collisions [@Liu:2017spl]. However, it is known that a strong magnetic field will significantly influence the meson properties through the internal quark structures of the mesons. Actually, exploring the internal quark structures of the charged pions, the spin breaking effect may disfavor the condensation of charged pions. Therefore, it is important to check this prediction for charged pion condensation by adopting an interacting theory with quarks as elementary degrees of freedom. In this work, we have studied the stability of the QCD system under PRM against the formation of CPC within the Nambu–Jona-Lasino model. Technically, we adopted a Ginzburg-Landau-like approach and evaluated the coefficient of the quadratic term which characterizes the stability against CPC. Quantitatively, we observed the spin breaking effect functioning through the LLL and the isospin enhancement effect functioning through the higher Landau levels. The later overwhelms the former and hence CPC becomes energetically favored when a sufficiently rapid rotation is turned on.
It is significant to mention that the values of the magnetic field and the angular velocity we used in this work are all reachable in peripheral heavy ion collisions. Actually, the chosen magnetic field is almost the strongest that can be produced in heavy ion experiments and the fastest rotation was found to be $\Omega\approx(9\pm1)\times10^{21}~{\rm Hz}\sim6~{\rm MeV}$ [@STAR:2017ckg]. Therefore, we wish that the CPC will be explored in the future experiments. On the theoretical side, the structure of the charged pion condensate and the corresponding critical temperature still need further investigations. With increasing rotation velocity, the charged pion condensate could not be in a uniform state but rather forms some interesting vortex lattice structure as in the $^3$He system [@he3]. We expect that the Bogoliubov-de Gennes method developed for rotating finite-size system [@Wang:2019nhd] can be applied to study the CPC.
*Acknowledgments*— We thank Haolei Chen, Xu-Guang Huang and Kazuya Mameda for useful discussions and communications. G.C. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China with Grant No. 11805290 and Young Teachers Training Program of Sun Yat-sen University with Grant No. 19lgpy282. L. H. acknowledges the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Nos. 11775123 and 11890712.
Calculation of the coefficient ${\cal A}_{FL}$ {#coefficient}
==============================================
Using the fermion propagator derived in Sec. II, the coefficient ${\cal A}_{FL}$ can be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{FL}&=&{-i\over S}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_l\sum_{n'=0}^\infty\sum_{l'}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}
{\rm Tr}\Bigg\{\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')\right]\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \times\left(\gamma^0{p}_0^{l+}-\gamma^3p_z+m\right)-\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')+{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')\right]
\gamma^2\sqrt{2n q_uB}\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
&&\times\Bigg\{\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n'-1,l'-1}^{-}(\theta',r')\chi_{n'-1,l'-1}^{-*}(\theta,r)+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n',l'}^{-}(\theta',r')\chi_{n',l'}^{-*}(\theta,r)\right]\left(\gamma^0{p}_0^{l'-}-\gamma^3p_z-m\right)\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ +\left[{\cal P}_\uparrow\chi_{n'-1,l'-1}^{-}(\theta',r')\chi_{n',l'}^{-*}(\theta,r)+{\cal P}_\downarrow\chi_{n',l'}^{-}(\theta',r')\chi_{n'-1,l'-1}^{-*}(\theta,r)\right]\gamma^2\sqrt{2n'|q_dB|}\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
&&\times{e^{-ie\int_x^y{A}_\mu(z) d{z}_\mu}\over\left[\left({p}_0^{l+}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_n^u)^2\right]\left[\left({p}_0^{l'-}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2\right]},
\end{aligned}$$
where the trace is taken over all internal spaces and the coordinate space. Completing the traces in the internal spaces, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{FL}&=&{-2N_ci\over S}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_l\sum_{n'=0}^\infty\sum_{l'}\sum_{r,r'}\sum_{\theta,\theta'}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}
{e^{-ie\int{A}_\mu(z) dz_\mu}\over\left[\left({p}_0^{l+}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_n^u)^2\right]\left[\left({p}_0^{l'-}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2\right]}\nonumber\\
&&\Bigg\{\left[\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n,l}^*(\theta',r')\chi_{n'-1,l'-1}^{-}(\theta',r')\chi_{n'-1,l'-1}^{-*}(\theta,r)+\chi_{n-1,l+1}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')\chi_{n',l'}^{-}(\theta',r')\chi_{n',l'}^{-*}(\theta,r)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \times\left({p}_0^{l+}{p}_0^{l'-}-p_z^2-m^2\right)+2\sqrt{(2nq_uB)2n'|q_dB|}\chi_{n,l}(\theta,r)\chi_{n-1,l+1}^*(\theta',r')\chi_{n',l'}^{-}(\theta',r')\chi_{n'-1,l'-1}^{-*}(\theta,r)\Bigg\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{r,r'}=\int_0^\infty rdr\int_0^\infty r'dr'$ and $\sum_{\theta,\theta'}=\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta\int_0^{2\pi}d\theta'$. Then, the integrals over the polar angles can be completed to give $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{FL}&=&{-4N_ci\over S}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{l=0}\sum_{n'=0}^\infty\sum_{l'=0}\sum_{r,r'}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}
{J_{l+l'-n-n'+1}\left({eB\over2}rr'\right)(rr')^{l+l'-n-n'+1}e^{-eB(r^2+{r'}^2)/4}\over\left[\left({p}_0^{(l-n)+}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_n^u)^2\right]\left[\left({p}_0^{(n'-l')-}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2\right]}\nonumber\\
&&{n!n'!\over l!l'!}\left({q_uB\over 2}\right)^{l-n+1}\left({|q_dB|\over 2}\right)^{l'-n'+1}\Bigg\{\bigg[{|q_dB|\over n'}{F}_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|;r){F}_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|;r')\nonumber\\
&&+{q_uB\over n}{F}_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB;r){F}_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB;r')\bigg]\left({p}_0^{(l-n)+}{p}_0^{(n'-l')-}-p_z^2-m^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&+4{|q_dB|}{q_uB}{F}_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|;r){F}_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB;r')\Bigg\},
\end{aligned}$$ where the function $F$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|;x)\equiv L_n^{l-n}\left({q_uB ~x^2\over2}\right)L_{n'-1}^{l'-n'+1}\left({|q_dB| ~x^2\over2}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Using this function and further defining auxiliary functions: $$\begin{aligned}
G_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)&\equiv&\int_0^\infty{{{\rm d}}r {{\rm d}}r'}~J_{l+l'-n-n'+1}\left({eB\over2}rr'\right)(rr')^{l+l'-n-n'+2}e^{-eB(r^2+{r'}^2)/4}\prod_{x=r,r'}{F}_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|;x)\nonumber\\
H_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)&\equiv&2\int_0^\infty\!\!\!{{{\rm d}}r {{\rm d}}r'}J_{l+l'-n-n'+1}\left({eB\over2}rr'\right)(rr')^{l+l'-n-n'+2}e^{-eB(r^2+{r'}^2)/4}\nonumber\\
&&\Bigg\{\prod_{x=r,r'}\Big[{|q_dB|}{F}_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|;x)+{q_uB}{F}_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB;x)\Big]\nonumber\\
&&+nn'{q_uB}{|q_dB|}\!\!\prod_{x=r,r'}\!\!\left({{F}_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|;x)\over n'}\!+\!{{F}_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB;x)\over n}\right)\Bigg\},
\end{aligned}$$ the coefficient can be conveniently re-expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{FL}&=&{-2N_ci\over S}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{l=0}\sum_{n'=0}^\infty\sum_{l'=0}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}
{{n!n'!\over l!l'!}\left({q_uB\over 2}\right)^{l-n+1}\left({|q_dB|\over 2}\right)^{l'-n'+1}\over\left[\left({p}_0^{(l-n)+}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_n^u)^2\right]\left[\left({p}_0^{(n'-l')-}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2\right]}\nonumber\\
&&\Bigg\{H_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)+\left[{|q_dB|\over n'}G_{nl,n'l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)+{q_uB\over n}G_{n'l',nl}(|q_dB|,q_uB)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \times\left[\left({p}_0^{(l-n)+}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_n^u)^2+\left({p}_0^{(n'-l')-}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2-\Omega_{nl,n'l'}^2\right]\Bigg\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by transferring to imaginary-time formalism and summing over the fermion Mastubara frequency, we get the finite temperature expression Eq.(\[AFL\]).
To check the correctness of the above result, we consider the nonvanishing contributions from low Landau levels. First we study the contributions from $n=0,n'=1$ and $n=1,n'=0$. Utilizing the following results $$\begin{aligned}
G_{0\,l,1\,l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)&=&G_{0\,l',1\,l}(|q_dB|,q_uB)={(l+l')!\over eB}\left({2\over eB}\right)^{l+l'+1},\nonumber\\
H_{0\,l,1\,l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)&=&2{(l+l')!\over eB}\left({2\over eB}\right)^{l+l'+1} |q_dB|^2,\nonumber\\
H_{1\,l,0\,l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)&=&2{(l+l')!\over eB}\left({2\over eB}\right)^{l+l'+1} (q_uB)^2,
\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A0C}
{\cal A}_1&=&{-4N_ci\over S}\sum_{l=0}\sum_{l'=0}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}{(l+l')!\over l!l'!}\left({q_uB\over eB}\right)^{l+1}\left({|q_dB|\over eB}\right)^{l'+1}\nonumber\\
&&\sum_{n+n'=1}{{p}_0^{(l-n)+}{p}_0^{(n'-l')-}-p_z^2-m^2\over\left[\left({p}_0^{(l-n)+}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_n^u)^2\right]\left[\left({p}_0^{(n'-l')-}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{n'}^d)^2\right]}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{\Omega\rightarrow 0}{=}&{-2N_ci\over \pi}{q_uB|q_d|B\over eB}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}
\left[{1\over{p}_0^2-(\varepsilon_1^d)^2}+{1\over{p}_0^2-(\varepsilon_1^u)^2}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&-{N_c\over 2\pi}{q_uB|q_d|B\over eB}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over(2\pi)}\left[{1\over\varepsilon_1^d}+{1\over\varepsilon_1^u}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Next we calculate the contribution from $n=n'=1$. Utilizing the following results $$\begin{aligned}
G_{1\,l,1\,l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)&=&{(l+l'-1)!\over (eB)^3}\left({2\over eB}\right)^{l+l'}\left[\left(|q_dB|l-q_uB l'\right)^2-(l+l')(q_uB)^2\right],\nonumber\\
H_{1\,l,1\,l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)&=&2|q_dB|eBG_{1\,l,1\,l'}(q_uB,|q_dB|)+2q_uBeBG_{1\,l',1\,l}(|q_dB|,q_uB)\nonumber\\
&&-8|q_dB|q_uB{(l+l'-1)!\over (eB)^3}\left({2\over eB}\right)^{l+l'}\left[\left(|q_dB|l-q_uB l'\right)^2+(l+l')|q_dB|q_uB\right],
\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A1C}
{\cal A}_2
&=&{-4N_ci\over S}\sum_{l=0}\sum_{l'=0}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}
{(l+l'-1)!\left({q_u\over e}\right)^{l}\left({|q_d|\over e}\right)^{l'}\over l!l'!\left[\left({p}_0^{(l-1)+}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_1^u)^2\right]\left[\left({p}_0^{(1-l')-}\right)^2-(\varepsilon_{1}^d)^2\right]}\nonumber\\
&&\Bigg\{\Big({p}_0^{(l-1)+}{p}_0^{(1-l')-}-p_z^2-m^2-4eB{q_u\over e}{|q_d|\over e}\Big)\left({|q_d|\over e}l-{q_u\over e}l'\right)^2\nonumber\\
&&\ \ -\left({p}_0^{(l-1)+}{p}_0^{(1-l')-}-p_z^2-m^2+4eB{q_u\over e}{|q_d|\over e}\right)(l+l')\left({|q_d|\over e}\right)\left({q_u\over e}\right)\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{\Omega\rightarrow 0}{=}&{-2N_ci\over \pi}{q_uB|q_d|B\over eB}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_0\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}
{1\over\left[{p}_0^2-(\varepsilon_1^u)^2\right]\left[{p}_0^2-(\varepsilon_{1}^d)^2\right]}\left\{\left({p}_0^2-p_z^2-m^2-4eB{q_u\over e}{|q_d|\over e}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\left({p}_0^2-p_z^2-m^2+4eB{q_u\over e}{|q_d|\over e}\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&-{16N_c\over \pi}(eB)^2\left({q_u\over e}{|q_d|\over e}\right)^2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_4\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}{1\over\left[{p}_4^2+(\varepsilon_1^u)^2\right]\left[{p}_4^2+(\varepsilon_{1}^d)^2\right]}.
\end{aligned}$$ In the vanishing rotation limit ($\Omega=0$), we can compare the above results with the those obtained by using the effective fermion propagator in Euclidean space [@Miransky:2015ava]. With the Euclidean method, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_1&=&-\int{d^4p\over{(2\pi)^4}}{e^{-(p_x^2+p_y^2)[1/(q_uB)+1/(|q_dB|)]}\over \left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^u\right)^2\right]\left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_0^d\right)^2\right]}{\rm Tr}\Bigg\{(m-p_4\gamma_4-p_z\gamma^3)\left[(1+i\gamma^1\gamma^2)L_1\left({2(p_x^2+p_y^2)\over q_uB}\right)-(1-i\gamma^1\gamma^2)\right]\nonumber\\
&&(-m-p_4\gamma_4-p_z\gamma^3)(1-i\gamma^1\gamma^2)\Bigg\}-\int{d^4p\over{(2\pi)^4}}{e^{-(p_x^2+p_y^2)[1/(q_uB)+1/(|q_dB|)]}\over \left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_0^u\right)^2\right]\left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^d\right)^2\right]}{\rm Tr}\Bigg\{(m-p_4\gamma_4-p_z\gamma^3)(1+i\gamma^1\gamma^2)\nonumber\\
&&(-m-p_4\gamma_4-p_z\gamma^3)\left[(1-i\gamma^1\gamma^2)L_1\left({2(p_x^2+p_y^2)\over |q_dB|}\right)-(1+i\gamma^1\gamma^2)\right]\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
&=&-8N_c\int{d^4p\over{(2\pi)^4}}e^{-(p_x^2+p_y^2)[1/(q_uB)+1/(|q_dB|)]}\left[{1\over p_4^2\!+\!\left(\varepsilon_1^u\right)^2}\!+\!{1\over p_4^2\!+\!\left(\varepsilon_1^d\right)^2}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&-{N_c\over 2\pi}{q_uB|q_d|B\over eB}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over(2\pi)}\left[{1\over\varepsilon_1^d}\!+\!{1\over\varepsilon_1^u}\right]\label{A0M}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_2&=&\int{d^4p\over{(2\pi)^4}}{e^{-(p_x^2+p_y^2)[1/(q_uB)+1/(|q_dB|)]}\over \left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^u\right)^2\right]\left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^d\right)^2\right]}{\rm Tr}\Bigg\{(m-p_4\gamma_4-p_z\gamma^3)\left[(1+i\gamma^1\gamma^2)L_1\left({2(p_x^2+p_y^2)\over q_uB}\right)-(1-i\gamma^1\gamma^2)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+4(p_x\gamma^1+p_y\gamma^2)\Bigg\}\Bigg\{(-m-p_4\gamma_4-p_z\gamma^3)\left[(1-i\gamma^1\gamma^2)L_1\left({2(p_x^2+p_y^2)\over |q_dB|}\right)-(1+i\gamma^1\gamma^2)\right]+4(p_x\gamma^1+p_y\gamma^2)\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
&=&8\int{d^4p\over{(2\pi)^4}}{e^{-(p_x^2+p_y^2)[1/(q_uB)+1/(|q_dB|)]}\over \left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^u\right)^2\right]\left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^d\right)^2\right]}\left\{(p_4^2+p_z^2+m^2)\left[L_1\left({2(p_x^2+p_y^2)\over q_uB}\right)+L_1\left({2(p_x^2+p_y^2)\over |q_dB|}\right)\right]-8(p_x^2+p_y^2)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&-{16N_c\over \pi}(eB)^2\left({q_uB\over eB}{|q_dB|\over eB}\right)^2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_4\over2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{dp_z\over2\pi}{1\over \left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^u\right)^2\right]\left[p_4^2+\left(\varepsilon_1^d\right)^2\right]}.\label{A1M}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for the two types of contributions, the results from two different methods are consistent with each other in the vanishing rotation limit.
[99]{} A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 132301 (2010). M. Wilde \[ALICE Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A [**904-905**]{}, 573c (2013). V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**24**]{}, 5925 (2009). W. T. Deng and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 044907 (2012). Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 102301 (2005). F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. Lisa, I. Upsal and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C [**95**]{}, 054902 (2017). L. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Nature [**548**]{}, 62 (2017). S. S. Adler [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 034908 (2005). K. Aamodt [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 032301 (2011). J. Bloczynski, X. G. Huang, X. Zhang and J. Liao, Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{}, 1529 (2013). W. T. Deng and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C [**93**]{}, 064907 (2016). I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C [**77**]{}, 213 (2017). T. Niida \[STAR Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A [**982**]{}, 511 (2019). Y. Guo, S. Shi, S. Feng and J. Liao, Phys. Lett. B [**798**]{}, 134929 (2019). G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, A. Schafer and K. K. Szabo, JHEP [**1202**]{}, 044 (2012). G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and A. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 071502 (2012). F. Becattini and I. Karpenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**120**]{}, 012302 (2018). X. L. Xia, H. Li, Z. B. Tang and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C [**98**]{}, 024905 (2018). F. Becattini, G. Cao and E. Speranza, Eur. Phys. J. C [**79**]{} (2019) no.9, 741. X. L. Xia, H. Li, X. G. Huang and H. Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. C [**100**]{}, no. 1, 014913 (2019). J. Liao, Pramana [**84**]{}, no. 5, 901 (2015).
D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**88**]{}, 1 (2016).
X. G. Huang, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**79**]{}, 076302 (2016). H. L. Chen, K. Fukushima, X. G. Huang and K. Mameda, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 104052 (2016). K. Hattori and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 152002 (2016). Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**120**]{}, 032001 (2018).
Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. [**122**]{}, 345 (1961). Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. [**124**]{}, 246 (1961). S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**64**]{}, 649 (1992).
G. S. Bali, B. B. Brandt, G. Endrodi and B. Glassle, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 3, 034505 (2018). Z. Wang and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 3, 034026 (2018). S. Mao, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}, no. 5, 056005 (2019). H. Liu, X. Wang, L. Yu and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 7, 076008 (2018). G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D [**100**]{}, no. 7, 074024 (2019). G. Cao and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 105030 (2015).
T. D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 222001 (2003).
G. Endrödi, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 9, 094501 (2014). M. Loewe, C. Villavicencio and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 1, 016004 (2014). A. Ayala, P. Mercado and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. C [**95**]{}, no. 1, 014904 (2017). T. Brauner and N. Yamamoto, JHEP [**1704**]{}, 132 (2017).
Y. Jiang and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 192302 (2016) M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, [*An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995).
G. Cao, L. He and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 056005 (2014). V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rept. [**576**]{}, 1 (2015). L. Wang, Y. Jiang, L. He, and P. Zhuang, arXiv:1901.00804; arXiv:1901.04697.
H. L. Chen, X. G. Huang and K. Mameda, arXiv:1910.02700 \[nucl-th\]. O.V. Lounasmaa, E. Thuneberg, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [**96**]{}, 7760 (1999).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This is a final step in a local classification of s with parallel Weyl tensor that are not conformally flat or locally symmetric.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 USA '
- 'Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science Wrocław University of Technology Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław Poland '
author:
- Andrzej Derdzinski
- Witold Roter
title: |
The local structure of conformally\
symmetric manifolds
---
=cmr8 =cmti8 =cmtt8
[^1]
=-18pt=-4pt
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The present paper provides a finishing touch in a local classification of s.
A of dimension $\,n\ge4\,$ is called [*essentially conformally symmetric*]{} if it is [*conformally symmetric*]{} [@chaki-gupta] (in the sense that its Weyl conformal tensor is parallel) without being conformally flat or locally symmetric.
The metric of an is always indefinite [@derdzinski-roter-77 Theorem 2]. [*Compact*]{} manifolds are known to exist in all dimensions $\,n\ge5\,$ with $\,\nft$, where they represent all indefinite metric signatures [@derdzinski-roter], while examples of s on open manifolds of all dimensions $\,n\ge4\,$ were first constructed in [@roter].
On every there is a naturally distinguished parallel distribution $\,\dz$, of some dimension $\,\rd$, which we call the [*Olszak distribution*]{}. As shown by Olszak [@olszak], for an $\,\rd\in\{1,2\}$.
In [@derdzinski-roter-07] we described the local structure of all s with $\,\rd=2$. See also Section \[tcdt\]. This paper establishes an analogous result (Theorem \[clsdo\]) for the case $\,\rd=1$.
In both cases, some of the metrics in question are locally symmetric. In Remark \[njecs\] we explain why a similar classification result cannot be valid just for [*essentially*]{} conformally symmetric s.
Essentially conformally symmetric manifolds with $\,\rd=1\,$ are all [*Ricci-recurrent*]{}, in the sense that, for every tangent $\,v$, the Ricci tensor $\,\ri\,$ and the covariant derivative $\,\nabla_{\!v}\ri\,$ are linearly dependent at each . The local structure of s at points with $\,\ri\otimes\nnh\nabla\nnh\ri\ne0\,$ has already been determined by the second author [@roter]. Our new contribution settles the one case still left open in the local classification problem, namely, that of s with $\,\rd=1\,$ at points where $\,\ri\otimes\nnh\nabla\nnh\ri=0$.
The literature dealing with s includes, among others, [@deszcz; @deszcz-hotlos; @hotlos; @rong; @sharma; @simon] and the papers cited above. A local classification of [*homogeneous*]{} s can be found in [@derdzinski-78].
Preliminaries {#prel}
=============
Throughout this paper, all manifolds and bundles, along with sections and connections, are assumed to be of class $\,C^\infty\nnh$. A manifold is, by definition, connected. Unless stated otherwise, a mapping is always a $\,C^\infty$ mapping betweeen manifolds.
Given a connection $\,\nabla\,$ in a $\,\xe\hs$ over a $\,M$, a section $\,\psi\,$ of $\,\xe$, and s $\,u,v\,$ tangent to $\,M$, we use the sign convention $$\label{cur}
R(u,v)\psi\hskip7pt=\hskip7pt\nabla_{\!v}\nabla_{\!u}\psi\,
-\,\nabla_{\!u}\nabla_{\!v}\psi\,+\,\nabla_{[u,v]}\psi$$ for the curvature tensor $\,R=R^\nabla\nnh$.
The of a given $\,(M,g)\,$ is always denoted by $\,\nabla$. We also use the symbol $\,\nabla\,$ for connections induced by $\,\nabla,$ in various $\,\nabla$ subbundles of $\,\tm\,$ and their quotients.
The Schouten tensor $\,\sigma\,$ and Weyl conformal tensor $\,W\hs$ of a $\,(M,g)\,$ of dimension $\,n\ge4\,$ are given by $\,\sigma=\ri\,-\hs(2n-2)^{-1}\,\text{\rm s}\hskip1.2ptg$, with $\,\ri$ denoting the Ricci tensor, $\,\hs\text{\rm s}\hs=\hs\text{\rm tr}_g\hh\ri\hs\,$ standing for the scalar curvature, and $$\label{wer}
W\,=\,\hs R\,-\,(n-2)^{-1}\hs g\wedge\hh\sigma\hs.$$ Here $\,\wedge\,$ is the exterior multiplication of $\,1$-forms valued in $\,1$-forms, which uses the ordinary $\,\wedge\,$ as the valuewise multiplication; thus, $\,g\wedge\hh\sigma\,$ is a $\,2$-form valued in $\,2$-forms.
Let $\,(t,s)\mapsto x(s,t)\,$ be a fixed [*variation of curves*]{} in a $\,(M,g)$, that is, an $\,M$-valued $\,C^\infty$ mapping from a rectangle (product of intervals) in the $\,ts\hs$-plane. By a [*vector field $\,w\,$ along the variation*]{} we mean, as usual, a section of the pullback of $\,\tm\,$ to the rectangle (so that $\,w(t,s)\in\txtsm$). Examples are $\,x_s$ and $\,x_t$, which assign to $\,(t,s)\,$ the velocity of the curve $\,t\mapsto x(t,s)\,$ or $\,s\mapsto x(t,s)\,$ at $\,s\,$ or $\,t$. Further examples are provided by restrictions to the variation of vector fields on $\,M$. The partial covariant derivatives of a vector field $\,w\,$ along the variation are the vector fields $\,w_t,\hs w_s$ along the variation, obtained by differentiating $\,w\,$ covariantly along the curves $\,t\mapsto x(t,s)\,$ or $\,s\mapsto x(t,s)$. Skipping parentheses, we write $\,w_{ts},\hs w_{stt}$, etc., rather than $\,(w_t){}_s,\hs ((w_s){}_t){}_t$ for higher-order derivatives, as well as $\,x_{ss},\hs x_{st}$ instead of $\,(x_s){}_s,\hs (x_s){}_t$. One always has $\,w_{ts}=w_{st}+R(x_t,x_s)\hh w$, cf. [@dillen-verstraelen formula (5.29) on p. 460], and, since the $\,\nabla\,$ is torsionfree, $\,x_{st}=x_{ts}$. Thus, whenever $\,(t,s)\mapsto x(s,t)\,$ is a variation of curves in $\,M$, $$\label{xts}
x_{tss}\,\,=\,\,x_{sst}\,+\,\hs R(x_t,x_s)x_s\hs.$$
The Olszak distribution {#oldi}
=======================
The [*Olszak distribution*]{} of a $\,(M,g)\,$ is the parallel subbundle $\,\dz\,$ of $\,\tm$, the sections of which are the vector fields $\,u\,$ with the property that $\,\xi\wedge\hs\varOmega\hs=0\,$ for all vector fields $\,v,v\hh'$ and for the differential forms $\,\xi=g(u,\,\cdot\,)\,$ and $\,\hs\varOmega\hs=W(v,v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)$. The distribution $\,\dz\,$ was introduced, in a more general situation, by Olszak [@olszak], who also proved the following lemma.
\[oldis\]The following conclusions hold for the dimension $\,\rd\,$ of the Olszak distribution $\,\dz\,$ in any manifold $\,(M,g)\,$ with $\,\dim M=n\ge4$.
1. $\rd\in\{0,1,2,n\}$, and $\,\rd=n\,$ if and only if $\,(M,g)\,$ is conformally flat.
2. $\rd\in\{1,2\}\,$ if $\,(M,g)\,$ is .
3. $\rd=2\,$ if and only if $\rwo$, in the sense that $\,W\nh$, as an operator acting on exterior $\,2$-forms, has rank $\,1\,$ at each .
4. If $\,\rd=2$, the distribution $\,\dz\,$ is spanned by all s of the form $\,W(u,v)v'$ for arbitrary s $\,u,v,v'$ on $\,M$.
See Appendix I.
In the next lemma, parts (a) and (d) are due to Olszak [@olszak 2$^{\hs\text{\rm o}}$ and 3$^{\hs\text{\rm o}}$ on p. 214].
\[dontw\]If $\,\rd\in\{1,2\}$, where $\,\rd\,$ is the dimension of the Olszak distribution $\,\dz$ of a given manifold $\,(M,g)\,$ with $\,\dim M=n\ge4$, then
1. $\dz\,$ is a ,
2. at any $\,x\in M\,$ the space $\,\dz_x$ contains the image of the Ricci tensor $\,\ri_x$ treated, with the aid of $\,g_x$, as an endomorphism of $\,\txm\nh$,
3. the scalar curvature is identically zero and $\,R\hs\,=\,\hs W\hs+\,(n-2)^{-1}\hs g\wedge\ri$,
4. $W(u,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)\hs\,=\,\hs0\hs\,$ whenever $\,u\,$ is a section of $\,\dz$,
5. $R(v,v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)
=\hs W(v,v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)\hs\,=\,\hs0\hs\,$ for any sections $\,v\,$ and $\,v\hh'$ of $\,\dzp\nnh$,
6. of the connections in $\,\dz\hs$ and $\,\qt=\dzp\nnh/\dz$, induced by the of $\,g$, the latter is always flat, and the former is flat if $\,\rd=1$.
Assertion (e) for $\,W\hs$ is immediate from the definition of $\,\dz$. point $\,x\in M$, every $\,2$-form $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ in the image of $\,W_{\nh x}$ (for $\,W_{\nh x}$ acting on is $\,\wedge$-divisible by $\,\xi=g_x(u,\,\cdot\,)\,$ for each $\,u\in\dzx\nh\smallsetminus\{0\}$, and so
We now proceed to prove (a), (b), (c) and (d).
First, let $\,\rd=2$. By Lemma \[oldis\](iii), this amounts to the condition $\rwo$, so that (a), (b) and (c) follow from Lemma \[oldis\](iv) combined with [@derdzinski-roter-07 Lemma 17.1(ii) and Lemma 17.2]. Also, for a nonzero $\,2$-form $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ chosen as in the last paragraph, $\,\dzx$ is the image of $\,\hs\varOmega_x$, that is, $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ equals the exterior product of two vectors in $\,\dzx$ (treated as $\,1$-forms, with the aid of $\,g_x$). Now (d) follows since, by (a), $\,\hs\varOmega_x(u_x,\,\cdot\,)=0$ if $\,u\,$ is a section of $\,\dz$.
Next, suppose that $\,\rd=1$. Replacing $\,M\,$ by a neighborhood of any given point, we may assume that $\,\dz\,$ is spanned by a vector field $\,u$. If $\,u\,$ were not null, we would have $\,W(u,v,u,v\hh'\hh)=0\,$ for any sections $\,v,v\hh'$ of $\,\dzp\nnh$, as one sees contracting the twice-covariant tensor field $\,W(\,\cdot\,,v,\,\cdot\,,v\hh'\hh)=0$, at any point $\,x$, in an orthogonal basis containing the vector $\,u_x$. (We have already established (e) for $\,W\nh$.) Combined with (e) for $\,W\hs$ and the symmetries of $\,W\nh$, the relation $\,W(u,v,u,v\hh'\hh)=0\,$ for $\,v,v\hh'$ in $\,\dzp$ would then give $\,W\nh=0$, contrary to the assumption that $\,\rd=1$. Thus, $\,u\,$ is null, which yields (a). Now $$\label{uuo}
\text{\rm we\ choose,\ locally,\ a\ null\ vector\ field\ $\,u\hh'$\
with\ $\,g(u,u\hh'\hh)=1$.}$$ For any section $\,v\,$ of $\,\dzp$ one sees that $\,W(u,\,\cdot\,,u\hh'\nnh,v)=0\,$ by contracting the tensor field $\,W(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,v)=0\,$ in the first and third arguments, at any point $\,x$, in $$\label{wtt}
\text{\rm a\ basis\ of\ $\,\txm\,$\ formed\ by\ $\,u_x,u_x'$\ and\ $\,n-2\,$\
vectors\ orthogonal\ to\ them,}$$ and using (e) for $\,W\nh$, along with the inclusion $\,\dz\subset\dzp\nnh$, cf. (a). Since $\,u\hh'$ and $\,\dzp$ span $\,\tm$, assertion (e) for $\,W\hs$ thus implies (d).
To prove (b) and (c) when $\,\rd=1$, we distinguish two cases: $\,(M,g)\,$ is either , or locally symmetric. For (c), it suffices to establish vanishing of the scalar curvature $\,\hs\text{\rm s}\hs\,$ (cf. (\[wer\])). Now, in the former case, $\,\hs\text{\rm s}\hs=0\,$ according to [@derdzinski-roter-78 Theorem 7], while (b) follows since, as shown in [@derdzinski-roter-80 Theorem 7 on p. 18], for arbitrary vector fields $\,v,v\hh'$ and $\,v\hh''$ on an , $\,\xi\wedge\hs\varOmega\hs=0$, where $\,\xi=\ri\hh(v,\,\cdot\,)\,$ and $\,\hs\varOmega\hs=W(v\hh'\nnh,v\hh''\nnh,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)$. In the case where $\,g\,$ is locally symmetric, (b) and (c) are established in Appendix II.
Assertion (e) for $\,R\,$ is now obvious from (e) for $\,W\hs$ and (c), since, by (b), $\,\ri(v,\,\cdot\,)=0\,$ for any section $\,v\,$ of $\,\dzp\nnh$. The claim about $\,\qt\hs$ in (f) is in turn immediate from (\[cur\]) and (e) for $\,R$, which states that $\,R(w,w\hh'\hh)\hh v$, for arbitrary vector fields $\,w,w\hh'$ and any section $\,v\,$ of $\,\dzp$, is orthogonal to all sections of $\,\dzp$ (and hence must be a section of $\,\dz$). Finally, to prove (f) for $\,\dz$, with $\,\rd=1$, let us fix a section $\,u\,$ of $\,\dz$, a $\,v$, and define a differential $\,2$-form $\,\zeta\,$ by $\hs\zeta(w,w\hh'\hh)=(n-2)\hs R(w,w\hh'\nnh,u,v)\hs$ for any vector fields $\,w,w\hh'\nnh$. By (c) and (e), $\,\zeta=g(u,\,\cdot\,)\wedge\ri(v,\,\cdot\,)$, as $\,\dz\subset\dzp$ (cf. (a)), and so $\,\ri(u,\,\cdot\,)=0\,$ in view of (b) and symmetry of $\,\ri$. However, by (b), both $\,g(u,\,\cdot\,)\,$ and $\,\ri(v,\,\cdot\,)\,$ are sections of the subbundle of $\,\tam\,$ corresponding to $\,\dz\,$ under the bundle isomorphism $\,\tm\to\tam\,$ induced by $\,g$, so that $\,\zeta=0\hs\,$ since the distribution $\,\nh\dz\hs$ is one.
The case $\,\rd=2$ {#tcdt}
==================
For more details of the construction described below, we refer the reader to [@derdzinski-roter-07].
Let there be given a $\,\bs$, a $\,\hs{\rm D}\hs\,$ on $\,\bs$ with a $\,\hs\text{\rm D}\hs$ area form $\,\alpha$, an integer $\,n\ge4\hh$, a sign factor $\,\ve=\pm1$, a $\,\mv\hs$ of dimension $\,n-4\hh$, and a pseuEuclidean inner product $\,\lr\,$ on $\,\mv\nnh$.
We also assume the existence of a twice-contravariant symmetric tensor field $\hs\hs T$ on $\,\bs\,$ with $\,\hs\text{\rm div}{}^{\hs\text{\rm D}}
(\text{\rm div}{}^{\hs\text{\rm D}}T)\,
+\,(\hh\ri^{\hs\text{\rm D}}\nnh,T\hh)=\hh\ve\,$ (in coordinates: $\,T^{jk}{}_{,\hh jk}+T^{jk}R_{jk}=\hh\ve$). Here $\,\hs\text{\rm div}{}^{\hs\text{\rm D}}$ denotes the $\,\hs\text{\rm D}\hs$-divergence, $\,\ri^{\hs\text{\rm D}}$ is the of $\,\hs\text{\rm D}\hh$, and $\,(\hskip2pt,\hskip1pt)\,$ stands for the obvious pairing. Such $\,T\,$ always exists locally in $\,\bs$. In fact, according to [@derdzinski-roter-07 Theorem 10.2(i)] combined with [@derdzinski-roter-07 Lemma 11.2], $\,T\,$ exists whenever $\,\bs\,$ is simply connected and noncompact.
For $\,T\,$ chosen as above, we define a twice-covariant symmetric tensor field $\,\tau\,$ on $\,\bs$, that is, a section of $\,[\tab]^{\odot2}\nnh$, by requiring $\,\tau\,$ to correspond to the section $\,T\,$ of $\,[\tb]^{\odot2}$ under the vector-bundle isomorphism $\,\tb\to\tab\,$ which acts on s $\,v\,$ by $\,v\mapsto\alpha(v,\,\cdot\,)$. In coordinates, $\,\tau_{jk}=\alpha_{jl}\hh\alpha_{km}T^{\hs lm}\nnh$.
Next, we denote by $\,h^{\text{\rm D}}$ the [*Patterson-Walker Riemann extension metric*]{} [@patterson-walker] on the total space $\,\tab$, obtained by requiring that all vertical and all $\,\hs\text{\rm D}\hs$-horizontal vectors be $\,h^{\text{\rm D}}\nnh$-null, while $\,h_x^{\text{\rm D}}(\zeta,w)=\zeta(d\pmb_xw)\,$ for $\,x\in\tab$, any vector $\,w\in T_x\tab$, any vertical vector $\,\zeta\in\kerd\pmb_x=T_{\nnh\pmb(x)}^*\hskip-1pt\bs$, and the $\,\pmb:\tab\to\bs$.
Finally, let $\,\gm\,$ and $\,\theta\,$ be the constant on $\,\mv$ corresponding to the inner product $\,\lr$, and the function $\,\mv\nh\to\bbR\,$ with $\,\theta(v)=\lg v,v\rg$.
Our $\,\bs,\hs\text{\rm D}\hh,\alpha,n,\ve,\mv\nh,\lr\,$ now give rise to the $$\label{hgt}
(\tab\,\times\,\mv,\,\,h^{\text{\rm D}}\hskip-1.9pt-2\tau+\gm
-\theta\ri^{\hs\text{\rm D}})\,,$$ of dimension $\,n$, with the metric $\,h^{\text{\rm D}}\hskip-2.5pt-2\tau+\gm-\theta\ri^{\hs\text{\rm D}}\nnh$, where the function $\,\theta\,$ and covariant tensor fields $\,\tau,\ri^{\hs\text{\rm D}}\nnh,h^{\text{\rm D}}\nnh,\gm\,$ on $\,\bs,\,\tab\,$ or $\,\mv\nh$ are identified with their pullbacks to $\,\tab\,\times\,\mv\nnh$. (Thus, for instance, $\,h^{\text{\rm D}}\hskip-1.9pt-2\tau+\gm\,$ is a product metric.)
We have the following local classification result, in which $\,\rd\,$ stands for the dimension of Olszak distribution $\,\dz$.
\[clsdt\]The [(\[hgt\])]{} obtained as above from any data $\,\bs,\hs\text{\rm D}\hh,\alpha,n,\ve,\mv\nh,\lr\,$ with the stated properties is and has $\,\rd=2$. Conversely, in any such that $\rd=2$, every has a connected neighborhood isometric to an open subset of a manifold [(\[hgt\])]{} constructed above from some data $\,\bs,\hs\text{\rm D}\hh,\alpha,n,\ve,\mv\nh,\lr$.
The manifold [(\[hgt\])]{} is never conformally flat, and it is locally symmetric if and only if the $\,\ri^{\hs\text{\rm D}}$ is $\,\hs\text{\rm D}\hs$.
See [@derdzinski-roter-07 Section 22]. Note that, in view of Lemma \[oldis\](iii), the condition $\rwo\,$ used in [@derdzinski-roter-07] is equivalent to $\rd=2$.
The objects $\,\bs,\hs\text{\rm D}\hh,\alpha,n,\ve,\mv\nh,\lr\,$ are treated as parameters of the above construction, while $\,T\,$ is merely assumed to exist, even though the metric $\,g\,$ in (\[hgt\]) clearly depends on $\,\tau\,$ (and hence on $\,T$). This is justified by the fact that, with fixed $\,\bs,\hs\text{\rm D}\hh,\alpha,n,\ve,\mv\nh,\lr$, the metrics corresponding to two choices of $\,T\,$ are, locally, isometric to each other, cf. [@derdzinski-roter-07 Remark 22.1].
The metric signature of (\[hgt\]) is clearly given by $\,-\hs-\hs\ldots\hs+\hs+\hh$, with the dots standing for the sign pattern of $\,\lr$.
The case $\,\rd=1$ {#tcdo}
==================
Let there be given an open interval $\,I\nh$, a $\,C^\infty$ function $\,\fh:I\to\bbR\hs$, an integer $\,n\ge4$, a $\,\mv\hs$ of dimension $\,n-2\,$ with a pseuEuclidean inner product $\,\lr$, and a nonzero traceless linear operator $\,A:\mv\to\mv\nh$, self-adjoint relative to $\,\lr$. As in [@roter], we then define an $\,n$ $$\label{rcr}
(I\times\bbR\times\mv,\,\,\kx\,dt^2\hs+\,dt\,ds\,+\,\gm)\,,$$ where products of differentials represent symmetric products, $\,t,s\,$ denote the Cartesian coordinates on the $\,I\times\bbR\,$ factor, $\,\gm\,$ stands for the pullback to $\,I\times\bbR\times\mv\hs$ of the flat on $\,\mv$ that corresponds to the inner product $\,\lr$, and the function $\,\kx:I\times\bbR\times\mv\nh\to\bbR\,$ is given by $\,\kx(t,s,\psi)=\fh(t)\hh\lg \psi,\psi\rg+\lg A\psi,\psi\rg$.
The manifolds (\[rcr\]) are characterized by the following local classification result, analogous to Theorem \[clsdt\]. As before, $\,\rd\,$ is the dimension of the Olszak distribution.
\[clsdo\]For any $\,I\nh,\fh,n,\mv\nh,\lr,A\,$ as above, the [(\[rcr\])]{} is and has $\,\rd=1$. Conversely, in any such that $\rd=1$, every has a connected neighborhood isometric to an open subset of a manifold [(\[rcr\])]{} constructed from some such $\,I\nh,\fh,n,\mv\nh,\lr,A$.
The manifold [(\[rcr\])]{} is never conformally flat, and it is locally symmetric if and only if $\,\fh\,$ is constant.
A proof of Theorem \[clsdo\] is given at the end of the next section.
Obviously, the metric $\,\,\kx\,dt^2\hs+\,dt\,ds\,+\,\gm\,\,$ in (\[rcr\]) has the sign pattern $\,\,-\hs\ldots\hs+\hh$, where the dots stand for the sign pattern of $\,\lr$.
\[njecs\]A classification result of the same format as Theorem \[clsdo\] cannot be true just for [*essentially*]{} conformally symmetric s with $\,\rd=1$. Namely, such s do not satisfy a principle of unique continuation: formula (\[rcr\]) with $\,\fh$ which is nonconstant on $\,I\nh$, but constant on some nonempty open subinterval $\,I\hs'$ of $\,I\nh$, defines an with a locally symmetric open submanifold $\,\,U=I\hs'\nnh\times\bbR\times\mv\nnh$. At points of $\,\,U\nh$, the local structure of (\[rcr\]) does not, therefore, arise from a construction that, locally, produces all s and nothing else.
As explained in [@derdzinski-roter-07 Section 24], an analogous situation arises when $\,\rd=2$.
Proof of Theorem \[clsdo\] {#potf}
==========================
The following assumptions will be used in Lemma \[fstar\].
1. $(M,g)\,$ is a of dimension $\,n\ge4\,$ and $\,y\in M$.
2. The $\,\dz\,$ of $\,(M,g)\,$ is one.
3. $u\,$ is a global parallel vector field spanning $\,\dz$.
4. $t:M\to\bbR\,$ is a $\,C^\infty$ function with $\,g(u,\,\cdot\,)=dt\,$ and $\,t(y)=0$.
5. $\dim\mv\nh=n-2\,$ for the space $\,\mv\hs$ of all parallel sections of $\,\qt=\dzp\nnh/\dz$.
6. $\ri=(2-n)\fh(t)\,dt\otimes dt\,$ for some $\,C^\infty$ function $\,\fh:I\hh'\nh\to\bbR\,$ on an open interval $\,I\hh'\nnh$, where $\,\ri\,$ is the Ricci tensor and $\,\fh(t)\,$ denotes the composite $\,\fh\nnh\circ\hh t$.
For local considerations, only (a) and (b) are essential. In fact, condition (e) (in which ‘parallel’ refers to the connection in $\,\qt\,$ induced by the of $\,g$), as well (c) and (d) for some $\,u\,$ and $\,t$, follow from (a) – (b) if $\,M\,$ is simply connected. See Lemma \[dontw\](f). On the other hand, (c) – (d), Lemma \[dontw\](b) and symmetry of $\,\ri\,$ give $\,\nabla dt=0\,$ and $\,\ri=\chi\,dt\otimes dt\,$ for some function $\,\chi:M\to\bbR\hs$, so that $\,\nabla\nh\ri=d\chi\otimes\hs dt\otimes\hs dt$. However, $\,\nabla\nh\ri\,$ is totally symmetric (that is, $\,\ri\,$ satisfies the Codazzi equation): our assumption $\,\nabla\hs W\nnh=0\,$ implies the condition $\,\hs\text{\rm div}\,W\nnh=0$, well known [@dillen-verstraelen formula (5.29) on p. 460] to be equivalent to the Codazzi equation for the Schouten tensor $\,\sigma$, while $\,\sigma=\ri\,$ by Lemma \[dontw\](c). Thus, $\,d\chi\,$ equals a function times $\,dt$, and so $\,\chi\,$ is, locally, a function of $\,t$, which (locally) yields (f).
For any section $\,v\,$ of $\,\dzp\nnh$, we denote by $\,\uv\,$ the image of $\,v\,$ under the quotient-projection morphism $\,\dzp\nnh\to\,\qt=\dzp\nnh/\dz$.
The data required for the construction in Section \[tcdo\] consist of $\,I\nh,\fh,n,\mv\hs$ appearing in (a) – (f), along with the pseuEuclidean inner product $\,\lr\,$ in $\,\mv\nh$, induced in an obvious way by $\,g\,$ (cf. Lemma \[dontw\](f)), and $\,A:\mv\to\mv\hs$ characterized by $\,\lg A\psi,\psi\hh'\hh\rg
=W(u\hh'\nnh,v,v\hh'\nnh,u\hh'\hh)$, for $\,\psi,\psi\hh'\nh\in\mv\nh$, with a vector field $\,u\hh'$ and sections $\,v,v\hh'$ of $\,\dzp$ chosen, locally, so that $\,g(u,u\hh'\hh)=1$, $\,\psi=\uv\,$ and $\,\psi\hh'\nh=\uvp$. (The resulting bilinear form $\,(\psi,\psi\hh'\hh)\mapsto\lg A\psi,\psi\hh'\hh\rg\,$ on $\,\mv\hs$ is well-defined, that is, unaffected by the choices of $\,u\hh'\nnh,v\,$ or $\,v\hh'\nnh$, as a consequence of Lemma \[dontw\](d),(e), while the function $\,W(u\hh'\nnh,v,v\hh'\nnh,u\hh'\hh)\,$ is in fact constant, by Lemma \[dontw\](d), as ones sees differentiating it via the Leibniz rule and noting that, since $\,\uv\,$ and $\,\uvp$ are parallel, the covariant derivatives of $\,v\,$ and $\,v\hh'$ in the direction of any vector field are sections of $\,\dz$.) That $\,A\,$ is traceless and self-adjoint is immediate from the symmetries of $\,W\nh$. Finally, $\,A\ne0\,$ since, otherwise, $\,W\hs$ would vanish. (Namely, in view of Lemma \[dontw\](d),(e), $\,W\hs$ would yield $\,0\,$ when evaluated on any quadruple of vector fields, each of which is either $\,u\hh'$ or a section of $\,\dzp\nnh$.)
Under the assumptions (a) – (f), with $\,\fh=\fh(t)$, we then have $$\label{ruv}
R(u\hh'\nnh,v)\hh v\hh'\,=\,\hs[\fh \hs g(v,v\hh'\hh)
+\lg A\uv,\uvp\hh\rg]\hs g(u\hh'\nnh,u)\hs u$$ for any sections $\,v,v\hh'$ of $\,\dzp$ and any vector field $\,u\hh'\nnh$. In fact, $\,\ri\hh(v,\,\cdot\,)=\ri\hh(v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)=0$ from symmetry of $\,\ri\,$ and Lemma \[dontw\](b), so that, by Lemma \[dontw\](c), $\,R(u\hh'\nnh,v)\hh v\hh'\nh=W(u\hh'\nnh,v)\hh v\hh'\nh
-(n-2)^{-1}g(v,v\hh'\hh)\ri u\hh'\nnh$, where $\,\ri u\hh'$ denotes the unique vector field with $\,g(\ri u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)=\ri\hh(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)$. Now (\[ruv\]) follows: due to (d), (f) and the definition of $\,A$, both sides have the same $\,g$-inner product with $\,u\hh'\nh$, and are orthogonal to $\,u^\perp\nh=\dzp$ (with $\,R(u\hh'\nnh,v)\hh v\hh'$ orthogonal to $\,\dzp$ in view of Lemma \[dontw\](e)).
We fix an open subinterval $\,I\hs$ of $\,I\hh'\nnh$, containing $\,0$, and a null geodesic $\,I\ni t\mapsto x(t)\,$ in $\,M\,$ with $\,x(0)=y$, parametrized by the function $\,t\,$ (in the sense that the function $\,t\,$ restricted to the geodesic coincides with the geodesic parameter). Namely, since $\,\nabla dt=0$, the restriction of $\,t\,$ to any geodesic is an affine function of the parameter; thus, by (d), it suffices to prescribe the initial data formed by $\,x(0)=y\,$ and a null vector $\,\dot x(0)\in\tym\,$ with $\,g(\dot x(0),u_y)=1$.
As $\,g(\dot x(0),u_y)=1$, the plane $\,P\,$ in $\,\tym$, spanned by the null vectors $\,\dot x(0)\,$ and $\,u_y$ (cf. Lemma \[dontw\](a)) is $\,g_y$-nondegenerate, and so $\,\tym=P\oplus\widetilde\mv\nh$, for $\,\widetilde\mv\nh=P^\perp\nnh$. Let $\,\hs\text{\rm pr}:\tym\to\widetilde\mv\hs$ be the orthogonal projection. Since $\,\hs\text{\rm pr}\hs(\dzy)=\{0\}$, the restriction of $\,\hs\text{\rm pr}\hs\,$ to $\,\dzyp$ descends to the quotient $\,\qt_y=\dzyp\nnh/\dz_y$, producing an isomorphism $\,\qt_y\to\widetilde\mv\nh$, also denoted by $\,\hs\text{\rm pr}\hh$. Finally, for $\,\psi\in\mv\nh$, we let $\,t\mapsto \tilde \psi(t)\in\txtm\,$ be the parallel field with $\,\tilde \psi(0)=\hs\text{\rm pr}\hskip2.4pt\psi_y$, and set $\,\kx(t,s,\psi)=\fh(t)\hh\lg \psi,\psi\rg+\lg A\psi,\psi\rg$, as in Section \[tcdo\].
The formula $\,F(t,s,\psi)=\exp_{\hs x(t)}(\tilde \psi(t)+su_{x(t)}/2)\,$ now defines a $\,C^\infty$ mapping $\,F$ from an open subset of $\,\rto\nh\times\mv\hs$ into $\,M$.
\[fstar\]Under the above hypotheses, $\,F\hh^*\nnh g=\kx\,dt^2\nh+\hs dt\hs ds+\vh$.
The $\,F$-images $\,w,w\hh'\nnh,F_*\psi\,$ of the constant vector fields $\,(1,0,0),(0,1,0)$ and $\,(0,0,\psi)\,$ in $\,\rto\nh\times\mv\nh$, for $\,\psi\in\mv\nh$, are vector fields tangent to $\,M\,$ along $\,F$ (sections of $\,F\hh^*\tm$). Since $\,\dzp$ is parallel, its leaves are totally geodesic and, by Lemma \[dontw\](e), the of $\,g\,$ induces on each leaf a flat torsionfree connection. Thus, $\,w\hh'$ and each $\,F_*\psi\,$ are parallel along each leaf of $\,\dzp\nnh$, as well as tangent to the leaf, and parallel along the geodesic $\,t\mapsto x(t)$. Therefore, $\,w\hh'\nh=u/2$, while the functions $\,g(w\hh'\nnh,F_*\psi)\,$ and $\,g(F_*\psi,F_*\psi\hh'\hs)$, for $\,\psi,\psi\hh'\nh\in\mv\nh$, are constant, and hence equal to their values at $\,y$, that is, $\,0\,$ and $\,\lg \psi,\psi\hh'\hs\rg$. It now remains to be shown that $\,g(w,w)=\kx\circ F$, $\,g(w,u/2)=1/2\,$ and $\,g(w,F_*\psi)=0$. To this end, we consider the variation $\,x(t,s)=F(t,sa,s\psi)\,$ of curves in $\,M$, with any fixed $\,a\in\bbR\,$ and $\,\psi\in\mv\nh$. Clearly, $\,w=x_t$ along the variation (notation of Section \[prel\]). Next, $\,x_{ts}=x_{st}$ is tangent to $\,\dzp\nnh$, since so is $\,x_s$, while $\,\dzp$ is parallel. Consequently, $\,[\hs g(x_t,u)\hh]_s=0$, as $\,u\,$ is parallel and tangent to $\,\dz$. Thus, $\,g(w,u)=g(x_t,u)=1$. (Note that $\,g(x_t,u)=1\,$ at $\,s=0$, due to (d), as the geodesic $\,t\mapsto x(t)\,$ is parametrized by the function $\,t$.) However, $\,x_{ss}=0\,$ and $\,x_s$ is tangent to $\,\dzp\nnh$, so that (\[xts\]) and (\[ruv\]) now give $\,x_{tss}=[\hs\fh g(x_s,x_s)+\lg A\uxs,\uxs\rg\hh]\hs u$, which is parallel in the $\,s\,$ direction, while $\,x_{ts}=x_{st}=0\,$ at $\,s=0$. Hence $\,x_{ts}=s\hs[\hs\fh g(x_s,x_s)+\lg A\uxs,\uxs\rg\hh]\hs u$, and so $\,g(x_{ts},x_{ts})=0\,$ (cf. (c) above and Lemma \[dontw\](a)). This further yields $\,[\hs g(x_t,x_t)]_{ss}/2=g(x_t,x_{tss})
=\fh g(x_s,x_s)+\lg A\uxs,\uxs\rg$. The last function is constant in the $\,s\,$ direction, while $\,g(x_t,x_t)=[\hs g(x_t,x_t)]_s=0\,$ at $\,s=0$, and so $\,g(w,w)=g(x_t,x_t)=s^2[\hs\fh g(x_s,x_s)+\lg A\uxs,\uxs\rg]=\kx$. Finally, being proportional to $\,u\,$ at each point, $\,x_{ts}$ is orthogonal to $\,\dzp\nnh$, and hence to $\,F_*\psi$, which imples that $\,[\hs g(x_t,F_*\psi)\hh]_s=0$, and, as $\,g(w,F_*\psi)=g(x_t,F_*\psi)=0\,$ at $\,s=0$, we get $\,g(w,F_*\psi)=0$ everywhere.
We are now in a position to prove Theorem \[clsdo\]. First, (\[rcr\]) is and has $\,\rd=1$, as one can verify by a direct calculation, cf. [@roter Theorem 3]. Conversely, if conditions (a) and (b) above are satisfied, we may also assume (c) – (f). (See the comment following (f).) Our assertion is now immediate from Lemma \[fstar\].
Appendix I: Proof of Lemma \[oldis\] {#appo .unnumbered}
====================================
We prove Lemma \[oldis\] here, since Olszak’s paper [@olszak] may be difficult to obtain.
The condition $\,\rd=n\,$ is equivalent to conformal flatness of $\,(M,g)$, since $\,n>2$ and so $\,\hs\varOmega\hs=0\,$ is the only $\,2$-form $\,\wedge$-divisible by all nonzero $\,1$-forms $\,\xi$. At a fixed point $\,x$, the metric $\,g_x$ allows us to treat the Ricci tensor $\,\ri_x$ and any $\,2$-form $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ as endomorphisms of $\,\txm\nh$, so that we may consider their images (which are subspaces of $\,\txm$). If $\,W\nh\ne0$, fixing a nonzero $\,2$-form $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ in the image of $\,W_{\nh x}$ acting on $\,2$-forms at $\,x\,$ we see that, for every $\,u\in\dzx$, our $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ is $\,\wedge$-divisible by $\,\xi=g_x(u,\,\cdot\,)$, and so the image of $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ contains $\,\dzx$. Thus, $\,\rd\le2$, and (i) follows. (Being nonzero and decomposable, $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ has rank $\,2$.) As shown in [@derdzinski-roter-80 Theorem 7 on p. 18], if $\,(M,g)$ is , the image of $\,\ri_x$ is a subspace of $\,\dzx$, so that (i) yields (ii), since $\,g\,$ in (ii) cannot be Ricci-flat. Next, if $\,\rd=2$, the image of our $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ coincides with $\,\dzx$ (as $\,\hs\text{\rm rank}\,\varOmega_x=2$). Every $\,2$-form in the image of $\,W_{\nh x}$ thus is a multiple of $\,\hs\varOmega_x$, being the exterior product of two vectors in $\,\dzx$, identified, via $\,g_x$, with $\,1$-forms. Hence $\rwo$. Conversely, if $\rwo$, all nonzero $\,2$-forms $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ in the image of $\,W_{\nh x}$ are of rank $\,2$, as $\,W_{\nh x}$, being self-adjoint, is a multiple of $\,\hs\varOmega_x\otimes\hs\varOmega_x$, and so the Bianchi identity for $\,W\hs$ gives $\,\hs\varOmega_x\wedge\hs\varOmega_x=0$. All such $\,\hs\varOmega_x$ are therefore $\,\wedge$-divisible by $\,\xi=g_x(u,\,\cdot\,)$, for every nonzero vector $\,u\,$ in the common $\,2$ image of such $\,\hs\varOmega_x$, which shows that $\,\rd=2$. Finally, (iv) follows if one chooses $\,\hs\varOmega_x\ne0\,$ equal to $\,W_{\nh x}(v,v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)\,$ for some $\,v,v\hh'\in\txm$.
Appendix II: Lemma \[dontw\][(b),(c)]{} in the locally symmetric case {#appt .unnumbered}
=====================================================================
Parts (b) and (c) of Lemma \[dontw\] for locally symmetric manifolds with $\,\rd=1\,$ could, in principle, be derived from Cahen and Parker’s classification [@cahen-parker] of pseudo-Riemannian symmetric manifolds. We prove them here directly, for the reader’s convenience. Our argument uses assertions (a), (d) in Lemma \[dontw\], along with (e) for $\,W\nh$, which were established in the proof of Lemma \[dontw\] before Appendix II was mentioned.
Suppose that $\,\nabla R=0\,$ and $\,\rd=1$. Replacing $\,M\,$ by an open subset, we also assume that the $\,\dz\,$ is spanned by a vector field $\,u$. By (\[cur\]), $$\label{ruo}
\mathrm{i)}\hskip9pt
R(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)\hs u\,\,=\,\,\varOmega\otimes u\hskip16pt\text{\rm
or,\ in\ coordinates,}\hskip14pt
\mathrm{ii)}\hskip9ptu^lR_{jkl}{}^s=\varOmega_{jk}u^s,$$ for some differential $\,2$-form $\,\varOmega$, which obviously does not depend on the choice of $\,u$. (It is also clear from (\[cur\]) that $\,\varOmega\,$ is the curvature form of the connection in the line bundle $\,\dz$, induced by the of $\,g$.) Being unique, $\,\varOmega\,$ is parallel, and so are $\,\ri\,$ and $\,W\nh$, which implies the Ricci identities $\,R\cdot\varOmega=0$, $\,R\cdot\ri=0$, and $\,R\cdot W\nh=0$. In coordinates: $\,R_{mlj}{}^s\tau_{sk}+R_{mlk}{}^s\tau_{js}=0$, where $\,\tau=\varOmega\,$ or $\,\tau=\ri$, and $$\label{rwp}
R_{qpj}{}^sW_{\nh sklm}\hs+\,R_{qpk}{}^sW_{\nh jslm}
\hs+\,R_{qpl}{}^sW_{\nh jksm}\hs+\,R_{qpk}{}^sW_{\nh jkls}\hs\,=\,\,0\hs.$$ Summing $\,R_{mlj}{}^s\varOmega_{sk}+R_{mlk}{}^s\varOmega_{js}=0\,$ against $\,u^l\nh$, we obtain $\,\varOmega\circ\hs\varOmega=0$, where the metric $\,g\,$ is used to treat $\,\varOmega\,$ as a bundle morphism $\,\tm\to\tm\,$ that sends each vector field $\,v\,$ to the vector field $\,\varOmega v\,$ with $\,g(\varOmega v,v\hh'\hh)=\hs\varOmega(v,v\hh'\hh)\,$ for all vector fields $\,v\hh'\nnh$. Lemma \[dontw\](d) and (\[ruo\].i) give $\,W(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,u,v)=\hs R(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,u,v)=0\,$ for our fixed vector field $\,u$, spanning $\,\dz$, and any section $\,v\,$ of $\,\dzp\nnh$. Hence, by (\[wer\]), $\,g(u,\,\cdot\,)\wedge\sigma(v,\,\cdot\,)
=g(v,\,\cdot\,)\wedge\sigma(u,\,\cdot\,)$. Thus, $\,\sigma u=c\hh u\,$ for the Schouten tensor $\,\sigma\,$ and some constant $\,c\hh$, with $\,\sigma u\,$ defined analogously to $\,\varOmega v$. (Otherwise, choosing $\,v\,$ such that $\,u,\sigma u\,$ and $\,v\,$ are linearly independent at a given point $\,x$, we would obtain a contradiction with the equality between planes in $\,\txm$, corresponding to the above equality between exterior products.) Consequently, $\,g(u,\,\cdot\,)\wedge(\sigma+c\hh g)(v,\,\cdot\,)=0$, and so $\,\sigma v+c\hh v\,$ is a section of $\,\dz\,$ whenever $\,v\,$ is a section of $\,\dzp\nnh$. Let us now fix $\,u\hh'$ as in (\[uuo\]). Symmetry of $\,\sigma\,$ gives $\,g(\sigma u\hh'\nnh,u)=c\hh$. In a suitably ordered basis with (\[wtt\]), at any point $\,x$, the endomorphism of $\,\txm\,$ corresponding to $\,\sigma_x$ thus has an upper triangular matrix with the diagonal entries $\,c\hh,-\hs c\hh,\dots,-\hs c\hh,c\hh$, so that $\,\hs\text{\rm tr}_g\hh\sigma=(4-n)\hs c\hh$. Consequently, $\,(n-2)\,\text{\rm s}\hs=2(n-1)(4-n)\hs c\hh$, for the scalar curvature $\,\hs\text{\rm s}\hh$, and $\,(n-2)\ri\hs u=2c\hh u$. However, contracting (\[ruo\].ii) in $\,k=s$, we get $\,\ri\hs u=-\hs\varOmega u$, and so $\,(n-2)\hs\varOmega u=-\hs2c\hh u$. The equality $\,\varOmega\circ\hs\varOmega=0\,$ that we derived from the Ricci identity $\,R\cdot\varOmega=0\,$ now gives $\,c=0$. Hence $\,\hs\text{\rm s}\hs=0\,$ (which yields Lemma \[dontw\](c)), and $\,\ri\hs u=0$.
As $\,c=0\,$ and $\,\sigma=\ri$, the assertion about $\,\sigma v+c\hh v\,$ obtained above means that $\,\ri\hh v\,$ is a section of $\,\dz\,$ whenever $\,v\,$ is a section of $\,\dzp\nnh$. Let $\,\lambda,\mu,\xi\,$ be the $\,1$-forms with $\,\lambda=g(u,\,\cdot\,)$, $\,\mu=g(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)$, $\,\xi(u\hh'\hh)=0$, and $\,\ri\hh v=\xi(v)\hh u\,$ for sections $\,v\,$ of $\,\dzp\nnh$. Transvecting (\[ruo\].ii) with $\,\mu_s$, we get $\,\varOmega=R(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,u,u\hh'\hh)
=(n-2)^{-1}\lambda\wedge\ri\hh(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)\,$ from Lemma \[dontw\](c) with $\,\ri\hs u=0\,$ and Lemma \[dontw\](d). However, evaluating $\,\ri\hh(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)\,$ on $\,u\hh'\nnh,u\,$ and sections $\,v\,$ of $\,\dzp\nnh$, we see that $\,\ri\hh(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)=h\hs\lambda+\hs\xi$, with $\,h=\ri\hh(u\hh'\nnh,u\hh'\hh)$. (Note that $\,\xi(u)=0\,$ since $\,\ri\hs u=0$, while $\,\dz\subset\dzp$ by Lemma \[dontw\](a).) Therefore, $$\label{omr}
\mathrm{i)}\hskip9pt(n-2)\hs\varOmega\,\,=\,\,\lambda\wedge\hs\xi\hs,
\hskip25pt\mathrm{ii)}\hskip9pt\ri\,\,=\,\,h\hs\lambda\otimes\lambda\,
+\,\lambda\otimes\xi\,+\,\xi\otimes\lambda\hs.$$ In addition, if $\,v\hh'$ denotes the unique vector field with $\,g(v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)=\xi$, then $\,u\,$ and $\,v\hh'$ are null and orthogonal, or, equivalently, $$\label{nul}
\text{\rm the\ $\,1$-forms\ $\,\lambda\,$\ and\ $\,\xi\,$\ are\ null\ and\
mutually\ orthogonal.}$$ In fact, $\,g(u,u)=0\,$ by Lemma \[dontw\](a), $\,g(u,v\hh'\hh)=0\,$ as $\,\xi(u)=0$, and $\,v\hh'$ is null since (\[omr\]) yields $\,(n-2)\hs[\ri\hs(\varOmega\hs u\hh'\hh)
-\varOmega\hs(\ri\hs u\hh'\hh)]=2\hh g(v\hh'\nnh,v\hh'\hh)\hs u$, while, transvecting the Ricci identity $\,R_{mlj}{}^sR_{sk}+R_{mlk}{}^sR_{js}=0\,$ with $\,u^l$ and using (\[ruo\].ii), we see that $\,\ri\,$ and $\,\varOmega$ commute as bundle morphisms $\,\tm\to\tm$.
Furthermore, transvecting with $\,\mu^k\mu^m$ the coordinate form $\,R_{mlj}{}^s\tau_{sk}+R_{mlk}{}^s\tau_{js}=0$ of the Ricci identity $\,R\cdot\tau=0\,$ for the parallel tensor field $\,\tau=(n-2)\hs\varOmega+\ri
=h\hs\lambda\otimes\lambda+2\lambda\otimes\xi\,$ (cf. (\[omr\])), we get $\,2\hh\lambda_jb_{\hs ls}\xi^s=0$, where $\,b=W(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,,u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)$. Namely, $\,R=\hs W\hs+\,(n-2)^{-1}\hs g\wedge\ri\,$ by Lemma \[dontw\](c), $\,W_{\nh mlj}{}^s\tau_{sk}=0\,$ in view of Lemma \[dontw\](d), $\,\mu^k\mu^mW_{\nh mlk}{}^s\tau_{js}=2\hh\lambda_jb_{\hs ls}\xi^s$ since $\,b\hs(u,\,\cdot\,)=0\,$ (again from Lemma \[dontw\](d)), and the remaining terms, related to $\,g\wedge\ri$, add up to $\,0\,$ as a consequence of (\[nul\]), (\[omr\].ii) and the formula for $\,\tau$. (Note that (\[nul\]) gives $\,R_j{}^s\tau_{sk}=R_j{}^s\tau_{ks}=0$, and so four out of the eight remaining terms vanish individually.) However, $\,u\ne0$, and so $\,\lambda\ne0$, which gives $\,b\hs(\,\cdot\,,v\hh'\hh)=0$, where $\,v\hh'$ is the vector field with $\,g(v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)=\xi$. Thus, $\,W(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,,u\hh'\nnh,v\hh'\hh)=0$. As a result, the $\,3$-tensor $\,W(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,v\hh'\hh)\,$ must vanish: it yields the value $\,0\,$ whenever each of the three arguments is either $\,u\hh'$ or a section of $\,\dzp\nnh$. (Lemma \[dontw\](e) for $\,W\hs$ is already established.)
The relation $\,W(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,v\hh'\hh)=0\,$ implies in turn that $\,W(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,\ri\hs v)=0\,$ (in coordinates: $\,W_{\nh jkl}{}^sR_{sp}=0$). In fact, by (\[omr\].ii), the image of $\,\ri\,$ is spanned by $\,u\,$ and $\,v\hh'\nnh$, while $\,W(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,,u)=0\,$ according to Lemma \[dontw\](d).
As in [@olszak 1$^{\hs\text{\rm o}}$ on p. 214], we have $\,W\nh=(\lambda\otimes\lambda)\wedge\hs b\,$ (notation of (\[wer\])), where, again, $\,b=W(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,,u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)$. Namely, by Lemma \[dontw\](e) for $\,W\nh$, both sides agree on any quadruple of vector fields, each of which is either $\,u\hh'$ or a section of $\,\dzp\nnh$.
Finally, transvecting (\[rwp\]) with $\,\mu^k\mu^m$ and replacing $\,R\,$ by $\,W\nh+(n-2)^{-1}\hs g\wedge\ri$, we obtain two contributions, one from $\,W\hs$ and one from $\,g\wedge\ri$, the sum of which is zero. Since $\,W\nh=(\lambda\otimes\lambda)\wedge\hs b$, the $\,W\hs$ contribution vanishes: its first two terms add up to $\,0$, and so do its other two terms. (As we saw, $\,b\hs(u,\,\cdot\,)=0$, while, obviously, $\,b\hs(u\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)=0$.) Out of the sixteen terms forming the $\,g\wedge\ri\,$ contribution, eight are separately equal to zero since $\,W_{\nh jkl}{}^sR_{sp}=0$, and so, in view of (\[omr\].ii) and the relation $\,W\nh=(\lambda\otimes\lambda)\wedge\hs b\hh$, vanishing of the $\,g\wedge\ri\,$ contribution gives $\,\lambda_pS_{jlq}=\lambda_qS_{jlp}$, for $\,S_{jlq}=2\hh b_{jl}\xi_q-\hh b_{ql}\xi_j
-\hh b_{qj}\xi_l$. Thus, $\,S_{jlq}=\eta_{jl}\lambda_q$ for some twice-covariant symmetric tensor field $\,\eta$, which, summed cyclically over $\,j,l,q$, yields $\,0\,$ (due to the definition of $\,S_{jlq}$ and symmetry of $\,b$). As $\,\lambda\ne0\,$ and the symmetric product has no zero divisors, we get $\,\eta=0\,$ and $\,S_{jlq}=0$. The expression $\,b_{jl}\xi_q-\hh b_{ql}\xi_j$ is, therefore, skew-symmetric in $\,j,l$. As it is also, clearly, skew-symmetric in $\,j,q$, it must be totally skew-symmetric and hence equal to one-third of its cyclic sum over $\,j,l,q$. That cyclic sum, however, is $\,0\,$ in view of symmetry of $\,b$, so that $\,b_{jl}\xi_q=\hh b_{ql}\xi_j$. Thus, $\,\xi=0$, for otherwise the last equality would yield $\,b\hs=\varphi\hs\xi\otimes\hs\xi\,$ for some function $\,\varphi$, and hence $\,W\nh=(\lambda\otimes\lambda)\wedge\hs b\hs
=\hh\varphi\hs(\lambda\otimes\lambda)\wedge(\hh\xi\otimes\hs\xi)$, which would clearly imply that the vector field $\,v\hh'$ with $\,g(v\hh'\nnh,\,\cdot\,)=\xi\,$ is a section of the $\,\dz$, not equal to a function times $\,u\,$ (as $\,\xi(u\hh'\hh)=0$, while $\,g(u,u\hh'\hh)=1$), contradicting one-dimensionality of $\,\dz$. Therefore, $\,\ri=h\hs\lambda\otimes\lambda\,$ by (\[omr\].ii) with $\,\xi=0$, which proves assertion (b) of Lemma \[dontw\] in our case.
[99]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cahen, M. & Parker, M.</span>, Pseudo-riemannian symmetric spaces. [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} **229** (1980), 1–108.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chaki, M.1.8ptC. & Gupta, B.</span>, On conformally symmetric spaces. [*Indian J. Math.*]{} **5** (1963), 122.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Derdziński, A.</span>, On homogeneous conformally symmetric pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. [*Colloq. Math.*]{} **40** (1978), 167–185. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Derdziński, A. & Roter, W.</span>, On conformally symmetric manifolds with metrics of indices $\,0\,$ and $\,1\hh$. [*Tensor*]{} (N.1.9ptS.) **31** (1977), 255–259. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Derdziński, A. & Roter, W.</span>, Some theorems on conformally symmetric manifolds. [*Tensor*]{} (N.1.9ptS.) **32** (1978), 11–23. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Derdziński, A. & Roter, W.</span>, Some properties of conformally symmetric manifolds which are not Ricci-recurrent. [*Tensor*]{} (N.1.9ptS.) **34** (1980), 11–20. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Derdzinski, A. & Roter, W.</span>, Projectively flat surfaces, null parallel distributions, and conformally symmetric manifolds. Preprint, math.DG/0604568. To appear in [*Tohoku Math. J*]{}.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Derdzinski, A. & Roter, W.</span>, Compact pseudo-Riemannian manifolds with parallel Weyl tensor. Preprint, http:/-1.5pt/arXiv.org/abs/math.DG/0702491.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Deszcz, R.</span>, On hypercylinders in conformally symmetric manifolds. [*Publ. Inst. Math.*]{} (Beograd) (N.1.9ptS.) **51**(65) (1992), 101–114.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Deszcz, R. & Hotloś, M.</span>, On a certain subclass of pseudosymmetric manifolds. [*Publ. Math. Debrecen*]{} **53** (1998), 29–48.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dillen, F.1.8ptJ.1.8pt E. & Verstraelen, L.1.8ptC.1.8ptA.</span> (eds.), [*Handbook of Differential Geometry, Vol. I*]{}. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hotloś, M.</span>, On conformally symmetric warped products. [*Ann. Acad. Paedagog. Cracov. Stud. Math.*]{} **4** (2004), 75–85. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Olszak, Z.</span>, On conformally recurrent manifolds, I: Special distributions. [*Zesz. Nauk. Politech. Śl., Mat.-Fiz.*]{} **68** (1993), 213–225.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Patterson, E.1.8ptM. & Walker, A.1.6ptG.</span>, Riemann extensions. [*Quart. J. Math. Oxford*]{} Ser. (2) **3** (1952), 19–28. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rong, J.1.8ptP.</span>, On $^2\nh K^*_n$ space. [ *Tensor*]{} (N.1.9ptS.) **49** (1990), 117–123.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Roter, W.</span>, On conformally symmetric Ricci-recurrent spaces. [*Colloq. Math.*]{} **31** (1974), 87–96. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sharma, R.</span>, Proper conformal symmetries of conformal symmetric space-times. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} **29** (1988), 2421–2422.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Simon, U.</span>, Compact conformally symmetric Riemannian spaces. [*Math. Z.*]{} **132** (1973), 177.
[^1]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on the dynamics of ultracold collisions induced by near-resonant frequency-chirped light. A series of identical chirped pulses, separated by a variable delay, is applied to an ultracold sample of $^{85}$Rb, and the rate of inelastic trap-loss collisions is measured. For small detunings of the chirped light below the atomic resonance, we observe that the rate of collisions induced by a given pulse can be increased by the presence of an earlier pulse. We attribute this to the enhancement of short-range collisional flux by the long-range excitation of atom pairs to an attractive molecular potential. For larger detunings and short delays, we find that a leading pulse can suppress the rate of collisions caused by a following pulse. This is due to a depletion of short-range atom pairs by the earlier pulse. Comparison of our data to classical Monte-Carlo simulations of the collisions yields reasonable agreement.'
author:
- 'M.J. Wright,$^{1,}$[^1] J.A. Pechkis,$^{1}$ J.L. Carini,$^{1}$ and P.L. Gould'
title: 'Probing Ultracold Collisional Dynamics with Frequency-Chirped Pulses'
---
Recent years have witnessed enhanced capabilities in controlling both the external and internal degrees of freedom of atoms and molecules. Laser cooling and evaporative cooling of atoms [@Metcalf99] and the coherent control of excitation processes in molecules [@Rice00; @Shapiro03] represent prime examples. The possibility of combining these two areas, i.e., applying coherent control techniques to ultracold systems, has generated a great deal of interest, especially in the context of using short laser pulses to produce ultracold molecules by photoassociating ultracold atoms [@Machholm94; @Vardi97; @Fatemi01; @Vala01; @Vatasescu01; @Luc-Koenig04a; @Luc-Koenig04b; @Koch06a; @Koch06b; @Poschinger06; @Salzmann06; @Brown06]. Part of the appeal is the prospect of controlling the internal state distribution of the resulting molecules. Understanding and controlling the dynamics of the formation process will be key to these efforts. In the present work, we explore the nanosecond time-scale dynamics of a closely-related process: ultracold atomic collisions induced by frequency-chirped light [@Wright05], shown in Fig. 1. By varying the delay between successive pulses of chirped light, we observe that the collisions induced by a given pulse can be either enhanced or suppressed by the presence of a preceding pulse, depending on the range of frequencies spanned by the chirp. If the chirp encompasses frequencies close to the atomic resonance, long-range excitation to the R$^{-3}$ potential (R is the internuclear separation) leads to collisional flux enhancement. For chirps centered well below the atomic resonance, efficient adiabatic excitation by the first chirp depletes the short-range atom pairs available to be excited by the second chirp.
![\[fig:epsart\] Schematic of the frequency-chirped excitation and resulting collisions, showing enhancement (a) and depletion (b) effects. Each frame shows the ground-state (5S+5S) and excited-state (5S+5P$_{3/2}$) potentials and the evolution of colliding atom pairs. The vertical lines delineate the range of frequencies spanned by each positive chirp (1 and 2). In (a), chirped pulse 1 excites atom pairs at long range (top frame). This range is centered close to the 5S $\rightarrow$ 5P$_{3/2}$ atomic resonance in (a) and well below resonance in (b). These pairs accelerate on the excited-state potential, then spontaneously decay back to the ground state (middle frame), providing enhanced short-range collisional flux for chirped pulse 2 (bottom frame). In (b), chirped pulse 1 excites atom pairs at short range (top). These excited pairs collide inelastically (middle), leaving a depleted pair distribution (dashed curve) to be sampled by chirped pulse 2 (bottom).](Figure1)
A number of previous experiments [@Boesten96; @Gensemer98; @Orzel98; @Fatemi01; @Olivera03] have employed time-dependent excitation with fixed-frequency light to investigate dynamical effects in ultracold atomic interactions. The frequency-chirped light utilized in the present work is unique in two important ways [@Wright05]: 1) the chirp provides adiabatic, and therefore very efficient, excitation of atom pairs; and 2) the wide range of frequencies spanned by the chirp results in the nearly simultaneous excitation of atom pairs over a wide range of R.
In the experiment, we illuminate trapped ultracold $^{85}$Rb atoms with pulses of frequency-chirped light and measure the resulting collisional rate constant $\beta$ for inelastic processes which lead to ejection from the magneto-optical trap (MOT) [@Wright05]. Such trap-loss collisions occur when atom pairs, initially excited to an attractive molecular potential by a chirped pulse, arrive at short range (e.g., R $<$ 100 a$_{0}$, where a$_{0}$ is the Bohr radius) in the excited state. The rate constant $\beta$ is determined by fitting the decay curve for the number of atoms in the MOT. There are two contributions to this decay: ultracold collisions occurring at a rate per atom $\beta$n, where n is the atomic density; and collisions with background gas occurring at a rate per atom $\gamma$. We are careful to operate at sufficiently low densities that radiative repulsion effects [@Walker90] are negligible, resulting in a constant effective volume for the MOT cloud. We also operate at low background pressures, $\sim$10$^{-10}$ torr, yielding long MOT lifetimes: $\gamma$${^{-1}}$$\sim$50 s. This is achieved by loading the primary MOT with a slow beam generated from a second MOT located in a separate vacuum chamber [@Lu96]. In addition to the collisions induced by the frequency-chirped light, the MOT itself has an inherent rate of trap-loss collisions. This contribution to $\beta$ is carefully measured by monitoring decays in the absence of the chirped light. The values for $\beta$ reported here have had this contribution subtracted. The chirped light can cause non-collisional perturbations to the MOT, especially when the chirp passes through resonance. The time-averaged fluorescence per atom and the volume of the MOT cloud can both increase (up to 3% and 30%, respectively) due to atomic excitation by the chirped light. These fractional changes are minimized by reducing the number of chirps per cycle, and are accounted for in determining absolute values of $\beta$. In the present work, we are interested in the collisional dynamics and, therefore, focus on the dependence of $\beta$ on the delay between successive chirped pulses.
The primary MOT is configured in the phase-stable geometry [@Rauschenbeutel98] which reduces fluctuations in the properties of the trapped sample. It is operated with an axial field gradient of 12 G/cm, a total (sum of all six beams) peak intensity of 40 mW/cm$^{2}$, and a detuning of -1.5$\Gamma$ with respect to the 5S$_{1/2}$(F=3) $\rightarrow$ 5P$_{3/2}$(F’=4) cycling transition at 780 nm. Here $\Gamma$ = 2$\pi$(5.9 MHz) is the natural linewidth of this transition. A separate repumping laser, tuned to the 5S$_{1/2}$(F=2) $\rightarrow$ 5P$_{3/2}$(F’=3) transition, is used to prevent population from accumulating in the lower ground-state hyperfine level.
The frequency-chirped light is produced by a rapid ramp of the current driving an external-cavity diode laser. To minimize the resulting amplitude modulation, a small portion of this chirped light is used to injection lock a separate “slave” diode laser [@Wright04]. This master-slave arrangement also results in a significantly higher output power being available to the experiment. The laser light is linearly polarized and focused onto the trapped sample. Its diameter ($\sim$100 $\mu$m) approximately matches that of the atom cloud. For the work reported here, the frequency increases linearly by 1 GHz in 100 ns, resulting in a chirp rate of +10 GHz/$\mu$s, and the peak intensity is fixed at 70 W/cm$^{2}$. An acousto-optical modulator (AOM) selects the central portion of each chirp, yielding a 40 ns FWHM Gaussian pulse.
![\[fig:epsart\] Timing scheme for the multiple chirps. The laser frequency f undergoes a series of linear chirps. The same portion of each chirp is selected by a synchronized acousto-optical modulator, resulting in a series of identical frequency-chirped pulses of intensity I. The delay between pulses is varied by selecting every n$^{th}$ pulse (n = 1, 2, 3, $\ldots$), thus maintaining the properties of the individual chirps. This figure, for example, shows n = 3.](Fig2_Timing_v2)
The timing of successive chirps is key to the present work and is shown in Fig. 2. The MOT is turned off for 150 $\mu$s every 722 $\mu$s. The repumping light remains on continuously in order to correct any optical pumping caused by the chirped pulses. During the MOT-off time, a train of chirped pulses, spaced by $\tau$, illuminates the MOT. A periodic current ramp is applied to the master laser, resulting in a symmetric triangle-wave frequency modulation (1 GHz amplitude, 200 ns period) of the slave laser output. The AOM selects the positive-slope portion of a given chirp cycle. The shortest possible delay between chirps ($\tau$=200 ns) is obtained by selecting adjacent positive ramps. Increasing delays are obtained by selecting every n$^{th}$ positive ramp. This ensures that the details of individual chirps do not change as the delay between chirps is varied. The number of chirps per MOT-off window is kept constant at either 40 (for the data in Fig. 3) or 80 (for the data in Fig. 4).
We first examine the delay dependence of $\beta$ for a center detuning (relative to the 5S$_{1/2}$(F=3) $\rightarrow$ 5P$_{3/2}$(F’=4) cycling transition) of the chirp $\Delta_{c}$/(2$\pi$) = -300 MHz. In this case, the intensity of the chirped light is still rather high when it passes through the atomic resonance. Therefore, we expect significant excitation of atom pairs at long range (R$>$600 a$_{0}$). On the other hand, the chirp also encompasses larger detunings and the corresponding shorter-range excitations. We expect this combination of long-range and short-range excitations to lead to flux enhancement [@Sanchez-Villicana96], as shown in Fig. 1a. In this process, a large number of atom pairs are initially excited at long range by light tuned near the atomic resonance. The atoms accelerate towards each other on the attractive potential, but because this curve is rather flat at long range, the atoms do not gain sufficient kinetic energy to escape from the trap before spontaneous emission returns the pair to the essentially flat ground-state potential. Although their kinetic energy is too low for escape, the atomic trajectories have been significantly altered. In particular, the atoms have been deflected towards each other and will therefore approach more closely than their original trajectories would have allowed. If the atom pair is now excited again, but this time at shorter range (by light detuned farther from the atomic resonance), the attractive molecular potential is much steeper and the excited atom pair will pick up sufficient energy to escape. The initial excitation at long range has thus enhanced the collisional flux available for the second excitation at short range. With fixed-frequency light (at both small and large detunings), this flux enhancement happens continuously [@Sanchez-Villicana96]. However, the trajectories themselves have a temporal dependence. We have previously probed these dynamics using delayed pulses [@Gensemer98]: a first pulse of near-resonant light to excite at long range, followed by second pulse of far-detuned light to re-excite at short range. When the delay between these pulses matches the time it takes the atoms to go from long range to short range, an enhancement in the collisional loss rate is seen. In the present work, the frequency chirp includes both the near-resonant and off-resonant light. The long-range excitation from one chirp enhances the flux available for short-range excitation by the following chirp. Since the excitation by the chirped light is time dependent, we expect the overall trap-loss collision rate to depend on the timing between successive chirps.
![\[fig:epsart\] Dependence of collisional rate constant on delay between chirped pulses: (a) experimental results; (b) Monte-Carlo simulation results for different molecular states, as indicated. All results are normalized to the case of infinite delay. For the -300 MHz center detuning used here, enhancement is seen for short delays.](figure3)
In Fig. 3a, we show the collisional trap-loss rate constant $\beta$ as a function of delay between pulses of chirped light with $\Delta_{c}$/(2$\pi$)= -300 MHz. The results are normalized to the value at the longest delay (2 $\mu$s), since in this limit, the pulses act independently. The data do indeed display an enhancement peak centered at a delay of 400 ns. A maximum enhancement factor of 2.4$\pm$0.3 is observed. Results of Monte-Carlo simulations, discussed below, are shown in Fig. 3b. They show the same qualitative behavior as the data, but with a smaller peak occurring at shorter delay. We note that in the independent-pulse limit and using a time-averaged number of chirped pulses per second $\nu_{c}$ = 5.5x10$^{4}$ s$^{-1}$, the absolute value of $\beta$ is 4.7x10$^{-12}$ cm$^{3}$s$^{-1}$. This result is slightly ($\sim$40$\%$) higher than, but consistent with, our previously measured value for these parameters [@Wright05] when we correct for $\nu_{c}$ and account for the factor of 2.0 enhancement (see Fig. 3a) resulting from the 500 ns delay used in that experiment.
We now examine the delay dependence for the case of a larger (more negative) center detuning for the chirp. A thorough discussion of the detuning dependence of the collision rate, for both positive and negative chirp directions, and at a fixed delay between chirped pulses, will be forthcoming [@Wright06]. For a center detuning of $\Delta_{c}$/(2$\pi$)= -600 MHz, the frequency does not pass through the atomic resonance. Therefore, we expect that long-range excitation should not play an important role and that the flux enhancement discussed above should not occur. In fact, we expect just the opposite: depletion, as shown in Fig. 1b. Since the frequency-chirped light is rather intense, it is very efficient at adiabatically exciting atom pairs which have an internuclear separation R such that they are resonant at some point during the chirp. Immediately following the chirped pulse, all atom pairs within the spherical shell defined by the endpoints of the chirp will be excited via this rapid adiabatic passage. Since this excitation is primarily at short range, where the excited molecular potential is steep, the majority of these atom pairs will gain sufficient kinetic energy to escape from the trap. These pairs are thus not available to be excited by a second chirped pulse which immediately follows the first. We therefore expect fewer collisions to be induced by a second pulse when the delay is short. However, if this second chirped pulse is delayed sufficiently, the thermal atomic motion has time to fill in the depleted atom-pair distribution and the two pulses will act independently. We can estimate the expected persistence time for this depletion as $\Delta$R/v$_{t}$, where $\Delta$R$\sim$400 a$_{0}$ is the width of the spherical shell (from 500 a$_{0}$ to 900 a$_{0}$) and v$_{t}\sim$15 cm/s is the thermal velocity. This yields a time scale of $\sim$150 ns.
![\[fig:epsart\] Dependence of collisional rate constant on delay between chirped pulses: (a) experimental results; (b) Monte-Carlo simulation results for different molecular states, as indicated. All results are normalized to the case of infinite delay. For the -600 MHz center detuning used here, depletion is seen at the shortest delay.](figure4)
In Fig. 4a, $\beta$ for this larger detuning of $\Delta_{c}$/(2$\pi$) = -600 MHz is plotted as a function of delay between successive pulses of chirped light. As in Fig. 3, the data are normalized to the long-delay (independent-pulse) limit. At the shortest achievable delay, 200 ns, a depletion of 22$\%\pm$6$\%$ is observed. The Monte-Carlo simulations, shown in Fig. 4b, are in reasonable agreement with the data. They predict an even larger depletion, $\sim$50%, for delay of 100 ns, shorter than we have so far been able to achieve in the experiment.
The simulated results shown in Figs. 3b and 4b are obtained from Monte-Carlo calculations of the collisions, which treat the atomic motion classically. The initial conditions for an atom pair, i.e., relative position and velocity vectors, are chosen randomly according to the appropriate distribution. A uniform spatial density and a temperature of 50 $\mu$K are assumed. This pair is then subject to the first frequency-chirped pulse. The probability for excitation to an attractive molecular potential is then calculated using the Landau-Zener formula [@Landau32; @Zener32]. A given atom pair is either excited or not, with a weighting given by this excitation probability. If the pair is excited, its motion on the attractive potential is followed until spontaneous emission (SE) occurs. The probability for SE is exponential with a time constant equal to the molecular state lifetime. Once SE occurs, the atom pair returns to the ground state, assumed to be flat, and follows a straight-line trajectory. Meanwhile, the second chirped pulse, delayed by $\tau$, illuminates the atom pair and the above calculation is repeated. If the atom pair arrives at sufficiently short range (R$<$100 a$_{0}$) in the excited state, as a result of excitation by either chirped pulse, that particular trajectory is considered a trap-loss event. A large number (e.g., 2x10$^{5}$) of trajectories are run and the fraction of them resulting in trap loss is a measure of relative value of $\beta$. This process is then repeated for various values of $\tau$ and for the four Hund’s case (c) long-range molecular states: 0$_{u}^{+}$, 1$_{g}$, 0$_{g}^{-}$, and 1$_{u}$. The C$_{3}$ coefficients and lifetimes of these states are taken from [@Julienne91]. We do not include the 2$_{u}$ state in the simulations, because its decay (and excitation) is forbidden except at the very longest range [@Julienne91].
The simulations include only two frequency-chirped pulses whereas the experiment utilizes a train of N$>>$1 (typically N=40 or 80) pulses per MOT-off window. We can consider two contributions to $\beta$($\tau$): $\beta_{1}$ from a single chirp and $\beta_{2}$ arising from the interaction between two successive chirps. Note that $\beta_{1}$ is independent of $\tau$ (for $\tau$=$\infty$, the simulation result is 2$\beta_{1}$), while $\beta_{2}$ vanishes for $\tau$=$\infty$. The value of $\beta_{2}$ can be either positive, indicating enhancement, or negative, indicating depletion. From the $\tau$ dependence of the simulated value of $\beta$, we can extract $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$. The quantity to be compared with experiment would then be N($\beta_{1}$+$\beta_{2}$). Since we are interested primarily in the dependence on delay, the comparisons are made using values of $\beta$ normalized to the case of infinite delay.
As seen in Figs. 3 and 4, the simulated values of $\beta$ describe the experimental results rather well. It is interesting that the different molecular potentials all exhibit a similar delay dependence, despite the fact that their radiative lifetimes and C$_{3}$ coefficients vary significantly. For the -300 MHz center detuning (Fig. 3), the enhancement peak in the simulation occurs at a somewhat shorter delay and is less pronounced in comparison to the experiment. For the -600 MHz center detuning (Fig. 4), the depletion is more pronounced in the simulation than in the experiment. These differences may be due to simplifications in the simulations. The motion is treated classically and the effects of hyperfine structure are not included. Also, in a given run of the simulation, a single excited molecular potential is assumed.
In summary, we have investigated the dynamics of ultracold atomic collisions induced by pulses of frequency-chirped light. We find generally good agreement between our measurements and the results of Monte-Carlo simulations. The rate of inelastic trap-loss collisions caused by a given chirped pulse is modified by the presence of a preceding pulse. The extent of this modification depends on the delay between the two pulses. Varying this delay allows us to probe the collisional dynamics. We see two main effects. First, when the chirp includes frequencies near the atomic resonance, the resulting excitation of long-range atom pairs by the first pulse leads to an enhancement of the collisional flux available for the second pulse. The time scale for this enhancement is set by the trajectories of excited atom pairs which have decayed at long range. Second, when the chirp includes frequencies far from resonance, short-range atom pairs are efficiently excited and caused to collide by the first pulse, leading to a reduction in collisions induced by the second pulse. This depleted distribution of short-range atom pairs is eventually filled in by the thermal motion. The fact that we see significant depletion at the shortest delay indicates that the chirped excitation of available atom pairs by rapid adiabatic passage is indeed efficient.
Our findings have several important consequences that are relevant to efforts to form ultracold molecules by pulsed photoassociation of ultracold atoms. The time-dependent enhancement in collisional flux caused by chirped-pulse excitation of long-range atom pairs may benefit these efforts. On the other hand, our observation of depletion indicates that this process must be considered in experiments utilizing high-repetition-rate short-pulse lasers. The cold atoms fill in the depleted pair distribution rather slowly. Finally, we point out that our depletion effect is closely related to the production of a “hole” in the ground-state collisional wavefunction [@Luc-Koenig04a; @Koch06b]. Such a hole is associated with mixing bound levels into the continuum state and is predicted to lead directly to the production of weakly-bound ground-state molecules.
We thank Steve Gensemer and Christiane Koch for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy.
H.J. Metcalf and P. van der Straten, *Laser Cooling and Trapping* (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999).
S.A. Rice and M. Zhao, *Optimal Control of Molecular Dynamics* (Wiley, New York, 2000).
M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, *Principles of Quantum Control of Molecular Processes* (Wiley, New York, 2003).
M. Machholm, A. Guisti-Suzor, and F. Mies, Phys. Rev. A **50**, 5025 (1994).
A. Vardi, D. Abrashkevich, E. Frishman, and M. Shapiro, J. Chem. Phys. **107**, 6166 (1997).
F. Fatemi, K.M. Jones, H. Wang, I. Walmsley, and P.D. Lett., Phys. Rev. A **64**, 033421 (2001).
J. Vala, O. Dulieu, F. Masnou-Seeuws, P. Pillet, and R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 013412 (2001).
M. Vatasescu, O. Dulieu, R. Kosloff, and F. Masnou-Seeuws, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 033407 (2001).
E. Luc-Koenig, R. Kosloff, F. Masnou-Seeuws, and M. Vatasescu, Phys. Rev. A **70**, 033414 (2004).
E. Luc-Koenig, M. Vatasescu, and F. Masnou-Seeuws, Eur. Phys. J. D **31**, 239 (2004).
C.P. Koch, E. Luc-Koenig, and F. Masnou-Seeuws, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 033408 (2006).
C.P. Koch, R. Kosloff, and F. Masnou-Seeuws, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 043409 (2006).
U. Poschinger, W. Salzmann, R. Wester, M. Weidem$\selectlanguage{german}"u\selectlanguage{english}$ller, C.P. Koch, and R. Kosloff, physics/0604140 (2006).
W. Salzmann, U. Poschinger, R. Wester, M. Weidem$\selectlanguage{german}"u\selectlanguage{english}$ller, A. Merli, S.M. Weber, F. Sauer, M. Plewicki, F. Weise, A.M. Esparza, L. W$\selectlanguage{german}"o\selectlanguage{english}$ste, and A. Lindinger, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 023414 (2006).
B.L. Brown, A.J. Dicks, and I.A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 173002 (2006).
M.J. Wright, S.D. Gensemer, J. Vala, R. Kosloff, and P.L. Gould, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 063001 (2005).
H.M.J.M. Boesten, C.C. Tsai, B.J. Verhaar, and D.J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 5194 (1996).
S.D. Gensemer and P.L. Gould, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 936 (1998).
C. Orzel, S.D. Bergeson, S. Kulin, and S.L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 5093 (1998).
A.L. de Olivera, M.W. Mancini, V.S. Bagnato, and L.G. Marcassa, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 143002 (2003).
T. Walker, D. Sesko, and C. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **64**, 408 (1990).
Z.T. Lu, K.L. Corwin, M.J. Renn, M.H. Anderson, E.A. Cornell, and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 3331 (1996).
A. Rauschenbeutel, H. Schadwinkel, V. Gomer, and D. Meschede, Opt. Commun. **148**, 45 (1998).
M.J. Wright, P.L. Gould, and S.D. Gensemer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. **75**, 4718 (2004).
V. Sanchez-Villicana, S.D. Gensemer, and P.L. Gould, Phys. Rev. A **54**, R3730 (1996).
M.J. Wright, J.A. Pechkis, J.L. Carini, S. Kallush, R. Kosloff, and P.L. Gould, to be published (2006).
L.D. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion **2**, 46 (1932).
C. Zener, Proc. R. Soc. London A **137**, 696 (1932).
P.S. Julienne and J. Vigue, Phys. Rev. A **44**, 4464 (1991).
[^1]: Present address: Institut f$\selectlanguage{german}"u\selectlanguage{english}$r Experimentalphysik, Universit$\selectlanguage{german}"a\selectlanguage{english}$t Innsbruck, Technikerstra$\selectlanguage{german}"s\selectlanguage{english}$e 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We describe a general framework for analyzing orbits of systems containing compact objects (neutron stars or black holes) in a class of Lagrangian-based alternative theories of gravity that also admit a global preferred reference frame. The framework is based on a modified Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann (EIH) formalism developed by Eardley and by Will, generalized to include the possibility of Lorentz-violating, preferred-frame effects. It uses a post-Newtonian $N$-body Lagrangian with arbitrary parameters that depend on the theory of gravity and on “sensitivities” that encode the effects of the bodies’ internal structure on their motion. We determine the modified EIH parameters for the Einstein-[Æ]{}ther and Khronometric vector-tensor theories of gravity. We find the effects of motion relative to a preferred universal frame on the orbital parameters of binary systems containing neutron stars, such as a class of ultra-circular pulsar-white dwarf binaries; the amplitudes of the effects depend upon “strong-field” preferred-frame parameters $\hat{\alpha}_1$ and $\hat{\alpha}_2$, which we relate to the fundamental modified EIH parameters. We also determine the amplitude of the “Nordtvedt effect” in a triple system containing the pulsar J0337+1715 in terms of the modified EIH parameters.'
address: |
$^1$ Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611, USA\
$^2$ GReCO, Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, UMR 7095-CNRS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 98$^{bis}$ Bd. Arago, 75014 Paris, France
author:
- 'Clifford M. Will$^{1,2}$'
bibliography:
- 'refsTEGP2.bib'
title: 'Testing general relativity with compact-body orbits: A modified Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann framework'
---
[*Keywords*]{}: experimental gravity, general relativity, equations of motion, neutron stars, black holes, compact bodies, tests of general relativity
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The $N$-body equations of motion in the post-Newtonian limit of general relativity have been derived by numerous authors [@LorentzDroste; @1916MNRAS..77..155D; @1965npga.book.....L; @1964tstg.book.....F]. A key assumption that went into those analyses was that the weak-field, slow-motion limit of gravitational theory applied everywhere, in the interiors of the bodies as well as between them. This assumption restricted the applicability of the equations of motion to systems such as the solar system. However, when dealing with systems containing a neutron star or a black hole with highly relativistic spacetimes near or inside them, one can no longer apply the assumptions of the post-Newtonian limit everywhere, except possibly in the interbody region between the relativistic bodies. Instead, one must employ a method for deriving equations of motion for compact objects that, within a chosen theory of gravity, involves solving the full, relativistic equations for the regions inside and near each body, solving the post-Newtonian equations in the interbody region, and matching these solutions in an appropriate way in an “overlap region” surrounding each body. This matching leads to constraints on the motions of the bodies which constitute the sought-after equations of motion. In general relativity, a related procedure that avoided explicit inner solutions by exploiting surface integrals around each body was carried out in the classic work of Einstein, Infeld and Hoffmann (EIH) [@1938AnMat..39...65E].
In the fully weak-field post-Newtonian (PN) limit, it is also known that the motion of self-gravitating, post-Newtonian fluid or dust bodies is independent of their internal structure, i.e., there is no Nordtvedt effect [@1968PhRv..169.1017N; @1971ApJ...163..611W]. Each body moves on a geodesic of the post-Newtonian interbody metric generated by the other bodies, with proper allowance for post-Newtonian terms contributed by its own interbody field. The equations of motion obtained by this method are identical to the EIH equations. This structure independence has also been verified explicitly to second post-Newtonian (2PN) order for self-gravitating fluid bodies [@2007PhRvD..75l4025M]. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the EIH equations are valid for systems of compact bodies (neutron stars or black holes). The only restriction is that they be quasistatic, nearly spherical, and sufficiently small compared to their separations that tidal interactions may be neglected (throughout this discussion, we will ignore the effects of spin). This was verified in a restricted context for nonrotating black holes in a seminal paper by d’Eath [@1975PhRvD..12.2183D], and was subsequently extended to a variety of contexts [@1978GReGr...9..809R; @1978GReGr...9..821R; @1980PhRvD..22.1853K; @1985PhRvD..31.1815T; @1987PhRvD..36.2301A; @2000PhRvD..62f4002I; @2008PhRvD..78h4016T].
Key to this result is the validity of the Strong Equivalence Principle within general relativity, which guarantees that the structure of each body is independent of the surrounding gravitational environment. By contrast, most alternative theories of gravity possess additional gravitational fields, whose values in the matching region can influence the structure of each body, and thereby can affect its motion. Using a cyclic [*gedanken*]{} experiment within a freely falling frame that encompasses a given body, and that assumes only conservation of energy (see Sec. 2.5 of [@tegp] for discussion), it can be shown that, if the binding energy $E_{\rm B}$ of a body varies as a result of a variation in an external parameter or field $\psi$, the body experiences an additional acceleration given by $
\delta \bm{a} \sim {m}^{-1} \bm{\nabla} E_{\rm B} (\bm{x}, \bm{v}) \sim (\partial \ln m/\partial \psi) \bm{\nabla} \psi$. Thus, the bodies need not follow geodesics of any metric, but instead their motion may depend on their internal structure.
In practice, the EIH-inspired matching procedure is very cumbersome [@1975PhRvD..12.2183D]. Within general relativity, a simpler method for obtaining the EIH equations of motion is to treat each body as a “point” mass of inertial mass $m_a$ and to solve Einstein’s equations using a point-mass matter action or energy-momentum tensor, with proper care to neglect or regularize infinite “self” fields (at high PN orders, this regularization can become very complicated [@2014LRR....17....2B]). In the action for general relativity, we thus write $$I = \frac{1}{16 \pi G} \int R \sqrt{-g} \, d^4x - \sum_a m_a \int d\tau_a \,,$$ where $\tau_a$ is proper time along the world line of the $a$th body. By solving the field equations to 1PN order, it is then possible to derive straightforwardly from the matter action an $N$-body EIH action in the form $$I_{\rm EIH} = \int L({{\bm x}}_1, \dots {{\bm x}}_N, {{\bm v}}_1, \dots {{\bm v}}_N ) dt \,,
\label{eq10:EIH}$$ with a Lagrangian $L$ written purely in terms of the variables $({{\bm x}}_a,\, {{\bm v}}_a)$ of the bodies. The result is the 1PN $N$-body Lagrangian of general relativity. The $N$-body EIH equations of motion are then given by $$\frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial v_a^j} - \frac{\partial L}{\partial x_a^j} = 0 , \quad a = 1, \dots N \,.$$
In alternative theories of gravity, we assume that the only difference is the possible dependence of the mass on the boundary values of the auxiliary fields. Thus, following the suggestion of Eardley [@1975ApJ...196L..59E], we merely replace the constant inertial mass $m_a$ in the matter action with the variable inertial mass $m_a (\psi_A)$, where $\psi_A$ represents the values of the external auxiliary fields, evaluated at the body (we neglect their variation across the interior of the matching region), with infinite self-field contributions excluded. The functional dependence of $m_a$ upon the variable $\psi_A$ will depend on the nature and structure of the body. Thus, we write the action of the alternative theory in the form $$I = I_G - \sum_a \int m_a \left (\psi_A \right ) d\tau_a \,,$$ where $I_G$ is the action for the metric and auxiliary fields $\psi_A$. In varying the action with respect to the fields $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\psi_A$, the variation of $m_a$ must now be taken into account. In the post-Newtonian limit, where the fields $\psi_A$ are expanded about asymptotic values $\psi_A^{(0)}$ according to $\psi_A = \psi_A^{(0)} + \delta \psi_A$, it is generally sufficient to expand $m_a (\psi_A)$ in the form $$\begin{aligned}
m_a (\psi_A) = m_a (\psi_A^{(0)} ) + \sum_A \frac{\partial m_a}{\partial \psi_A^{(0)}} \delta \psi_A + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{A,B} \frac{\partial^2 m_a}{\partial \psi_A^{(0)}\partial \psi_B^{(0)}}
\delta \psi_A\delta \psi_B + \dots \,.
\label{eq10:mexpand}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the final form of the metric and of the $N$-body Lagrangian will depend on $m_a \equiv m_a (\psi_A^{(0)} )$ and on the parameters $\partial m_a /\partial \psi_A^{(0)}$, and so on. It is conventional to use the term “sensitivities” to describe these parameters, since they measure the sensitivity of the inertial mass to changes in the fields $\psi_A$. Thus, we define $$\begin{aligned}
s_a^{(A)} &\equiv \frac{\partial \ln m_a}{\partial \ln \psi_A^{(0)}} \,, \quad
{s'_a}^{(AB)} \equiv \frac{\partial^2 \ln m_a}{\partial \ln \psi_A^{(0)} \partial \ln \psi_B^{(0)}} \,,
\label{eq10:sensitivity0}\end{aligned}$$ and so on, where the derivatives are typically taken holding the total baryon number of the body fixed, for bodies made of matter. For black holes, some other method must be used to identify the sensitivities. Similar sensitivities can be defined for the radius and moment of inertia of the compact body. Gralla [@2010PhRvD..81h4060G; @2013PhRvD..87j4020G] developed a more general theory of the motion of “small” bodies characterized by such parameters as mass, spin and charge in an environment of external fields, and argued that Eardley’s ansatz is a special case of that general framework.
These ideas were incorporated into a “modified EIH formalism” in Sec. 11.3 of [*Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics*]{} [@tegp] (based in part on unpublished notes by Eardley). However, that formalism was restricted by requiring that the $N$-body Lagrangian be invariant under suitable low-velocity Lorentz transformations. This precluded the possibility of preferred-frame effects in compact-body dynamics. A number of developments since that time (1981) have made it desirable to relax that assumption and to create a more general modified EIH formalism. The first was the formulation of a variety of alternative theories of gravity with auxiliary vector and tensor fields, whose presence establishes a preferred frame of reference where the components of those fields take on privileged values. Examples include vector-tensor theories such as Einstein-[Æ]{}ther theory and Khronometric theory [@2001PhRvD..64b4028J; @2002cls..conf..331M; @2010PhRvL.104r1302B; @2011JHEP...04..018B], and scalar-vector-tensor theories, such as TeVeS and STV [@2004PhRvD..70h3509B; @2008PhRvD..77l3502S; @2006JCAP...03..004M]. A second development was a number of very precise tests of preferred-frame effects in the orbits of ultralow-eccentricity binary pulsar systems [@2000ASPC..202..113W; @2012CQGra..29u5018S; @2013CQGra..30p5020S]. These analyses quoted bounds on preferred-frame parameters $\hat{\alpha}_1$ and $\hat{\alpha}_2$, where the hats are meant to denote some unspecified generalization of the usual parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) preferred-frame parameters ${\alpha}_1$ and ${\alpha}_2$ to strong-field situations. One goal of this paper is to relate these “hatted” parameters explicitly to parameters of the modified EIH formalism. In the special cases of Einstein-[Æ]{}ther and Khronometric theories, we will obtain the modified EIH parameters explicitly, making it possible to express $\hat{\alpha}_1$ and $\hat{\alpha}_2$ in terms of the fundamental parameters of these theories and of the sensitivities of the compact bodies in the system. We will also express the “Nordtvedt” parameter describing a failure of the universality of free fall in a compact-body system such as the pulsar J0337+1715 in a triple system with two white dwarf companions [@2014Natur.505..520R] in terms of parameters of this modified EIH formalism.
In Sec. \[sec:modifiedEIH\], we describe this generalization of the modified EIH formalism, and in Sec. \[sec:alternative\], we obtain the parameters of the formalism in a selection of alternative theories. Section \[sec:applications\] applies the formalism to two-body and three-body dynamics, obtaining a number of observable effects in terms of the modified EIH parameters. In Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] we make concluding remarks. We use units in which the locally-measured gravitational constant $G$ and the speed of light $c$ are unity.
Modified Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann formalism {#sec:modifiedEIH}
===========================================
We construct a general EIH formalism using arbitrary parameters whose values depend both on the theory under study and on the nature of the bodies in the system. In this case, however, the parameters appear in the $N$-body 1PN Lagrangian rather than in the metric. This implies that we are restricting attention to Lagrangian-based metric theories of gravity, known as semiconservative theories (see Sec. 4.4 of [@tegp] or [@tegp2] for discussion). We will also restrict attention to theories that have no Whitehead term in the post-Newtonian limit; all of the currently popular theories as described in [@2014LRR....17....4W] satisfy this constraint. Our goal is to generalize the formalism presented in [@tegp], which made a restriction to fully conservative theories. The distinction between the two classes of theories is that semiconservative theories admit preferred-frame effects at 1PN order, i.e. one or more of their PPN parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ is nonzero, while fully conservative theories have $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$ and do not have preferred-frame effects at 1PN order. Nordtvedt [@1985ApJ...297..390N] developed a similar formalism for compact-body dynamics, but did not address the consequences of preferred-frame effects.
Each body is characterized by an inertial mass $m_a$, defined to be the quantity that appears in the conservation laws for energy and momentum that emerge from the EIH Lagrangian. We then write for the metric, valid in the interbody region and far from the system, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{00} &= -1 + 2 \sum_a \alpha^*_a \frac{m_a}{|{{\bm x}}- {{\bm x}}_a|} + O(\epsilon^2) \,,
\nonumber \\
g_{0j} & = O(\epsilon^{3/2}) \,,
\nonumber \\
g_{jk} &= \left ( 1 + 2 \sum_a \gamma^*_a \frac{m_a}{|{{\bm x}}- {{\bm x}}_a|} \right ) \delta_{jk} + O(\epsilon^2) \,,
\label{eq10:EIHmetric}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha^*_a$ and $\gamma^*_a$ are functions of the parameters of the theory and of the structure of the $a$th body, and $\epsilon \sim m/r \sim v^2$. For test-body geodesics in this metric, the quantities $\alpha^*_a m_a$, and $\sum_a \alpha^*_a m_a$ are the Kepler-measured active gravitational masses of the individual bodies and of the system as a whole. The metric (\[eq10:EIHmetric\]) is used mainly to discuss the propagation of photons in systems with compact bodies, and plays a role, for example, in obtaining timing formulae for binary pulsars. In general relativity, $\alpha^*_a \equiv \gamma^*_a \equiv 1$.
To obtain the modified EIH Lagrangian, we first generalize the post-Newtonian semiconservative $N$-body Lagrangian, given by Eq. (6.80) of [@tegp] or Eq. (6.81) of [@tegp2]: $$\begin{aligned}
L & = - \sum_a m_a \left ( 1 - \frac{1}{2} v_a^2 - \frac{1}{8} v_a^4 \right )
\nonumber \\
& \quad + \frac{1}{2} \sum_a \sum_{b \ne a} \frac{m_a m_b}{r_{ab}} \biggl [ 1 + (2\gamma + 1) v_a^2
-(2\beta-1) \sum_{c \ne a} \frac{m_c}{r_{ac}}
\nonumber \\
& \qquad
- \frac{1}{2} (4\gamma + 3 +\alpha_1 - \alpha_2) {{\bm v}}_a \cdot {{\bm v}}_b
- \frac{1}{2} (1 + \alpha_2 ) ({{\bm v}}_a \cdot \bm{n}_{ab})({{\bm v}}_b \cdot \bm{n}_{ab})
\nonumber \\
& \qquad
- \xi \frac{{{\bm x}}_{ab}}{r_{ab}^2} \cdot \sum_{c \ne ab} m_c \left ( \frac{{{\bm x}}_{bc}}{r_{ac}}
- \frac{{{\bm x}}_{ac}}{r_{bc}} \right )
\biggr ] \,,
\label{eq6:lagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{ab} = |{{\bm x}}_a - {{\bm x}}_b|$ and $\bm{n}_{ab} = {{\bm x}}_{ab}/r_{ab}$. The Lagrangian is expressed in a coordinate system at rest with respect to the preferred-frame singled out by the theory of gravity in question; this is generally assumed to coincide with the frame in which the cosmic background radiation is isotropic.
We set the Whitehead parameter $\xi = 0$, and replace PPN parameters with parameters dependent upon each body, according to $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm EIH} &= - \sum_a m_a \left [ 1 - \frac{1}{2} v_a^2 - \frac{1}{8} \left (1+{\cal A}_a \right ) v_a^4 \right ]
\nonumber \\
& \quad +\frac{1}{2} \sum_a \sum_{b \ne a} \frac{m_a m_b}{r_{ab}} \left [ {\cal G}_{ab} + 3 {\cal B}_{ab} v_a^2
- \frac{1}{2} \left ({\cal G}_{ab} + 6 {\cal B}_{(ab)} + {\cal C}_{ab} \right ) {{\bm v}}_a \cdot {{\bm v}}_b
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
- \frac{1}{2} \left ({\cal G}_{ab} + {\cal E}_{ab} \right ) ({{\bm v}}_a \cdot \bm{n}_{ab})({{\bm v}}_b \cdot \bm{n}_{ab}) \right ]
\nonumber \\
& \quad
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_a \sum_{b \ne a}\sum_{c \ne a} {\cal D}_{abc} \frac{m_a m_b}{r_{ab}}\frac{m_c}{r_{ac}} \,.
\label{eq10:lagrangian1}\end{aligned}$$ The quantities ${\cal A}_a$, $ {\cal G}_{ab}$, ${\cal B}_{ab}$, ${\cal C}_{ab} $, ${\cal E}_{ab} $ and ${\cal D}_{abc}$ are functions of the parameters of the theory and of the structure of each body, and satisfy $${\cal G}_{ab} = {\cal G}_{(ab)} , \quad {\cal C}_{ab} = {\cal C}_{(ab)} , \quad {\cal E}_{ab} = {\cal E}_{(ab)} , \quad {\cal D}_{abc} = {\cal D}_{a(bc)} \,.$$ Note that ${\cal B}_{ab}$ has no special symmetry, in general.
Notice that we did not introduce a parameter in front of the kinetic $v_a^2$ term in Eq. (\[eq10:lagrangian1\]). Any such parameter can always be absorbed into a new definition of the inertial mass $m'_a$ of body $a$. We are then free to change the constant term $-\sum_a m_a$ to be the sum of the new inertial masses $-\sum_a m'_a$. This has no effect on the equations of motion, but does allow the Hamiltonian derived from $L_{\rm EIH}$ to be the sum of the new inertial masses at lowest order. We also did not include a term of the form $(m_a m_b/r_{ab})({{\bm v}}_b \cdot \bm{n}_{ab})^2$; such a term can be associated (via a total time derivative in the Lagrangian) with the Whitehead term in Eq. (\[eq6:lagrangian\]), which we have chosen to reject.
In general relativity, ${\cal G}_{ab}= {\cal B}_{ab} = {\cal D}_{abc} = 1$, while ${\cal A}_a = {\cal C}_{ab} ={\cal E}_{ab} = 0$. In the post-Newtonian limit of semiconservative theories (with $\xi=0$), for structureless masses (no self-gravity), the parameters have the values \[compare Eq. (\[eq6:lagrangian\])\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_{ab} &=1 \,,
\quad
{\cal B}_{ab} = \frac{1}{3} (2\gamma +1) \,, \quad {\cal D}_{abc} = 2\beta -1 \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal A}_a &= 0 \,, \quad {\cal C}_{ab} = \alpha_1 - \alpha_2 \,, \quad {\cal E}_{ab} = \alpha_2
\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the fully conservative case, including contributions of the 1PN-order self-gravitational binding energies of the bodies, the parameters can be shown to have the values $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_{ab} &= 1 + (4\beta-\gamma-3) \left ( \frac{\Omega_a}{m_a} + \frac{\Omega_b}{m_b} \right ) \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal B}_{ab} &= \frac{1}{3} (2\gamma +1) \,, \quad {\cal D}_{abc} = 2\beta -1 \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal A}_a & = {\cal C}_{ab} = {\cal E}_{ab} = 0
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_a$ is the self-gravitational energy of the $a$th body. The connection between these parameters and those introduced by Nordtvedt [@1985ApJ...297..390N] is detailed in an Appendix.
To obtain the Lagrangian in a moving frame, we make a Lorentz transformation from the original preferred frame to a new frame which moves at velocity $\bm{w}$ relative to the old frame. In order to preserve the post-Newtonian character of the Lagrangian, we assume that $w \equiv |\bm{w}|$ is small, i.e. of $O(\epsilon^{1/2})$. This transformation from rest coordinates $x^\alpha=(t, \bm{x})$ to moving coordinates $\xi^\mu = (\tau, \bm{\xi})$ can be expanded in powers of $w$ to the required order. This approximate form of the Lorentz transformation is sometimes called a post-Galilean transformation [@1967RSPSA.298..123C], and has the form $$\begin{aligned}
{{\bm x}}&= \bm{\xi} + \left ( 1+ \frac{1}{2} w^2 \right ) \bm{w} \tau + \frac{1}{2} (\bm{\xi} \cdot \bm{w} ) \bm{w} + \xi \times O(\epsilon^2) \,,
\nonumber \\
t &= \tau \left ( 1 + \frac{1}{2} w^2 + \frac{3}{8} w^4 \right ) + \left ( 1+ \frac{1}{2} w^2 \right ) \bm{\xi} \cdot \bm{w} + \tau \times O(\epsilon^3) \,,
\label{eq10:lorentz}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{w} \tau$ is assumed to be $O(\epsilon^0)$. From the transformation (\[eq10:lorentz\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
{{\bm v}}_a &= \bm{\nu}_a + \bm{w} - \frac{d\bm{\nu}_a}{d\tau} (\bm{\xi}_a \cdot \bm{w}) - \frac{1}{2} w^2 \bm{\nu}_a - (\bm{\nu}_a \cdot \bm{w}) \left (\bm{\nu}_a + \frac{1}{2} \bm{w} \right ) \,,
\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{r_{ab}} &= \frac{1}{\xi_{ab}} \left [ 1 + \frac{1}{2} (\bm{w} \cdot \bm{n}'_{ab} )^2
+ \frac{1}{\xi_{ab}} (\bm{w} \cdot \bm{\xi}_a )(\bm{\nu}_a \cdot \bm{n}'_{ab} )
\right .
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \left .
- \frac{1}{\xi_{ab}}(\bm{w} \cdot \bm{\xi}_b )(\bm{\nu}_b \cdot \bm{n}'_{ab} ) \right ] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\xi}_a$, $\bm{\xi}_b$ and $\bm{\nu}_a \equiv d\bm{\xi}_a/d\tau$ are to be evaluated at the same time $\tau$, given by a clock at the spatial origin ($\bm{\xi}=0$) of the moving coordinate system, and $\bm{n}'_{ab} \equiv \bm{\xi}_{ab}/{\xi}_{ab}$. The new Lagrangian is given by $$L( \bm{\xi}, \tau) = L({{\bm x}}, t) \frac{dt}{d\tau} - \frac{df}{d\tau} \,,
\label{eq10:lagrangian2}$$ where $dt/d\tau$ is evaluated at $\bm{\xi}=0$, and where we are free to subtract a total time derivative of a function $f$ to simplify the new Lagrangian. Substituting these results into Eqs. (\[eq10:lagrangian1\]) and (\[eq10:lagrangian2\]), dropping constants and total time derivatives, and replacing $\xi_{ab}$ and $\bm{\nu}_a$ with $r_{ab}$ and ${{\bm v}}_a$, we obtain the Lagrangian in the moving frame $$\begin{aligned}
L&= L_{\rm EIH} + \frac{1}{4} \sum_a m_a {\cal A}_a \left [ v_a^2 w^2 + 2v_a^2 (\bm{v}_a \cdot \bm{w}) + 2(\bm{v}_a \cdot \bm{w})^2 \right ]
\nonumber \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{a \ne b} \frac{m_a m_b}{r_{ab}}
\left \{ {\cal C}_{ab} w^2 - 2\left ( 6 {\cal B}_{[ab]} - {\cal C}_{ab} \right ) (\bm{v}_a \cdot \bm{w})
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\quad \quad
\left.
+ {\cal E}_{ab} \left [ (\bm{w} \cdot \bm{n}_{ab} )^2 + 2 (\bm{w} \cdot \bm{n}_{ab} )(\bm{v}_a \cdot \bm{n}_{ab} ) \right ]
\right \}
\,.
\label{eq10:lagrangian3}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the Lagrangian is post-Galilean invariant if and only if $${\cal A}_a \equiv {\cal B}_{[ab]} \equiv {\cal C}_{ab} \equiv {\cal E}_{ab} \equiv 0 \,.
\label{eq10:postGalconditions}$$ These quantities are then the preferred-frame parameters of our modified EIH formalism.
Modified EIH parameters in alternative theories {#sec:alternative}
===============================================
As an illustration of this modified EIH framework for compact bodies, we will focus on specific theories where calculations have been carried out. As we have already discussed, a variety of approaches have shown that the EIH equations of motion for compact objects within general relativity are identical to those of the post-Newtonian limit with weak fields everywhere. In other words, in general relativity, ${\cal G}_{ab} \equiv {\cal B}_{ab} \equiv {\cal D}_{abc} \equiv 1$, and the remaining coefficients vanish, independently of the nature of the bodies.
Scalar-tensor theories {#sec10:STmotion}
----------------------
The modified EIH formalism was first developed by Eardley [@1975ApJ...196L..59E] for application to the Jordan-Fierz-Brans-Dicke theory. It makes use of the fact that only the scalar fleld $\phi$ produces an external influence on the structure of each compact body via its boundary values in the matching region. This boundary value of $\phi$ is related to the local value of the gravitational constant as felt by the compact body by $$G_{\rm local} = \frac{G}{\phi} \left (\frac{4 + 2\omega}{3+2\omega} \right ) \,,
\label{eq10:glocal}$$ where $G$ is the fundamental gravitational coupling constant. Thus we will treat the inertial mass $m_a$ of each body as a being a function of $\phi$. Then, by defining the deviation of $\phi$ from its asymptotic value $\phi_0$ by $\phi \equiv \phi_0 (1+ \Psi)$, we can write down the expansion $$m_a(\phi) =
m_{a}\left [1 + s_a \Psi + \frac{1}{2} (s_a^2 +s'_a -s_a) \Psi^2 + O(\Psi^3) \right ]\,,
\label{eq10:mexpand2}$$ where $m_a \equiv m_a (\phi_0)$, and we define the dimensionless sensitivities $$\begin{aligned}
s_a &\equiv \left ( \frac{d \ln m_a(\phi)}{d \ln \phi} \right )_0 \,,
\nonumber \\
s'_a &\equiv \left ( \frac{d^2 \ln m_a(\phi)}{d (\ln \phi)^2} \right )_0 \,.
\label{eq10:sensitivitiesST}\end{aligned}$$ The action for massless scalar-tensor theory is then written $$I = \frac{1}{16\pi G} \int \left [ \phi R - \frac{\omega(\phi)}{\phi} g^{\mu\nu} \phi_{,\mu} \phi_{,\nu} \right ] \sqrt{-g} d^4x - \sum_a \int m_a (\phi) d\tau_a \,,
\label{eq10:STaction1}$$ where the integrals over proper time $\tau_a$ are to be taken along the world line of each body $a$. It is straightforward to vary the action with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\phi$ to obtain the field equations, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mu\nu} &= \frac{8\pi G}{\phi} T_{\mu\nu} + \frac{\omega(\phi)}{\phi^2} \left ( \phi_{,\mu} \phi_{,\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} \phi_{,\lambda} \phi^{,\lambda} \right )
\nonumber \\
& \quad+ \frac{1}{\phi} \left ( \phi_{;\mu\nu} - g_{\mu\nu} \Box_g \phi \right ) \,,
\label{eq10:STfieldeq1}\\
\Box_g \phi &= \frac{1}{3 + 2\omega(\phi)} \left ( 8\pi G T - 16\pi G \phi \frac{\partial T}{\partial \phi} - \frac{d\omega}{d\phi} \phi_{,\lambda} \phi^{,\lambda} \right ) \,,
\label{eq10:STfieldeq2}\end{aligned}$$ \[eq10:STfieldeq\] where $$T^{\mu\nu} = (-g)^{-1/2} \sum_a m_a (\phi) u_a^\mu u_a^\nu (u_a^0)^{-1} \delta^3 ({\bf x} - {\bf x}_a) \,,$$ where $u_a^\mu$ is the four-velocity of body $a$. The equations of motion take the form $${T^{\mu\nu}}_{;\nu} - \frac{\partial T}{\partial \phi} \phi^{,\nu} = 0 \,.$$
Carrying out a post-Newtonian calculation of the metric as described, for example in [@2013PhRvD..87h4070M] or in Sec. 5.3 of [@tegp2], we obtain, to lowest order $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi & =2 \zeta \sum_b \frac{m_b}{r_b} \left (1 - 2s_b \right ) + O(\epsilon^2 ) \,,
\nonumber \\
g_{00} & = -1 + 2 \sum_b \frac{m_b}{r_b} \left ( 1 - 2 \zeta s_b \right ) + O(\epsilon^2 ) \,,
\nonumber \\
g_{0j} &= - 4 (1-\zeta) \sum_b \frac{m_b v_b^j}{r_b} + O(\epsilon^{5/2}) \,,
\nonumber \\
g_{jk} &= \delta_{jk} \left [ 1 + 2 \sum_b \frac{m_b}{r_b} \left ( 1 - 2 \zeta +2 \zeta s_b \right ) \right ] \,,
\label{eq10:Psimetric}\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta = 1/(4 + 2\omega_0)$, $r_b = |{{\bm x}}-{{\bm x}}_b|$, and we have chosen units in which $G_{\rm local} =1$. For the explicit $O(\epsilon^2)$ terms in $g_{00}$ and $\Psi$, see [@2013PhRvD..87h4070M]. Notice that the active gravitational mass as measured by test-body Keplerian orbits far from each body is given by $$(m_{\rm A})_a = m_a (1- 2 \zeta s_a ) \,.
\label{eq10:mactive1}$$
From the complete post-Newtonian solution for $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\Psi$, we can obtain the matter action for the $a$th body, given by $$I_a = - \int m_a(\phi) \left ( - g_{00} - 2 g_{0j} v_a^j - g_{jk} v_a^j v_a^k \right )^{1/2} dt \,.$$ To obtain an $N$-body action in the form of Eq. (\[eq10:EIH\]), we first make the gravitational terms in $I_a$, manifestly symmetric under interchange of all pairs of particles, then take one of each such term generated in $I_a$, and sum the result over $a$. The resulting $N$-body Lagrangian then has the form of Eq. (\[eq10:lagrangian1\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_{ab} &= 1 - 2\zeta \left (s_a +s_b - 2s_a s_b \right ) \,,
\nonumber\\
{\cal B}_{ab} &= \frac{1}{3} \left [ {\cal G}_{ab} + 2(1-\zeta) \right ] \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal D}_{abc} &= {\cal G}_{ab} {\cal G}_{ac} + 2\zeta (1-2s_b)(1-2s_c) \left [ \lambda (1-2s_a) + 2 \zeta s'_a \right ] \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal A}_a &= {\cal B}_{[ab]} = {\cal C}_{ab} = {\cal E}_{ab} = 0 \,.
\label{eq10:EIHcoefficients}\end{aligned}$$
Vector-tensor theories {#sec10:VTmotion}
----------------------
Because the norm of the vector field $\bm{K}$ in Einstein-[Æ]{}ther and Khronometric theories is constrained to be $-1$, the structure of a spherically symmetric compact body at rest with rest to the preferred rest frame does not depend on it. However it could depend on the time component $K^0$, or more properly on the invariant quantity ${\bm K} \cdot {\bm u}$, where $\bm u$ is the body’s four-velocity. (The structure of a rotating body could also depend on the projection of $\bm K$ along the body’s spin axis, but here we will focus on non-rotating bodies.) We define for a body with four-velocity $\bm u$, $$\gamma \equiv - K^\mu u_\mu \equiv 1 + \Psi \,,$$ where we assume that far from the system, for a test body at rest, ${\bm K} \cdot {\bm u} = -1$. We define the sensitivities $$\begin{aligned}
s_a &\equiv \left ( \frac{d \ln m_a (\gamma)}{d \ln \gamma} \right )_{\gamma =1} \,,
\nonumber \\
s'_a &\equiv \left ( \frac{d^2 \ln m_a (\gamma)}{d (\ln \gamma)^2 } \right )_{\gamma =1} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the derivatives are to be taken holding baryon number fixed. Then the expansion of $m_a(\gamma)$ in powers of $\Psi$ is again given by Eq. (\[eq10:mexpand2\]). With this assumption, Foster [@2007PhRvD..76h4033F] and Yagi et al. [@2014PhRvD..89h4067Y] derived the metric and equations of motion to post-Newtonian order for systems of compact bodies in Einstein-[Æ]{}ther theory. In the preferred rest frame, the metric is given by $$\begin{aligned}
g_{00} &= -1 + 2U - 2U^2 - 2\Phi_2 + 3\Phi_{1s} + O(\epsilon^3) \,,
\nonumber \\
g_{0j} &= g^j + O(\epsilon^{5/2}) \,,
\nonumber \\
g_{jk} &= (1+2U) \delta_{jk} + O(\epsilon^2) \,,
\label{eq10:AEmetric}\end{aligned}$$ and the vector field is given by $$\begin{aligned}
K^0 &= (-g_{00})^{-1/2} + O(\epsilon^3) \,,
\nonumber \\
K^j &= k^j + O(\epsilon^{5/2}) \,,
\label{eq10:AEvector}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
U & = \sum_b \frac{G_N m_b}{r_b} \,, \quad \Phi_2 = \sum_{b,c} \frac{G_N^2 m_b m_c}{r_b r_{bc}} \,, \quad \Phi_{1s} = \sum_b \frac{G_N m_b}{r_b} v_b^2 (1-s_b) \,,
\nonumber \\
g^j &= \sum_b \frac{G_N m_b}{r_b} \left [ B_b^{-} v_b^j + B_b^{+} n_b^j (\bm{n}_b \cdot {{\bm v}}_b) \right ] \,,
\nonumber \\
k^j &= \sum_b \frac{G_N m_b}{r_b} \left [ C_b^{-} v_b^j + C_b^{+} n_b^j (\bm{n}_b \cdot {{\bm v}}_b) \right ] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_N = 2G/(2-c_{14})$, $G$ is the gravitational coupling constant of the theory, $\bm{n}_b = (\bm{x} - \bm{x}_b)/r_b$, and $c_{14} = c_1 +c_4$. The quantities $B_b^{\pm}$ and $C_b^{\pm}$ are complicated expressions involving the constants $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$ and $c_4$ of Einstein-[Æ]{}ther theory and the sensitivities $s_b$ (see Eqs. (23) and (29) of [@2007PhRvD..76h4033F]).
From Eqs. (\[eq10:AEmetric\]) and (\[eq10:AEvector\]) we obtain $$\Psi ({{\bm x}}_a) = \frac{1}{2} v_a^2 + \frac{3}{8} v_a^4 + 2 v_a^2 U({{\bm x}}_a) - v_a^j k^j({{\bm x}}_a) + O(\epsilon^3) \,.
\label{eq10:Psiexpand}$$ Note that, when $v_a^j =0$, $\Psi = 0$, resulting in no dependence of the inertial mass on the vector field. Writing the action for the $a$th body as $$I_a = - \int m_a(\Psi) \left ( - g_{00} - 2 g_{0j} v_a^j - g_{jk} v_a^j v_a^k \right )^{1/2} dt \,,$$ we expand to post-Newtonian order, make the action manifestly symmetric under interchange of all pairs of particles, select one of each term, and sum over $a$. After rescaling each mass by $m_a \to m_a/(1-s_a)$ and replacing the constant term in the Lagrangian by the sum of the rescaled masses, we obtain the modified EIH Lagrangian in the form of Eq. (\[eq10:lagrangian1\]), with $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_{ab} &= \frac{G_N}{(1-s_a)(1-s_b)} \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal B}_{ab} &= {\cal G}_{ab} (1-s_a) \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal D}_{abc} &={\cal G}_{ab} {\cal G}_{ac} (1-s_a) \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal A}_a &= s_a - \frac{s'_a}{1-s_a} \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal C}_{ab} &= {\cal G}_{ab} \left [ \alpha_1 - \alpha_2 + 3 \left (s_a + s_b \right ) - {\cal Q}_{ab} -{\cal R}_{ab} \right ] \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal E}_{ab} &= {\cal G}_{ab} \left [ \alpha_2 + {\cal Q}_{ab} - {\cal R}_{ab} \right ] \,,
\label{eq10:EIHcoeffs1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are the PPN preferred-frame parameters of Einstein-[Æ]{}ther theory, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 & = -\frac{8 (c_3^2 + c_1 c_4)}{2 c_1 - c_1^2 + c_3^2} \,,
\nonumber \\
\alpha_2 & = \frac{1}{2} \alpha_1 - \frac{(2c_{+}-c_{14})(c_{+}+c_{14}+3c_2)}{c_{123} (2-c_{14})}\,,
\label{eq5:PPNAE}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Q}_{ab} &= \frac{1}{2} \left (\frac{2-c_{14}}{2c_{+} - c_{14}} \right ) (\alpha_1 - 2\alpha_2) (s_a +s_b) + \frac{2 - c_{14}}{c_{123}} s_a s_b \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal R}_{ab} &= \frac{8+\alpha_1}{4c_1} \left [ c_{-} (s_a + s_b) + (1-c_{-}) s_as_b \right ]\,.
\label{eq10:EIHcoeffs2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $c_\pm = c_1 \pm c_3$, and $c_{123} = c_1 + c_2 +c_3$. The two-body equations of motion that follow from the Lagrangian with these coefficients agree with Eq. (33) of [@2007PhRvD..76h4033F] (after correcting a sign and a parenthesis in Eqs. (34) and (35) of that paper).
Note that the Lagrangian is in general not Lorentz invariant, and therefore will exhibit preferred-frame effects. Even when the parameters $c_i$ are constrained so as to enforce $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = 0$, making the dynamics Lorentz invariant in the fully weak field post-Newtonian limit, the dynamics of compact bodies can still be dependent on the overall motion of the system via the motion-induced sensitivities of the bodies.
The corresponding equations in Khronometric theory can be obtained from these by setting $c_1 = - \epsilon$, $c_2 = \lambda_K$, $c_3 = \beta_K + \epsilon$, and $c_4 = \alpha_K + \epsilon$, and taking the limit $\epsilon \to \infty$ [@2014PhRvD..89h4067Y]. The parameters of the modified EIH Lagrangian are given by Eqs. (\[eq10:EIHcoeffs1\]), but now with $G_N = 2G/(2-\alpha_K)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Q}_{ab} &= \frac{1}{\beta_K + \lambda_K} \left [(\alpha_K + \beta_K + 3 \lambda_K) (s_a +s_b) + (2-\alpha_K) s_a s_b \right ] \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal R}_{ab} &= \frac{1}{2} (8+\alpha_1) \left [ s_a + s_b - s_as_b \right ]\,,
\label{eq10:EIHcoeffs3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_1$ is the PPN parameter of Khronometric theory, given by $$\alpha_1 = \frac{4(\alpha_K - 2 \beta_K)}{\beta_K -1} \,.$$
Yagi et al. [@2014PhRvD..89h4067Y] calculated neutron star sensitivities in both Einstein-[Æ]{}ther and Khronometric theories. In order to do so, it was necessary to construct models for neutron stars moving uniformly relative to the preferred frame. From Eqs. (\[eq10:mexpand2\]) and (\[eq10:Psiexpand\]), assuming uniform motion with no external bodies ($U = k^j =0$), the sensitivity is given by $s = v^{-1} d \ln m/dv$. They chose the coefficients $c_2$ and $c_4$ so that the PPN parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ saturate the bounds from solar-system measurements, and obtained fitting formulae for the sensitivities as a function of $c_+$, $c_{-}$ and the compactness $M/R$ of the neutron star.
Application to two- and three-body dynamics {#sec:applications}
===========================================
Since one of our goals is to apply this formalism to binary systems containing compact objects, let us now restrict attention to two-body systems. We obtain from $L$ the two-body equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{a}_1 &= -\frac{m_2 \bm{n}}{r^2} \left \{{\cal G}_{12}
- \left (3{\cal G}_{12}{\cal B}_{12} + {\cal D}_{122} \right ) \frac{m_2}{r}
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
- \frac{1}{2} \left [ 2{\cal G}_{12}^2 + 6{\cal G}_{12}{\cal B}_{(12)} + 2{\cal D}_{211} + {\cal G}_{12}({\cal C}_{12} + {\cal E}_{12}) \right ] \frac{m_1}{r}
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
+ \frac{1}{2} \left [3{\cal B}_{12} - {\cal G}_{12} (1+ {\cal A}_1) \right ] v_1^2
+ \frac{1}{2}(3{\cal B}_{21} + {\cal G}_{12}+ {\cal E}_{12}) v_2^2
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
- \frac{1}{2} \left ( 6{\cal B}_{(12)} + 2 {\cal G}_{12} + {\cal C}_{12} + {\cal E}_{12} \right ) \bm{v}_1 \cdot \bm{v}_2
- \frac{3}{2} \left ({\cal G}_{12}+ {\cal E}_{12} \right ) (\bm{n} \cdot {{\bm v}}_2)^2
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
+ \frac{1}{2} \left ( {\cal C}_{12} + {\cal G}_{12} {\cal A}_1 \right ) w^2
+ \frac{1}{2} \left ( {\cal C}_{12} - 6{\cal B}_{[12]}+ {\cal E}_{12} + 2 {\cal G}_{12} {\cal A}_1 \right ) {{\bm v}}_1 \cdot \bm{w}
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
+ \frac{1}{2} \left ( {\cal C}_{12} + 6{\cal B}_{[12]}- {\cal E}_{12} \right ) {{\bm v}}_2 \cdot \bm{w}
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
+ \frac{3}{2} {\cal E}_{12} \left [ (\bm{w} \cdot \bm{n} )^2 + 2(\bm{w} \cdot \bm{n} )(\bm{v}_2 \cdot \bm{n} ) \right ]
\right \}
\nonumber \\
& \quad
+ \frac{m_2 \bm{v}_1}{r^2} \bm{n} \cdot \left \{ \left [3{\cal B}_{12} + {\cal G}_{12} (1+ {\cal A}_1) \right ] {{\bm v}}_1 - 3{\cal B}_{12} {{\bm v}}_2 + {\cal G}_{12} {\cal A}_1 \bm{w} \right \}
\nonumber \\
& \quad
- \frac{1}{2} \frac{m_2 \bm{v}_2}{r^2} \bm{n} \cdot \left \{
\left ( 6{\cal B}_{(12)} + 2 {\cal G}_{12} + {\cal C}_{12} + {\cal E}_{12} \right ) {{\bm v}}_1
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
-\left ( 6{\cal B}_{(12)} + {\cal C}_{12} - {\cal E}_{12} \right ) {{\bm v}}_2
+2 {\cal E}_{12} \bm{w}
\right \}
\nonumber \\
& \quad
- \frac{1}{2} \frac{m_2 \bm{w}}{r^2} \bm{n} \cdot \left \{
\left ( {\cal C}_{12} -6{\cal B}_{[12]} + {\cal E}_{12} -2{\cal G}_{12} {\cal A}_1 \right ) {{\bm v}}_1
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\left .
\quad \quad
- \left ({\cal C}_{12} - 6{\cal B}_{[12]} - {\cal E}_{12} \right ) {{\bm v}}_2
-2 \left ( {\cal G}_{12} {\cal A}_1 - {\cal E}_{12} \right ) \bm{w}
\right \}
\,,
\nonumber \\
\bm{a}_2 &= \{ 1\rightleftharpoons 2; \, \bm{n} \to -\bm{n} \} \,,
\label{eq10:2bodyeom}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{a}_a \equiv d{{\bm v}}_a/dt$, ${{\bm x}}\equiv {{\bm x}}_1 - {{\bm x}}_2$, $r \equiv |{{\bm x}}|$, and $\bm{n} \equiv {{\bm x}}/r$. If the conditions of Eq. (\[eq10:postGalconditions\]) hold, then the preferred-frame terms vanish.
To Newtonian order, the center of mass $\bm{X} = (m_1 {{\bm x}}_1 + m_2 {{\bm x}}_2)/m$ of the system is unaccelerated, thus, to sufficient accuracy in the post-Newtonian terms, we can set $\bm{X} = \dot{\bm{X}} = 0$ and write $$\begin{aligned}
{{\bm x}}_1 &= \left [ \frac{m_2}{m} + O(\epsilon) \right ] {{\bm x}}\,,
\nonumber \\
{{\bm x}}_2 &= -\left [ \frac{m_1}{m} + O(\epsilon) \right ] {{\bm x}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We define $$\begin{aligned}
{{\bm v}}&\equiv {{\bm v}}_1 - {{\bm v}}_2 \,, \quad \bm{a} \equiv \bm{a}_1 - \bm{a}_2 \,,
\nonumber\\
m &\equiv m_1 +m_2 \,, \quad \eta \equiv \frac{m_1m_2}{m^2} \,, \quad \Delta = \frac{m_2 - m_1}{m} \,.\end{aligned}$$ We also define the two-body coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G} &\equiv {\cal G}_{12} \,, \quad {\cal B}_{+} \equiv {\cal B}_{(12)} \,, \quad {\cal B}_{-} \equiv {\cal B}_{[12]} \,, \quad
{\cal D} \equiv \frac{m_2}{m} {\cal D}_{122} + \frac{m_1}{m} {\cal D}_{211} \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal C} &\equiv {\cal C}_{12} \,, \quad {\cal E} \equiv {\cal E}_{12} \,, \quad
{\cal A}^{(n)} \equiv \left ( \frac{m_2}{m} \right )^n {\cal A}_1 - \left (- \frac{m_1}{m} \right )^n {\cal A}_2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ Then the equation of motion for the relative orbit takes the form $$\bm{a} = \bm{a}_{\rm L} + \bm{a}_{\rm PF} \,,$$ where the purely two-body, or “local” contributions have the form (we use “hats” to denote parameters associated with compact bodies) $$\bm{a}_{\rm L} = -\frac{{\cal G} m \bm{n}}{r^2}
+ \frac{m}{r^2} \left [ \bm{n} \left ( \hat{A}_1 v^2 + \hat{A}_2 {\dot{r}}^2 + \hat{A}_3 \frac{m}{r} \right )
+ {\dot{r}}{{\bm v}}\hat{B}_1 \right ] \,,
\label{eq10:relativeacc1}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}_1 &= \frac{1}{2} \left \{ {\cal G} \left ( 1- 6\eta \right ) - 3{\cal B}_{+} - 3 \Delta {\cal B}_{-} - \eta ({\cal C} + 2{\cal E}) + {\cal G} A^{(3)} \right \} \,,
\nonumber \\
\hat{A}_2 &= \frac{3}{2} \eta ({\cal G} + {\cal E}) \,,
\nonumber \\
\hat{A}_3 &= {\cal G} \left [ 2 \eta {\cal G} + 3{\cal B}_{+} + \eta \left ( {\cal C} + {\cal E} \right ) + 3 \Delta {\cal B}_{-} \right ] + {\cal D} \,,
\nonumber \\
\hat{B}_1 &= {\cal G} (1-2\eta) + 3{\cal B}_{+} + 3 \Delta {\cal B}_{-} + \eta {\cal C} + {\cal G} A^{(3)} \,,
\label{eq10:relativeacc2}\end{aligned}$$ and the preferred-frame contributions have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{a}_{\rm PF} &=
\frac{m}{r^2} \left \{ \bm{n} \left [ \left ( \frac{1}{2} \hat{\alpha}_1 + 2{\cal G} {\cal A}^{(2)} \right ) (\bm{w} \cdot {{\bm v}}) + \frac{3}{2} \left (\hat{\alpha}_2+ {\cal G} {\cal A}^{(1)} \right ) (\bm{w} \cdot \bm{n})^2 \right ]
\right .
\nonumber \\
&
\quad
\left .
- \bm{w} \left [ \frac{1}{2} \hat{\alpha}_1 (\bm{n} \cdot {{\bm v}})
+ \hat{\alpha}_2 (\bm{n} \cdot \bm{w}) \right ]
+ {\cal G} {\cal A}^{(2)} {{\bm v}}(\bm{n} \cdot \bm{w})
\right \} \,,
\label{eq10:relativeacc3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\alpha}_1 & = \Delta \left ( {\cal C} + {\cal E} \right)
- 6 {\cal B}_{-} - 2 {\cal G} {\cal A}^{(2)} \,,
\nonumber \\
\hat{\alpha}_2 & = {\cal E} - {\cal G} {\cal A}^{(1)}
\,.
\label{eq10:relativeacc4}\end{aligned}$$ These two parameters play the role of compact-body analogues of the PPN parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in the context of binary systems.
In the Newtonian limit of the orbital motion, we have $\bm{a} = {\cal G}m{{\bm x}}/r^3$, with Keplerian orbit solutions given by ${\bm x}= r {\bm n}$, $r=p/(1+e \cos f)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm n} &\equiv \left ( \cos \Omega \cos \phi- \cos \iota \sin \Omega \sin \phi \right ) {\bm e}_X
\nonumber \\
& \quad
+ \left ( \sin \Omega \cos \phi + \cos \iota \cos \Omega \sin \phi \right ){\bm e}_Y
+ \sin \iota \sin \phi {\bm e}_Z \,,
\label{eq6:keplerorbit}\end{aligned}$$ where the orbit elements are: semilatus rectum $p$, eccentricity $e$, inclination $\iota$, longitude of ascending node $\Omega$ and pericenter angle $\omega$; $f \equiv \phi - \omega$ is the true anomaly, $\phi$ is the orbital phase measured from the ascending node and ${\bm e}_A$ are chosen reference basis vectors. We also have that ${\bm v} = \dot{r} {\bm n} + (h/r) {\bm \lambda}$ and $\dot{r} = (he/p) \sin f$, where $\bm{\lambda} = \partial \bm{n}/\partial \phi$. The orbital angular momentum per unit reduced mass is given by $\bm{h} = \bm{x} \times \bm{v} = ({\cal G}mp)^{1/2} \hat{\bm{h}}$, where $\hat{\bm{h}} = \bm{n} \times \bm{\lambda}$. The semilatus rectum $p$ is related to the semimajor axis $a$ by $p = a(1-e^2)$.
In the presence of perturbations, these equations define the “osculating” orbit, with variable orbital elements. Folowing the standard methods for the perturbed Kepler problem as described, for example, in Sec. 3.3 of [@2014grav.book.....P], we obtain the secular changes in the orbit elements. From the post-Newtonian terms in Eq. (\[eq10:relativeacc1\]), we find that the pericenter advance per orbit is given by $$\Delta \omega = \frac{6 \pi m}{p} {\cal P} {\cal G}^{-1} \,,
\label{eq10:deltaomega}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P} &= {\cal G}{\cal B}_{+} + \frac{1}{6} \left ({\cal G}^2 - {\cal D} \right )
+ \frac{1}{6} {\cal G} \left [ 6 \Delta {\cal B}_{-} +\eta {\cal G} (2{\cal C} + {\cal E} ) + {\cal G}{\cal A}^{(3)} \right ]\,.
\label{eq10:deltaomega2}\end{aligned}$$ This is the only secular perturbation produced by the post-Newtonian terms in Eq. (\[eq10:relativeacc1\]).
We now calculate the secular changes in the orbit elements resulting from the preferred-frame perturbations in Eq. (\[eq10:relativeacc3\]). We define $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{e}_{\rm P} &\equiv \bm{n}|_{\phi = \omega} = \bm{e}_\Omega \cos \omega + \bm{e}_\perp \sin \omega \,,
\nonumber \\
\bm{e}_{\rm Q} &\equiv \bm{\lambda}|_{\phi = \omega} = - \bm{e}_\Omega \sin \omega + \bm{e}_\perp \cos \omega \,,
\nonumber \\
\hat{\bm h} &\equiv \bm{e}_{\rm P} \times \bm{e}_{\rm Q} = \bm{e}_{\Omega} \times \bm{e}_{\perp}\,,
\label{eq8:basisvectors}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{e}_{\rm P}$ is a unit vector pointing toward the pericenter and $\bm{e}_{\rm Q}=\hat{\bm h} \times \bm{e}_{\rm P}$; $\bm{e}_\Omega$ is a unit vector pointing along the ascending node, and $\bm{e}_{\perp} = \hat{\bm h} \times \bm{e}_{\Omega}$. For any vector $\bm A$, we then define components $A_{\rm P}$, $A_{\rm Q}$, $A_{\rm h}$, $A_\Omega$ and $A_\perp$ accordingly.
The secular changes in the orbit elements are then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta a &= 0 \,,
\nonumber \\
\Delta e &= -\pi \hat{\alpha}_1 \Delta \left (\frac{m}{p} \right )^{1/2} w_{\rm P} (1-e^2) F(e)
+2\pi \hat{\alpha}_2 w_{\rm P}w_{\rm Q} e\sqrt{1-e^2} F(e)^2
\,,
\nonumber \\
\Delta \varpi &= - \pi \hat{\alpha}_1 \Delta \left (\frac{m}{p} \right )^{1/2} w_{\rm Q} \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2} F(e)}{e}
-\pi \hat{\alpha}_2 \left (w_{\rm P}^2 - w_{\rm Q}^2 \right ) F(e)^2
\,,
\nonumber \\
\Delta \iota &= \pi \hat{\alpha}_1 \Delta \left (\frac{m}{p} \right )^{1/2} w_{\rm h} \sin(\omega) e F(e)
-2\pi \hat{\alpha}_2 w_{\rm h} w_{\rm R} \frac{F(e)}{\sqrt{1-e^2}}
\,,
\nonumber \\
\Delta \Omega &= - \pi \hat{\alpha}_1 \Delta \left (\frac{m}{p} \right )^{1/2} \frac{w_{\rm h}}{\sin \iota} \cos(\omega) e F(e)
-2\pi \hat{\alpha}_2 \frac{w_{\rm h} w_{\rm S}}{\sin \iota} \frac{F(e)}{\sqrt{1-e^2}}
\,,
\label{eq8:deltaelements1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta \varpi = \Delta \omega + \cos \iota \, \Delta \Omega$, $F(e) \equiv (1+ \sqrt{1-e^2})^{-1}$, and for any vector $\bm{A}$, $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\rm R} &\equiv A_{\rm P} \cos(\omega) - A_{\rm Q} \sin(\omega) \sqrt{1-e^2} \,,
\nonumber \\
A_{\rm S} &\equiv A_{\rm P} \sin(\omega) + A_{\rm Q} \cos(\omega) \sqrt{1-e^2} \,.
\label{eq8:ARAS}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the secular perturbations do not depend on the coefficients ${\cal G}{\cal A}^{(n)}$.
It is tempting to interpret these secular changes as implying linearly growing values of the orbital elements. However, the expressions in Eqs. (\[eq8:deltaelements1\]) depend on $\omega$, both from explicit $\omega$ dependence, and via the P, Q, R and S components of $\bm{w}$. The pericenter angle is actually advancing at an average rate $d\omega/d\phi \equiv \omega' \simeq 3(m/p) {\cal P} {\cal G}^{-1}$ \[see Eq. (\[eq10:deltaomega\])\], which we anticipate is much larger than the preferred-frame effects shown in Eq. (\[eq8:deltaelements1\]) – the goal is to set strong upper bounds on such effects. Thus the variations in the orbit elements will be modulated on a pericenter precession timescale and could even change sign. So in order to find the proper long-term evolution of the elements, we define, for a given element $X_a$, $dX_a/d\phi \equiv \Delta X_a /2\pi$, insert $\omega = \omega_0 + \omega' \phi$ in the right-hand-sides of Eqs. (\[eq8:deltaelements1\]), including in the P, Q, R and S components of various vectors, and integrate with respect to $\phi$. As we will be interested in low-eccentricity binary pulsars, we will assume that $e \ll 1$. Inserting the resulting integrals for $e$ and $\varpi$, into the expression $$r = a [1-e\cos(\phi - \omega) + O(e^2)] \,,
\label{eq8:requation}$$ and expanding to first order in the preferred-frame perturbations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{r}{a} &= 1 - e_0 \cos (\phi - \omega_0 - \omega' \phi ) - \frac{1}{4} \hat{\alpha}_1 \Delta \left (\frac{m}{a} \right )^{1/2} \frac{w}{\omega'}
\left ( \hat{w}_\perp \cos \phi - \hat{w}_\Omega \sin \phi \right )
\nonumber \\
& \quad
+ \frac{e_0}{4} \hat{\alpha}_2 w^2 \frac{\sin \omega' \phi}{\omega'} \left [ 2 \hat{w}_{\Omega} \hat{w}_{\perp} \cos( \phi + \omega_0)
+ \left ( \hat{w}_{\perp}^2 - \hat{w}_{\Omega}^2 \right ) \sin(\phi + \omega_0) \right ] .
\label{eq8:rPFfinal}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in Eq. (\[eq8:rPFfinal\]) is the normal contribution to $r/a$ resulting from the small eccentricity $e_0$, with the pericenter advancing at a rate $\omega'$. The second term is a forced eccentricity of the orbit, with an amplitude proportional to $( \hat{w}_{\perp}^2 + \hat{w}_{\Omega}^2)^{1/2} = (1 - \hat{w}_h^2)^{1/2} \equiv \sin \psi$, where $\psi$ is the angle between the orbital angular momentum $\hat{\bm{h}}$ and the velocity $\bm{w}$ relative to the preferred frame, and a phase given by $\tan^{-1} (-\hat{w}_\Omega / \hat{w}_\perp )$ [@1992PhRvD..46.4128D]. This effect is present even in the limit $e_0 \to 0$. The final term is also a polarization of the orbit, proportional to $e_0$, with an amplitude modulated by the factor $\sin \omega' \phi/\omega'$. However, it vanishes in the limit $e_0 \to 0$.
The other important effect of the preferred-frame perturbations is to cause the orbital angular momentum to precess. Since $\hat{\bm h} = \sin \iota (\sin \Omega \bm{e}_x - \cos \Omega \bm{e}_y ) + \cos \iota \bm{e}_z$, variations in $\hat{\bm h}$ are given by $$\Delta \hat{\bm h} = \sin \iota \Delta \Omega \bm{e}_\Omega - \Delta \iota \bm{e}_\perp \,.$$ Inserting the expressions for $\Delta \iota$ and $\Delta \Omega$ from Eqs. (\[eq8:deltaelements1\]), taking the small $e$ limit, and noting that $\bm{e}_\Omega \cos \omega + \bm{e}_\perp \sin \omega = \bm{e}_{\rm P}$ and that $A_\perp \bm{e}_\Omega - A_\Omega \bm{e}_\perp = \bm{A} \times \hat{\bm h}$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \hat{\bm h} &= - \frac{\pi}{2} \hat{\alpha}_1 \Delta \left (\frac{m}{a} \right )^{1/2} w_{\rm h} e \bm{e}_{\rm P}
-\pi \hat{\alpha}_2 w_h (\bm{w} \times \hat{\bm h} ) \,,
\label{eq8:dhdt}\end{aligned}$$ leading to a precession of the angular momentum vector $\bm{h}$.
Searches for eccentricities induced by the $\hat{\alpha}_1$ term in Eq. (\[eq8:rPFfinal\]) resulted in bounds on $ \hat{\alpha}_1$ as small as a few parts in $10^5$ [@2000ASPC..202..113W; @2012CQGra..29u5018S]. The tightest bound used a specific binary pulsar J1738+0333, whose orbit around its white-dwarf companion has an eccentricity $3.4 \times 10^{-7}$. The analysis was helped by the fact that the white dwarf is bright enough to be observed spectroscopically, leading to accurate determinations of the key orbital parameters. Furthermore, because the pericenter advances at a rate of about $1.6 \, {\rm deg \, yr}^{-1}$, the decade-long data span made it possible to partially separate any induced eccentricity, whose direction is fixed by the direction of $\bm{w}$, from the natural eccentricity, which rotates with the pericenter. For this system the result was $|\hat{\alpha}_1| < 3.4 \times 10^{-5}$ [@2012CQGra..29u5018S].
Limits on $\hat{\alpha}_2$ were obtained by looking for the precession of the orbital plane of a binary system \[see Eq. (\[eq8:dhdt\])\]. Such a precession would lead to a variation in the “projected semimajor axis” of the pulsar, $a_p \sin \iota$, a quantity that is measured very accurately in binary pulsar timing. Combining data from the two wide-binary millisecond pulsar systems J1738+0333 and J1012+5307, Shao and Wex [@2012CQGra..29u5018S; @2013CQGra..30p5020S] obtained the bound $|\hat{\alpha}_2 | < 1.8 \times 10^{-4}$.
A given theory of gravity can be constrained or ruled out by combining these bounds on $\hat{\alpha}_1$ and $\hat{\alpha}_2$ with Eqs. (\[eq10:relativeacc4\]), together with estimates of the sensitivities of any compact bodies in the system. Those sensitivities will depend on both the theory and the equation of state of nuclear matter.
Returning to the full $N$-body Lagrangian (\[eq10:lagrangian1\]), and working at quasi-Newtonian order, we can derive the leading signal of the failure of the universality of free fall (Nordtvedt effect) in a hierarchical three-body system, such as the pulsar J0337+1715 in a triple system with two white dwarf companions. For a two-body system in the presence of a third body, the equations of motion become $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm a}_1 &= -
{\cal G}_{12} m_2 \frac{{{\bm x}}_{12}}{r_{12}^3}
- {\cal G}_{13} m_3 \frac{{{\bm x}}_{13}}{r_{13}^3} \,,
\nonumber \\
{\bm a}_2 &= {\cal G}_{12} m_1 \frac{{{\bm x}}_{12}}{r_{12}^3}
- {\cal G}_{23} m_3 \frac{{{\bm x}}_{23}}{r_{23}^3} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Following the method described for example in Sec. 13.3.3 of [@2014grav.book.....P], it is straightforward to show that, for nearly circular coplanar orbits, the perturbation of the inner orbit induced by the Nordtvedt effect is given by $$\delta r = - \hat{\eta}_N \frac{R}{a_0}
\frac{\omega_b^2(1+2\omega_b/\Lambda)}
{\omega_b^2 - \Lambda^2} \cos(\Lambda t + \Phi) \,,
\label{eq14:deltarfinal}$$ where $a_0$ and $R$ are the semimajor axes of the inner and outer orbits, respectively, $\omega_b$ is the angular frequency of the inner orbit, and $\Lambda \equiv \omega_b - \omega_3$ is the difference between the inner and outer orbit angular frequencies. The “strong-field” Nordtvedt parameter $\hat{\eta}_N$ is given by $$\hat{\eta}_N \equiv {\cal G}_{12} - {\cal G}_{13} \,.$$ For the pulsar J0337+1715 we can ignore the sensitivities of the two white-dwarf companions, and write, for the specific cases of scalar-tensor and Einstein-[Æ]{}ther theories, $$\hat{\eta}_N = \Biggl \{ \begin{array}{cl} - \zeta s_1 &: {\rm scalar-tensor} \\
\hfill s_1/(1-s_1) &: {\rm Einstein-{\AE}ther} \,,
\end{array}$$ where we have set $G_N=1$ in Einstein-[Æ]{}ther theory. Bounds on the Nordtvedt effect signal obtained from the data can then be used to constrain these specific theories.
Concluding remarks {#sec:conclusions}
==================
We have extended the modified EIH framework to incorporate the possibility of preferred-frame effects, giving a direct link between bounds on such effects derived from observations of binary pulsar systems and the fundamental parameters of alternative theories of gravity. In contrast to the simplicity of the PPN formalism, the link between observation and theory here depends on the internal structure (sensitivities) of the compact bodies in the system.
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, Grant No. PHY 16–00188. We are grateful to Enrico Barausse, Guillaume Faye and Viraj Sanghai for useful discussions.
The compact-body Lagrangian formalism of Nordtvedt
==================================================
Nordtvedt’s [@1985ApJ...297..390N] compact body formalism introduced two kinetic parameters $\delta M_a^{(2)}$, and $\delta M_a^{(4)}$, six symmetric parameters, $\Gamma_{ab}$, $\Theta_{ab}$, $\tau_{ab}$, $\sigma_{ab}$, and $\xi_{ab}$, two antisymmetric parameters $\Phi_{ab}$ and $\Psi_{ab}$, and one three-body parameter, $\Gamma_{abc}$, symmetric on the second two indices. Our mass rescaling argument implies that $\delta M_a^{(2)}=0$, and our rejection of Whitehead terms implies that $\xi_{ab} = \Psi_{ab} = 0$. The remaining parameters are related to our modified EIH parameters by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_{ab} & = (m_a m_b)^{-1} \Gamma_{ab} \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal B}_{ab} &=\frac{1}{3} (m_a m_b)^{-1} \left ( \Gamma_{ab} + 2\gamma \Theta_{ab} - 4 \Phi_{ab} \right ) \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal D}_{abc} &= (m_a m_b m_c)^{-1} (2\beta-1)\Gamma_{abc} \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal A}_a & = m_a^{-1} \delta M_a^{(4)} \,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal C}_{ab} &= (m_a m_b)^{-1} \left (\alpha_1 \tau_{ab} - 2\alpha_2 \sigma_{ab} \right )\,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal E}_{ab} &= 2 (m_a m_b)^{-1} \alpha_2 \sigma_{ab} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$, $\beta$, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are the standard PPN parameters.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Sector decomposition is a constructive method to isolate divergences from parameter integrals occurring in perturbative quantum field theory. We explain the general algorithm in detail and review its application to multi-loop Feynman parameter integrals as well as infrared divergent phase-space integrals over real radiation matrix elements.'
---
IPPP/08/16\
DCPT/08/32\
3.5cm
[**Sector Decomposition**]{}
1.cm
[Gudrun Heinrich]{}
0.7cm
[*IPPP, Department of Physics, University of Durham,\
South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK\
[email protected]*]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
Modern particle physics has reached a level of experimental accuracy in the percent range, and some present and future precision experiments require theoretical uncertainties to be at the permille level. This need for precise theory predictions has pushed forward the frontier for calculations of higher orders in perturbation theory considerably in recent years. The calculation of higher order corrections relies to a large extent on tree– or loop level Feynman diagrams, where the unobserved degrees of freedom, respectively the loop momenta, have to be integrated out. It is well known that these integrations become increasingly difficult at higher orders, as the dimensionality of the integration parameter space and/or the number of scales involved is growing. The intricacy is closely related to the fact that these integrals in general contain ultraviolet (UV) or infrared[^1] (IR) divergences which need to be renormalised respectively factorised, because they hinder an immediate numerical evaluation of complicated expressions. The subtraction of these singularities becomes more and more cumbersome at higher orders, due to the fact that the divergences will be entangled in an increasingly complicated way.
For ultraviolet divergences, Bogoliubov, Parasiuk, Hepp and Zimmermann [@Bogoliubov:1957gp; @Hepp:1966eg; @Zimmermann:1969jj], established a subtraction scheme valid to all orders in perturbation theory. In fact, the original idea of sector decomposition goes back to the proof of the BPHZ theorem by Hepp [@Hepp:1966eg], who used a decomposition of integration parameter space into certain sectors in order to disentangle overlapping ultraviolet singularities.
Concerning infrared divergences, the finiteness of sufficiently inclusive observables is guaranteed by the Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem [@Kinoshita:1962ur; @Lee:1964is], but in most practical applications, more exclusive information about the final state is required, such that a subtraction scheme for IR divergences has to be established. A constructive scheme to do so to all orders in perturbation theory has not been formulated in full generality yet, at least in what concerns soft [*and collinear*]{} divergences. However, the sector decomposition algorithm as outlined below offers a constructive method to isolate these divergences from Feynman parameter integrals, which in principle is valid to all orders in perturbation theory.
For the subtraction of (soft) IR divergences, several approaches have been suggested. Early ones, which are based already on the subdivision of the integration parameter space into different sectors where the parameters go to zero in an ordered way, can be found e.g. in [@Pohlmeyer:1974ph; @Breitenlohner:1975hg; @Breitenlohner:1976te; @Speer:1975dc; @Speer:1977uf]. These sectors, associated with certain sets of one-particle irreducible subgraphs, are more advanced than the sectors needed in the UV case, and provide a resolution of the singularities without the need for an iterative procedure for diagrams with off-shell external momenta. Further, the so-called $R^*$-operation [@Chetyrkin:1982nn; @Chetyrkin:1984xa] has been developed, which removes not only UV-divergences but also soft IR divergences by a procedure similar to the $R$-operation [@Bogoliubov:1957gp] in the UV case. For a review of these methods, see e.g. [@Smirnov:1991jn; @Smirnov:2004ym].
Later, the decomposition into sectors has been employed to extract logarithmic mass singularities from massive multi-scale integrals in the high energy limit at two loops [@Roth:1996pd]. In [@Binoth:2000ps], the concept of sector decomposition has been elaborated to a general algorithm in the context of dimensional regularisation, allowing to isolate ultraviolet as well as infrared singularities from parameter integrals in an automated way [@public_code]. The algorithm also has been implemented in a public code available from [@Bogner:2007cr].
At next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbation theory, the use of dimensional regularisation [@'tHooft:1972fi; @Bollini:1972ui] and the universal infrared structure of gauge theories involving massless particles, like QED and QCD, allowed to establish a framework to isolate IR singularities analytically, leading to a multitude of phenomenological predictions. More recently, an increasing number of results at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) has also become available, and quite a number of them made use of the sector decomposition technique to isolate infrared singularities or to check analytical results [@GehrmannDeRidder:2003bm; @Anastasiou:2003gr; @Binoth:2004jv; @Anastasiou:2004qd; @Denner:2004iz; @Anastasiou:2004xq; @Czakon:2004wm; @Anastasiou:2005qj; @Anastasiou:2005pn; @Heinrich:2006sw; @Melnikov:2006di; @Anastasiou:2006hc; @Czakon:2006pa; @Awramik:2006uz; @Awramik:2006ar; @Boughezal:2006xk; @Denner:2006jr; @Melnikov:2006kv; @Anastasiou:2007mz; @Anastasiou:2008ik; @Melnikov:2008qs; @Anastasiou:2008rm].
As most problems encountered in the calculation of perturbative higher order corrections can be reduced to the evaluation of multi-dimensional parameter integrals, the applicability of sector decomposition is quite universal.
Multi-loop diagrams
-------------------
The first application of the algorithm presented in [@Binoth:2000ps] was the numerical evaluation of massless two-loop box diagrams at certain Euclidean points[^2]. Pioneering the analytic calculation of two-loop box diagrams, the planar topology with light-like external legs has been calculated by V.A. Smirnov [@Smirnov:1999gc], the non-planar one by J.B.Tausk [@Tausk:1999vh], where the numerical results obtained by sector decomposition served as an important check of the analytical calculation. For massless two-loop box diagrams with one off-shell leg, the numerical results of Ref. [@Binoth:2000ps] were predictions which played a major role to validate the subsequent analytical calculations [@Gehrmann:2000zt; @Gehrmann:2001ck], finally allowing the calculation of the full two-loop QCD matrix element for $e^+ e^- \to 3$ jets [@Garland:2001tf].
Subsequently, sector decomposition was used to check a considerable number of analytical results for two-loop [@Smirnov:2000ie; @Smirnov:2001cm; @Davydychev:2002hy; @Binoth:2003ak; @Heinrich:2004iq; @Czakon:2004wm; @Awramik:2006ar; @Awramik:2006uz], three-loop [@Smirnov:2003vi; @Gehrmann:2006wg; @Heinrich:2007at] and four-loop [@Binoth:2003ak; @Boughezal:2006xk] diagrams[^3].
Sector decomposition also has been combined with other methods for an efficient numerical calculation of one-loop multi-leg amplitudes, first on a diagrammatic level in Refs. [@Ferroglia:2002mz; @Binoth:2002xh], later for whole amplitudes in Refs. [@Lazopoulos:2007bv; @Lazopoulos:2007ix]. The latter approach contains a combination of sector decomposition and contour deformation [@Soper:1998ye; @Soper:1999xk; @Binoth:2005ff; @Nagy:2006xy], which allows to integrate the Feynman parameter representation of an amplitude numerically in the physical region. It also contains the application of sector decomposition to phase space integrals, which will be discussed below. Similar ideas, i.e. the combination of sector decomposition and contour deformation, are employed in Refs. [@Anastasiou:2007qb; @Anastasiou:2008rm] for the numerical evaluation of multi-loop Feynman diagrams with infrared and threshold singularities.
Ref. [@Denner:2004iz] describes the implementation of an algorithm based on sector decomposition to extract the $1/{\epsilon}$ poles as well as the large logarithms of type $\ln(s/M^2)$ in the high-energy limit, allowing to obtain the next-to-leading logarithmic electroweak corrections of multi-loop diagrams.
Despite its success in practical applications, until very recently there was no formal proof that a strategy for the iterated sector decomposition can always be found such that the iteration is guaranteed to stop. This gap has been filled in Ref. [@Bogner:2007cr], by mapping the problem to Hironaka’s Polyhedra game [@Hironaka]. The findings of Ref. [@Bogner:2007cr] subsequently have been used to prove that the coefficients of the Laurent series representing Feynman integrals in the Euclidean region with rational values for all invariants are a special class of numbers known by mathematicians as periods [@Bogner:2007mn].
Also on a more formal level, it is outlined in [@Kennedy:2007sj] that sector decomposition can be used to automate the renormalisation of quantum field theories, by mapping to the so-called Henge decomposition [@Caswell:1981xt], which served to provide a simple proof of the BPHZ theorem [@Kennedy:1996ux]. This mapping also allowed to establish a direct correspondence between overlapping divergences in Feynman parameter space and in momentum space [@Kennedy:2007sj]. In this context, one should also mention the formulation of renormalisation using Hopf algebras [@EbrahimiFard:2005gx], which provide a framework to describe the disentanglement of divergent subgraphs of Feynman diagrams.
Phase space integrals
---------------------
After the results for various two-loop box diagrams had become available, the bottleneck to make progress in the calculation of differential NNLO cross sections for $1\to 3$ or $2\to 2$ processes was the complicated infrared singularity structure of phase space integrals over matrix elements for the real radiation of (doubly) unresolved massless particles. As these phase space integrals can be written as dimensionally regularised parameter integrals, sector decomposition can serve to factorise entangled singularity structures in the case of real radiation as well. This idea has first been presented in [@Heinrich:2002rc] and subsequently has been applied to calculate all master four-particle phase space integrals where up to two particles in the final state can become soft and/or collinear [@GehrmannDeRidder:2003bm]. Shortly after, this approach has been extended to be applicable to exclusive final states as well by expressing the functions produced by sector decomposition in terms of distributions [@Anastasiou:2003gr]. A rapid development [@Binoth:2004jv; @Anastasiou:2004qd] lead to the calculation of $e^+e^-\to2$jets at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ [@Anastasiou:2004qd]. Further elaboration on this approach resulted in the first fully differential program to calculate an NNLO cross section [@Anastasiou:2004xq; @Anastasiou:2005qj] and has lead to differential NNLO results for a number of processes meanwhile [@Anastasiou:2005pn; @Melnikov:2006di; @Melnikov:2006kv; @Melnikov:2008qs].
Basic concepts {#sec:basics}
==============
To introduce the subject, let us look at the simple example of a two-dimensional parameter integral of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
I&=&
\int_0^1 dx\,\int_0^1dy \,x^{-1-a\epsilon}\,y^{-b\epsilon}\,\Big(x+(1-x)\,y\Big)^{-1}\;.\end{aligned}$$ The integral contains a singular region where $x$ and $y$ vanish [*simultaneously*]{}, i.e. the singularities in $x$ and $y$ are [*overlapping*]{}. Our aim is to factorise the singularities for $x\to 0$ and $y\to 0$. Therefore we divide the integration range into two sectors where $x$ and $y$ are ordered (see Fig. \[sectors\]) $$\begin{aligned}
I&=&
\int_0^1 dx\,\int_0^1dy \,x^{-1-a\epsilon}\,y^{-b\epsilon}\,\Big(x+(1-x)\,y\Big)^{-1}\,
[\underbrace{\Theta(x-y)}_{(1)}+\underbrace{\Theta(y-x)}_{(2)}]\;.\end{aligned}$$ Now we substitute $y=x\,t$ in sector (1) and $x=y\,t$ in sector (2) to remap the integration range to the unit square and obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
I&=&\int_0^1 dx\,x^{-1-(a+b)\epsilon}\int_0^1 dt\,t^{-b{\epsilon}}
\,\Big(1+(1-x)\,t\Big)^{-1}\nn\\
&+&\int_0^1 dy
\,y^{-1-(a+b)\epsilon}\int_0^1 dt\,t^{-1-a\epsilon}\,\Big(1+(1-y)\,t\Big)^{-1}\;.\end{aligned}$$
We observe that the singularities are now factorised such that they can be read off from the powers of simple monomials in the integration variables, while the polynomial denominator goes to a constant if the integration variables approach zero. The same concept will be applied to $N$-dimensional parameter integrals over polynomials raised to some power, where the procedure in general has to be iterated to achieve complete factorisation.
The algorithm for multi-loop integrals
======================================
Feynman parameter integrals
---------------------------
A general Feynman graph $G^{\mu_1\ldots\mu_R}_{l_1\ldots l_R}$ in $D$ dimensions at $L$ loops with $N$ propagators and $R$ loop momenta in the numerator, where the propagators can have arbitrary, not necessarily integer powers $\nu_j$, has the following representation in momentum space: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq0}
G^{\mu_1\ldots \mu_{R}}_{l_1\ldots l_R} &=& \int\prod\limits_{l=1}^{L} {{\mathrm{d}}}^D\kappa_l\;
\frac{k_{l_1}^{\mu_1}\ldots k_{l_R}^{\mu_R}}
{\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N} P_{j}^{\nu_j}(\{k\},\{p\},m_j^2)}\nn\\
{{\mathrm{d}}}^D\kappa_l&=&\frac{\mu^{4-D}}{i\pi^{\frac{D}{2}}}\,{{\mathrm{d}}}^D k_l\;,\;
P_j(\{k\},\{p\},m_j^2)=(q_j^2-m_j^2+i\delta)\;,\end{aligned}$$ where the $q_j$ are linear combinations of external momenta $p_i$ and loop momenta $k_l$. Introducing Feynman parameters according to &=& \_0\^\_[j=1]{}\^[N]{}x\_jx\_j\^[\_j-1]{} (1-\_[i=1]{}\^N x\_i ) ,\
N\_&=&\_[j=1]{}\^N\_j,\
&&\
G\^[\_1…\_[R]{}]{}\_[l\_1…l\_R]{}&=& \_0\^\_[j=1]{}\^[N]{}x\_jx\_j\^[\_j-1]{} (1-\_[i=1]{}\^N x\_i) \^D\_1…\^D\_L\
&&k\_[l\_1]{}\^[\_1]{}…k\_[l\_R]{}\^[\_R]{}\^[-N]{},\[EQ\_mixed\_rep\] where $M$ is a $L\times L$ matrix containing Feynman parameters, $Q$ is an $L$-dimensional vector composed of external momenta and Feynman parameters, and $J$ contains kinematic invariants and Feynman parameters. The factors of $k_{l_i}^{\mu_i}$ in the numerator can be generated from $G(R=0)$ by partial differentiation with with respect to $Q_{l}^{\mu_i}$, where $l\in \{1,\dots ,L\}$ denotes the $l^{\rm{th}}$ component of the vector $Q$, corresponding to the $l^{\rm{th}}$ loop momentum. Therefore it is convenient to define the double indices $\Gamma_{i}=(l,\mu_i(l))\,,\,l\in\{1,\ldots,L\}, i\in \{1,\dots ,R\}$ denoting the $i^{\rm{th}}$ Lorentz index, belonging to the $l^{\rm{th}}$ loop momentum.
To perform the integration over the loop momenta $k_l$, we perform the following shift in order to obtain a quadratic form for the term in square brackets in eq. (\[EQ\_mixed\_rep\]): k\_l\^=k\_l-v\_l, v\_l=\_[i=1]{}\^L M\^[-1]{}\_[li]{} Q\_i. After momentum integration one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:param_rep}
G^{\mu_1\ldots \mu_{R}}_{l_1\ldots l_R} &=& (-1)^{N_{\nu}}
\frac{1}{\prod_{j=1}^{N}\Gamma(\nu_j)}\int
\limits_{0}^{\infty}
\,\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N}dx_j\,\,x_j^{\nu_j-1}\,\delta(1-\sum_{l=1}^N x_l)\nonumber\\
&&\sum\limits_{m=0}^{[R/2]}(-\frac{1}{2})^m\Gamma(N_{\nu}-m-LD/2)
\left[(\tilde M^{-1}\otimes g)^{(m)}\,\tilde l^{(R-2m)}
\right]^{\Gamma_{1},\ldots,\Gamma_{R}}\nonumber\\
&&\times\,\frac{{\cal U}^{N_{\nu}-(L+1) D/2-R}}
{{\cal F}^{N_\nu-L D/2-m}}\\
&&\nonumber\\
\mbox{where} \qquad \quad &&\nonumber\\
{\cal F}(\vec x) &=& \det (M)
\left[ \sum\limits_{j,l=1}^{L} Q_j \, M^{-1}_{jl}\, Q_l
-J -{i\,\delta}\right]\label{DEF:F}\\
{\cal U}(\vec x) &=& \det (M) \nonumber\\
\tilde M^{-1}&=&{\cal U}M^{-1}\;,\quad
\tilde l={\cal U}\,v\nn\end{aligned}$$ and $[R/2]$ denotes the nearest integer less or equal to $R/2$. The expression\
$[(\tilde M^{-1}\otimes g)^{(m)}\,\tilde l\,^{(R-2m)}]^
{\Gamma_{1},\ldots,\Gamma_{R}}$ stands for the sum over all different combinations of $R$ double-indices distributed to $m$ metric tensors and $(R-2m)$ vectors $\tilde l$. The above expression is well known [@BogolShirkov; @Itzykson:1980rh; @nakanishi; @Davydychev:1991va; @Tarasov:1996bz; @Smirnov:2004ym], but an example to illustrate the distribution of indices may be helpful, so let us consider a two-loop integral where the $k_1$-integral is a rank two tensor integral and the $k_2$-integral is of rank one: G\^[\_1\_2\_[3]{}]{}\_[112]{} &=& \^D\_1\^D\_2\
&=& \_[0]{}\^ \_[j=1]{}\^[N]{}dx\_jx\_j\^[\_j-1]{}(1-\_[l=1]{}\^N x\_l)\
&&{(N\_-D) l\_1\^[\_1]{}l\_1\^[\_2]{}l\_2\^[\_3]{}\
&&-(N\_-1-D)\
&&}, $$(\tilde M^{-1}\otimes g)^{\mu\nu}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde M^{-1}_{11}\,g^{\mu\nu}&\tilde M^{-1}_{12}\,g^{\mu\nu}\\
\tilde M^{-1}_{21}\,g^{\mu\nu}&\tilde M^{-1}_{22}\,g^{\mu\nu}
\end{array} \right) \;.$$
The functions ${\cal U}$ and ${\cal F}$ also can be constructed from the topology of the corresponding Feynman graph as follows [@nakanishi; @zavialov; @Tarasov:1996br]. Cutting $L$ lines of a given connected $L$-loop graph such that it becomes a connected tree graph $T$ defines a [*chord*]{} ${\cal C}(T)$ as being the set of lines not belonging to this tree. The Feynman parameters associated with each chord define a monomial of degree $L$. The set of all such trees (or [*1-trees*]{}) is denoted by ${\cal T}_1$. The 1-trees $T\in {\cal T}_1$ define ${\cal U}$ as being the sum over all monomials corresponding to a chord ${\cal C}(T\in {\cal T}_1)$. Cutting one more line of a 1-tree leads to two disconnected trees, or a [*2-tree*]{} $\hat T$. ${\cal T}_2$ is the set of all such 2-trees. The corresponding chords define monomials of degree $L+1$. Each 2-tree of a graph corresponds to a cut defined by cutting the lines which connected the two now disconnected trees in the original graph. The momentum flow through the lines of such a cut defines a Lorentz invariant $s_{\hat T} = ( \sum_{j\in \rm Cut(\hat T)} p_j )^2$. The function ${\cal F}_0$ is the sum over all such monomials times minus the corresponding invariant. For a diagram with massless propagators, ${\cal F}={\cal F}_0$. If massive internal lines are present, ${\cal F}$ gets an additional term as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq0def}
{\cal U}(\vec x) &=& \sum\limits_{T\in {\cal T}_1} \Bigl[\prod\limits_{j\in {\cal C}(T)}x_j\Bigr]\;,\nonumber\\
{\cal F}_0(\vec x) &=& \sum\limits_{\hat T\in {\cal T}_2}\;
\Bigl[ \prod\limits_{j\in {\cal C}(\hat T)} x_j \Bigr]\, (-s_{\hat T})\;,\nonumber\\
{\cal F}(\vec x) &=& {\cal F}_0(\vec x) + {\cal U}(\vec x) \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N} x_j m_j^2\;.\end{aligned}$$ ${\cal U}$ is a positive semi-definite function. Its vanishing is related to the UV subdivergences of the graph. Overall UV divergences, if present, will always be contained in the prefactor $\Gamma(N_{\nu}-LD/2)$. In the region where all invariants $s_{\hat T}$ are negative, which we will call the Euclidean region in the following, ${\cal F}$ is also a positive semi-definite function of the Feynman parameters $x_j$. Its vanishing does not necessarily lead to an IR singularity. Only if some of the invariants are zero, for example if some of the external momenta are light-like, the vanishing of ${\cal F}$ may induce an IR divergence. Thus it depends on the [*kinematics*]{} and not only on the topology (like in the UV case) whether a zero of ${\cal F}$ leads to a divergence or not. This fact makes it much harder to formulate general theorems for the subtraction of IR singularities of multi-loop Feynman graphs. The necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for an IR divergence are given by the Landau equations [@Landau:1959fi; @ELOP; @Tkachov:1997ap], which, in parameter space, simply mean that the necessary condition ${\cal F}=0$ for an IR divergence can only be fulfilled if some of the parameters $x_i$ go to zero, provided that all kinematic invariants $s_{\hat T}$ are negative.
As can be seen from Eq. (\[EQ:param\_rep\]), the difference between scalar and tensor integrals is, once the Lorentz structure is extracted, given by the fact that there are polynomials of Feynman parameters in the numerator. These polynomials can simply be included into the sector decomposition procedure, thus treating tensor integrals directly without reduction to scalar integrals.
However, there is yet another possibility: Any tensor integral can be expressed in terms of scalar integrals in shifted dimensions, with some of the propagator powers different from unity, as has been shown in [@Davydychev:1991va; @Tarasov:1996br]. As our propagators can have arbitrary powers $\nu_j$, and the dimension $D$ is a free parameter, this is a viable alternative.
Iterated sector decomposition {#itersd}
-----------------------------
For less trivial examples than the one given in section \[sec:basics\], the singularities will not be factorised already after a single step of sector decomposition. An algorithm how to iterate this procedure is described below.
Our starting point is a function of the form of Eq. (\[EQ:param\_rep\]). As the basic algorithm is the same for tensor integrals, we will consider $R=0$ here for ease of notation, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:Gscalar}
G &=& (-1)^{N_{\nu}}
\frac{\Gamma(N_\nu-L D/2)}{\prod_{j=1}^{N}\Gamma(\nu_j)}\int
\limits_{0}^{\infty}
\,\prod\limits_{j=1}^{N}dx_j\,\,x_j^{\nu_j-1}\,\delta(1-\sum_{l=1}^N x_l)
\,\,\frac{{\cal U}^{N_{\nu}-(L+1) D/2}}
{{\cal F}^{N_\nu-L D/2}}\;.\nn\\\end{aligned}$$
### Part I Generation of primary sectors {#part-i-generation-of-primary-sectors .unnumbered}
We split the integration domain into $N$ parts and eliminate the $\delta$–distribution in such a way that the remaining integrations are from 0 to 1. To this end we decompose the integration range into $N$ sectors, where in each sector $l$, $x_l$ is largest (note that the remaining $x_{j\not=l}$ are not further ordered): $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\infty}d^N x =
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{N} \int_0^{\infty}d^N x
\prod\limits_{\stackrel{j=1}{j\ne l}}^{N}\theta(x_l\ge x_j)\;.\end{aligned}$$ The $\theta$-function is defined as $$\theta(x \ge y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1& \mbox{if } x\ge y \mbox{ is true}\\
0& \mbox{otherwise.}\end{array}
\right.$$ The integral is now split into $N$ domains corresponding to $N$ integrals $G_l$ from which we extract a common factor: $G=(-1)^{N_\nu} \Gamma(N_\nu-LD/2) \sum_{l=1}^{N} G_l$. In the integrals $G_l$ we substitute $$\begin{aligned}
x_j = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} x_l t_j & \mbox{for} & j<l \\
x_l & \mbox{for} & j=l \\
x_l t_{j-1} & \mbox{for} & j>l \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ and then integrate out $x_l$ using the $\delta$–distribution. As ${\cal U},{\cal F}$ are homogeneous of degree $L$,$L+1$, respectively, and $x_l$ factorises completely, we have ${\cal U}(\vec x) \rightarrow {\cal U}_l(\vec t\,)\, x_l^L$ and ${\cal F}(\vec x) \rightarrow {\cal F}_l(\vec t\,)\, x_l^{L+1}$ and thus, using $\int dx_l/x_l\,\delta(1-x_l(1+\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}t_k ))=1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:primary_sectors}
G_l &=& \int\limits_{0}^{1} \prod_{j=1}^{N-1}{{{\mathrm{d}}}}t_j\,t_j^{\nu_j-1}\,\,
\frac{ {\cal U}_l^{N_\nu-(L+1)D/2}(\vec{t}\,)}{ {\cal F}_l^{N_\nu-L D/2}(\vec{t}\,)}
\quad , \quad l=1,\dots, N \;.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the singular behaviour leading to $1/\epsilon$–poles still comes from regions where a set of parameters $\{t_i\}$ goes to zero. This feature would be lost if the $\delta$–distribution was integrated out in a different way, since this would produce poles at upper limits of the parameter integral as well. The $N$ generated sectors will be called [*primary*]{} sectors in the following.
### Part II Iteration {#part-ii-iteration .unnumbered}
Starting from Eq. (\[EQ:primary\_sectors\]) we repeat the following steps until a complete separation of overlapping regions is achieved.
II.1:
: Determine a minimal set of parameters, say ${\cal S}=\{t_{\alpha_1},\dots ,t_{\alpha_r}\}$, such that ${\cal U}_l$, respectively ${\cal F}_l$, vanish if the parameters of ${\cal S}$ are set to zero. ${\cal S}$ is in general not unique, and there is no general prescription which defines what set to choose in order to achieve a [*minimal*]{} number of iterations. Strategies to choose ${\cal S}$ such that the algorithm is guaranteed to stop are given in [@Bogner:2007cr]. Using these strategies however in general leads to a larger number of iterations than heuristic strategies to avoid infinite loops, described in more detail below.
II.2:
: Decompose the corresponding $r$-cube into $r$ [*subsectors*]{} by decomposing unity according to $$\begin{aligned}
\prod\limits_{j=1}^r \theta(1\geq t_{\alpha_j}\geq 0)=
\sum\limits_{k=1}^r \prod\limits_{\stackrel{j=1}{j\ne k}}^r
\theta(t_{\alpha_k}\geq t_{\alpha_j}\geq 0)\;.\end{aligned}$$
II.3:
: Remap the variables to the unit hypercube in each new subsector by the substitution $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\alpha_j} \rightarrow
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} t_{\alpha_k} t_{\alpha_j} &\mbox{for}&j\not =k \\
t_{\alpha_k} &\mbox{for}& j=k\,. \end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ This gives a Jacobian factor of $t_{\alpha_k}^{r-1}$. By construction $t_{\alpha_k}$ factorises from at least one of the functions ${\cal U}_l$, ${\cal F}_l$. The resulting subsector integrals have the general form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:subsec_form}
G_{lk} &=& \int\limits_{0}^{1} \left( \prod_{j=1}^{N-1}{{{\mathrm{d}}}}t_j
\; t_j^{a_j-b_j\epsilon} \right)
\frac{{\cal U}_{lk}^{N_\nu-(L+1)D/2}}{{\cal F}_{lk}^{N_\nu-LD/2}}\, , \quad k=1,\dots ,r\;.\end{aligned}$$
For each subsector the above steps have to be repeated as long as a set ${\cal S}$ can be found such that one of the functions ${\cal U}_{l\dots}$ or ${\cal F}_{l\dots}$ vanishes if the elements of ${\cal S}$ are set to zero. This way new subsectors are created in each subsector of the previous iteration, resulting in a tree-like structure after a certain number of iterations. The iteration stops if the functions ${\cal U}_{l k_1 k_2\dots}$ or ${\cal F}_{l k_1 k_2\dots}$ contain a constant term, i.e. if they are of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:subsec_UF}
{\cal U}_{l k_1 k_2\dots} &=& 1 + u(\vec t\,) \\
{\cal F}_{l k_1 k_2\dots} &=& -s_{0} +
\sum\limits_{\beta} (-s_{\beta}) f_\beta(\vec t\,)\;, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $u(\vec t\,)$ and $f_\beta(\vec t\,)$ are polynomials in the variables $t_j$ (without a constant term), and $s_{\beta}$ are kinematic invariants defined by the cuts of the diagram as explained above, or (minus) internal masses. Thus, after a certain number of iterations, each integral $G_l$ is split into a certain number, say $\alpha$, of subsector integrals. We can replace the multi-index $k_1 k_2\dots$ stemming from the subsector decomposition by a single index which just counts the number of generated subsectors. The subsector integrals are exactly of the same form as in Eq. (\[EQ:subsec\_form\]), with the difference that the index $k$ now runs from 1 to $\alpha$, the total number of produced subsectors in each primary sector.
Evidently the singular behaviour of the integrand now can be read off directly from the exponents $a_j$, $b_j$ for a given subsector integral. As the singular behaviour is manifestly non-overlapping now, it is straightforward to define subtractions.
### Part III Extraction of the poles {#part-iii-extraction-of-the-poles .unnumbered}
The subtraction of the poles can be done implicitly by expanding the singular factors into distributions, or explicitly by direct integration over the singular factors. In any case, the following procedure has to be worked through for each variable $t_{j=1,\dots ,N-1}$ and each subsector integrand:
- Let us consider Eq. (\[EQ:subsec\_form\]) for a particular $t_j$, i.e. let us focus on $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQsub_step1}
I_j = \int\limits_0^1 dt_j\, t_j^{(a_j-b_j\epsilon)}\, {\cal I}(t_j,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon) \;,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal I}={\cal U}_{lk}^{N_\nu-(L+1)D/2}/{\cal F}_{lk}^{N_\nu-LD/2}$ in a particular subsector. If $a_j > -1$, the integration does not lead to an $\epsilon$–pole. In this case no subtraction is needed and one can go to the next variable $t_{j+1}$. If $a_j \leq -1$, one expands ${\cal I}(t_j,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon)$ into a Taylor series around $t_j=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal I}(t_j,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon) &=& \sum\limits_{p=0}^{|a_j|-1}
{\cal I}_j^{(p)}(0,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon)\frac{t_j^p}{p!} + R(\vec{t},\epsilon)
\;,\;\mbox{where}\nn\\
{\cal I}_j^{(p)}(0,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon)&=&
\partial^p {\cal I}(t_j,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon)/\partial t_j^p\Big|_{t_j=0}\;.\end{aligned}$$
- Now the pole part can be extracted easily, and one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQsub_step2}
I_j = \sum\limits_{p=0}^{|a_j|-1} \frac{1}{a_j+p+1-b_j\epsilon}
\frac{{\cal I}_j^{(p)}(0,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon)}{p!}
+ \int\limits_{0}^{1} dt_j \, t_j^{a_j-b_j \epsilon} R(\vec{t},\epsilon) \;.
\label{tjsubtr}\end{aligned}$$ By construction, the integral containing the remainder term $R(\vec{t},\epsilon)$ does not produce poles in $\epsilon$ upon $t_j$-integration anymore. For $a_j=-1$, which is the generic case for renormalisable theories (logarithmic divergence), this simply amounts to $$I_j=-\frac{1}{b_j\epsilon}\,{\cal I}_j(0,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon)+
\int\limits_0^1 dt_j\,t_j^{-1-b_j\epsilon}\,
\Big( {\cal I}(t_j,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon) -{\cal I}_j(0,\{t_{i\not=j}\},\epsilon)\Big)\;,$$ which is equivalent to applying the “plus prescription" [@Gelfand] (see eq. (\[plusdist\])), except that the integrations over the singular factors have been carried out explicitly. Since, as long as $j<N-1$, the expression (\[tjsubtr\]) still contains an overall factor $t_{j+1}^{a_{j+1}-{\epsilon}\,b_{j+1}}$, it is of the same form as (\[EQsub\_step1\]) for $j\to j+1$ and the same steps as above can be applied.
After $N-1$ steps all poles are extracted, such that the resulting expression can be expanded in $\epsilon$. This defines a Laurent series in $\epsilon$ with coefficients $C_{lk,m}$ for each of the $\alpha(l)$ subsector integrals $G_{lk}$. Since each loop can contribute at most one soft and collinear $1/\epsilon^2$ term, the highest possible infrared pole of an $L-$loop graph is $1/\epsilon^{2L}$. Expanding to order ${\epsilon}^r$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:eps_series_Glk}
G_{lk} = \sum\limits_{m=-r}^{2L} \frac{C_{lk,m}}{\epsilon^m} +
{\cal O}(\epsilon^{r+1}) \;,\quad
G=(-1)^{N_\nu} \Gamma(N_\nu-LD/2) \sum_{l=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{\alpha(l)} G_{lk}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Following the steps outlined above one has generated a regular integral representation of the coefficients $C_{lk,m}$, consisting of $(N-1-m)$–dimensional finite integrals over parameters $t_j$. We recall that ${\cal F}$ was non-negative in the Euclidean region where all invariants are negative (see eqs. (\[eq0def\],\[EQ:subsec\_UF\])), such that the numerical integrations over the finite parameter integrals are straightforward in this region. In principle, it is also possible to do at least part of these parameter integrals analytically, but in most applications such an analytical approach reaches its limits very quickly.
### Avoiding infinite recursion {#avoiding-infinite-recursion .unnumbered}
As mentioned already, the choice of the set ${\cal S}=\{t_{\alpha_1},\dots ,t_{\alpha_r}\}$ which makes ${\cal U}$ respectively ${\cal F}$ vanish for $t_\alpha\to 0$ is in general not unique. The structure of the function ${\cal U}$ (see eq. (\[eq0def\])) is such that its decomposition will always terminate after $L$ iterations for an $L$-loop integral. For the function ${\cal F}$, the structure depends on the masses and kinematic invariants involved. Although one could follow one of the mathematical strategies given in [@Bogner:2007cr] to ensure the iteration terminates, this is not the most efficient method for practical purposes, as these strategies typically generate a large number of subsectors. Another possibility, adopted in [@Denner:2004iz], is to choose the set ${\cal S}$ randomly, such that eventually a set will be selected which does not lead to infinite recursion. However, it is more efficient to use some heuristic rules which, in all applications to multi-loop diagrams considered so far by the author, lead to a terminating decomposition procedure.
Let us first illustrate the problem by a simple example: Consider the function f(x\_1,x\_2,x\_3)=x\_1\^2+x\_2\^2 x\_3, and suppose we choose ${\cal S}=\{1,3\}$. The replacement $x_1=x_3\,t_1$ in the subsector associated with $\theta(x_3-x_1)$ leads to $\tilde{f}=x_3\,(x_3\,t_1^2+x_2^2)$. Choosing now ${\cal S}=\{2,3\}$ and substituting $x_2=x_3\,t_2$ in the corresponding subsector brings us back to the original functional form, so we generate an infinite recursion for the above choices of ${\cal S}$. In this simple example we can see immediately that the choice ${\cal S}=\{1,2\}$ does not lead to this problem.
For multi-loop integrals, we can use the following facts as a guideline to choose convenient sets ${\cal S}$: We first note that an infinite recursion does not occur for functions which are linear in each variable. The function ${\cal F}$, before the iterated decompositions, is a polynomial of maximal degree two in each individual Feynman parameter, where quadratic parameters only occur if massive propagators are present, due to the term ${\cal U}(\vec x) \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N} x_j m_j^2$ contained in ${\cal F}$ (see eq.(\[eq0def\])). Therefore, a simple extra rule for diagrams with internal masses can be added to the procedure: Before entering the iteration, determine the set ${\cal S}_M$ of labels belonging to massive propagators and use this set for a first sector decomposition (even if it does not lead to ${\cal F}=0$ upon setting the elements of ${\cal S}_M$ to zero). This produces a form where in each subsector, one of the quadratic powers is reduced by one, such that self-similarity to the original form cannot be generated anymore. In the course of the iterations, quadratic or higher powers will be generated unavoidably, such that a form which may lead to infinite recursion can occur at some point. In this case it has proven useful to choose, if existent, a set ${\cal S}$ containing the maximal number of variables occurring with the [*same*]{} power. Certainly, these are only heuristic rules, which however worked well in a multitude of practical applications.
Examples
--------
### Planar double box with one off-shell leg
Two-loop box diagrams with one off-shell leg are master integrals entering for example the two-loop QCD matrix elements for $e^+e^-\to 3$jets at NNLO [@Garland:2001tf]. Numerical results were first given in [@Binoth:2000ps] and served as important benchmarks for the analytical calculations of Refs. [@Gehrmann:2000zt; @Gehrmann:2001ck].
(200,100) (35,5)[![The planar double-box with leg 4 off-shell.\[DB1m\]](db_1mass.eps "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="2.5cm"}]{}
For the planar double box with $p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2=0, p_4^2\not=0$ shown in Fig. \[DB1m\], the functions ${\cal U}$ and ${\cal F}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal U} &=& x_{123} x_{567} + x_{4} x_{123567} \nonumber\\
{\cal F} &=& \quad(-s_{12}) (x_2 x_3 x_{4567} + x_5 x_6 x_{1234}
+ x_2 x_4 x_6 + x_3 x_4 x_5) \nonumber\\
&& +(-s_{23}) x_1 x_4 x_7
+ (-p_4^2) x_7 ( x_2 x_4 + x_5 x_{1234} ) \;, \end{aligned}$$ where $x_{ijk\ldots}=x_i+x_j+x_k+\ldots$ and $s_{ij}=(p_i+p_j)^2$.
Iterated sector decomposition produces 197 sectors. As the off-shell leg regulates some of the singularities which would be present in the planar double box with all legs on-shell, the number of produced subsectors is lower than for the on-shell planar double box (282 subsectors). The result for two Euclidean points is given in Table \[table:db1m\], where an overall factor of $\Gamma(1+{\epsilon})^2$ has been extracted and the integral is defined as[^4] DB\_[m4]{}&=&\
&&\
&=&(1+)\^2( + + + + P\_0 ).
$(s_{12},s_{23},s_{13},p_4^2)$ $(-1/3,-1/3,-1/3,-1)$ $(-1/2,-1/3,-1/6,-1)$
-------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
$P_4$ $-26.9997\pm$0.00049 $-11.9998\pm$0.0002
$P_3$ $-118.651\pm$0.0037 $-43.0010\pm$0.0027
$P_2$ $-239.646\pm$0.0347 $-58.6686\pm$0.0160
$P_1$ $-305.823\pm$0.1835 $-20.7692\pm$0.0560
$P_0$ $-162.537\pm$0.435 $+98.191\pm$0.289
: Numerical results for the pole coefficients of the planar double-box with one leg off-shell. An overall prefactor of $\Gamma^2(1+\epsilon)$ has been extracted.\[table:db1m\]
The computing time for the given precision, which is better than 0.3% for the finite part and better than 0.1% for the pole coefficients, was about 2hrs on 3.0GHz Intel Xeon processors. To obtain a precision of only 1% in the finite part takes about 30 minutes. The numerical evaluation has been done for each primary sector separately and the errors have been added in quadrature. The independent treatment of each primary sector allows to split the problem into smaller subparts which can be evaluated in parallel, such that the overall computing time is determined by the primary sector with the most complicated singularity structure. Further, symmetries of the diagram can serve as a check, as the results for the corresponding primary sectors should be identical. On the other hand, if large cancellations between different primary sectors are observed, summing over the primary sectors [*before* ]{} the numerical integration is the better option.
### Three-loop vertex diagram
As a more complicated example, let us consider the diagram shown in Fig. \[a8\], entering the calculation of massless three-loop form factors [@Heinrich:2007at]. It is given by A\_8 &=& [ ]{}[ ]{}[ ]{}\
&&, where $q=p_1+p_2$ is the incoming momentum, and again, an infinitesimal imaginary part $+i\delta$ in the propagators is understood.
Iterated sector decomposition produced 684 sectors. The result is given in Table \[table:A8\], where an overall prefactor of $i\,S_\Gamma^3\,(-q^2-i\delta)^{-2-3{\epsilon}}$ with $1/S_\Gamma=(4\pi)^{D/2}\,\Gamma(1-{\epsilon})$, has been extracted: A\_8 = iS\_\^3(-q\^2-i)\^[-2-3]{}( ++ P\_0+P\_ ), and the $P_i$ are the coefficients given in Table \[table:A8\]. The computing time up to order ${\epsilon}$ was about 4hrs on 3.0GHz processors. Computing only the pole coefficients and the finite part took about 1 hour.
numerical analytic
------------------ ----------------------------- -----------------
$P_2$ $\quad 3.20553\pm 0.00011 $ 3.2054850751
$P_1$ $\quad 8.42310\pm 0.00146 $ 8.4222653365
$P_0$ $\quad 27.885\pm 0.039 $ 27.852843117
$P_{{\epsilon}}$ $-50.246\pm 0.129$ $-50.283167385$
: Numerical results for the Laurent-expansion of the 3-loop vertex diagram shown in Fig. \[a8\]. The analytic result can be found in [@Heinrich:2007at]. \[table:A8\]
Sector decomposition for infrared divergent real radiation integrals
====================================================================
In order to calculate cross sections at higher orders in perturbation theory, there are in general not only virtual corrections, but also corrections from real radiation to be taken into account. At next-to-leading order, we only have two types of contributions: the purely virtual (one-loop) corrections, and the real radiation of one additional particle, which may be either theoretically or experimentally unresolved. “Theoretically unresolved" denotes the collinear branching of massless particles or the emission of soft photons or gluons, which leads to infrared singularities appearing as poles in $1/{\epsilon}$ in dimensional regularisation when integrated over the $D$-dimensional phase space. Experimentally unresolved particles do not lead to a $1/{\epsilon}$-singularity. They are defined by a so-called “measurement function" defining the physical observable, which in most cases is a subroutine in a numerical program rather than an analytic function. For example, two particles which are clustered into a single jet by a certain jet algorithm are considered as experimentally unresolved.
At NNLO, one generally has to deal with three building blocks making up the full cross section: two-loop (and one-loop squared) virtual corrections, one-loop virtual corrections combined with single unresolved real radiation, and doubly unresolved real radiation.
As any $D$-dimensional phase space integral can be transformed to a dimensionally regulated multi-parameter integral over the unit hypercube, the singularities stemming from the (theoretically) unresolved real radiation are amenable to sector decomposition applied to phase space integrals over the corresponding squared matrix elements. What matters here are the [*denominators*]{} of the matrix elements for different processes, which have a generic form, and therefore allow for the setup of a general framework.
Phase space integrals in $D$ dimensions {#para}
---------------------------------------
The phase space integral in $D$ dimensions for a generic process $Q\to p_1+\ldots+p_N$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\int d\Phi_{N}^D&=&
(2\pi)^{ N - D (N-1)} \int \prod\limits_{j=1}^{N} d^Dp_j
\,\delta^+(p_j^2-m_j^2)
\delta^{(D)}\Bigl(Q-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N} p_i \Bigr)\;,
\label{Eq:caseN}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta^+(p^2-m^2)=\delta(p^2-m^2)\Theta(p^{(0)})$. Using $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int d^Dp_j\,\delta^+(p_j^2-m_j^2)
=\frac{1}{2E_j}\int
d^{D-1}\vec{p}_j\Big|_{E_j=\sqrt{\vec{p}_j^{\,2}+m_j^2}}\label{dplus}\end{aligned}$$ for $j=1,\ldots,N-1$ and eliminating $p_N$ by momentum conservation, one obtains d\_[N]{}\^D&=& \_[j=1]{}\^[N-1]{} d\^[D-1]{} \_j \^+((Q-\_[i=1]{}\^[N-1]{} p\_i)\^2-m\_N\^2)|\_[E\_j=]{} . To proceed, one has to choose a certain parametrisation for the phase space integration variables and work out the integration limits confining the integration range to the physical region. The scattering case $Q=p_a+p_b\to N-1$ particles differs from a decay $1\to N$ particles by the fact that in the center-of-mass frame of the incident particles, it contains a preferred direction given by the beam axis $\vec{p}_a=-\vec{p}_b$. Finding the appropriate phase space integration variables which are optimally adapted to the kinematic situation at hand can simplify the calculation considerably. This is even more true if sector decomposition is used to isolate the infrared singularities: a convenient parametrisation will be one where the maximal number of potentially singular denominators of the matrix element naturally factorises, thus limiting the number of terms produced by iterated decompositions. In fact, it turns out to be useful to divide the matrix element into different “topologies", according to their denominator structure, and use several phase space parametrisations, each being optimal for a certain class of topologies.
A multi-particle phase space is most conveniently described as a convolution of phase spaces of lower multiplicity. For example, a process like the one in Fig. \[cascade\] suggests a phase space parametrisation which is a convolution of a phase space for a $1\to 4$ decay followed by a $1\to 3$ decay and a $1\to 2$ splitting. For a process involving soft radiation off massive fermions, it is convenient to choose a parametrisation where the energy of the particle which can become soft is an integration variable. Useful examples of different parametrisations can be found e.g. in [@Kajantie; @Byckling:1970wn; @Anastasiou:2005qj]. Here, in order to illustrate some generic features of the method, we will first derive a phase space parametrisation in terms of double invariants $s_{ij}=(p_i+p_j)^2$.
As a pedagogical example we will consider the massless case, $p_j^2=0$. Let use choose a $1\to 4$ process and consider a special frame where Q &=& (E,0\^[(D-1)]{})\
p\_1 &=& E\_1 (1,0\^[(D-2)]{},1)\
p\_2 &=& E\_2 (1,0\^[(D-3)]{},\_1,\_1)\
p\_3 &=& E\_3 (1,0\^[(D-4)]{},\_2\_3,\_2\_3,\_2)\
p\_4 &=& Q-p\_1-p\_2-p\_3, which leads to d\_[14]{} &=& (2)\^[4- 3D]{}dE\_1dE\_2dE\_3d\_1d\_2d\_3 \[E\_1E\_2E\_3\_1\_2\]\^[D-3]{}\_3\^[D-4]{}\
&& d\_[D-2]{} d\_[D-3]{} d\_[D-4]{} (E\_1)(E\_2)(E\_3)(E-E\_1-E\_2-E\_3)\
&&(E\^2-2E(E\_1+E\_2+E\_3)+2(p\_1p\_2+p\_1p\_3+p\_2p\_3)),\[a11\]\
&&\
&&\
d\_[D-1]{}&=&\_0\^[2]{}d\_1\_0\^d\_2\_2…\_0\^d\_[D-1]{}(\_[D-1]{})\^[D-2]{} =.Now we map the angle and energy variables to the double invariants $s_{ij}$ as integration variables, using the Jacobian $$\det(J) =
\det\left(\frac{\partial ( s_{..} )}{ \partial (E_i,\theta_j)} \right) =
64\, E^3 E_1^2 E_2^2 E_3^2 \sin\theta_1^2\sin\theta_2^2\sin\theta_3\;.$$ The Jacobian in combination with terms already present in (\[a11\]) can be written as the determinant $\Delta_4$ of the Gram matrix $G_{ij}=2\,p_i\cdot p_j$. This determinant can be expressed by the Källen function $\lambda(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2yz-2xz$ as \_4 &=& ( s\_[12]{}s\_[34]{}, s\_[13]{}s\_[24]{},s\_[14]{}s\_[23]{} )= -( 4EE\_1E\_2E\_3\_1\_2\_3 )\^2. We see that $\Delta_4$ has to be negative semi-definite. With the dimensionless variables y\_1 = s\_[12]{}/Q\^2, y\_2 = s\_[13]{}/Q\^2,y\_3 = s\_[23]{}/Q\^2,y\_4 = s\_[14]{}/Q\^2,y\_5 = s\_[24]{}/Q\^2,y\_6 = s\_[34]{}/Q\^2 \[inv\] and $\hat\Delta_4 = \lambda(y_1y_6,y_2y_5,y_3y_4)$ we obtain finally d\_[14]{} &=& (2)\^[4- 3D]{} (Q\^2)\^[3 D/2-4]{} 2\^[-2D+1]{} d\_[D-2]{} d\_[D-3]{} d\_[D-4]{}\
&& (-\_4)\[-\_4\]\^[(D-5)/2]{} (1-\_[j=1]{}\^[6]{} y\_j).\[fi4\] For $N\geq 5$ we have to distinguish if we are in $D$ dimensions or in four dimensions. In $D$ dimensions, the same procedure as above can in principle be applied. The four-dimensional case is complicated by the fact that the Gram determinant $\Delta_N$ vanishes for $N>4$. In this case the phase space can be expressed in terms of the Källen function of invariants built from four independent momenta and additional constraints [@Kajantie], but in practice it is more useful to build it up iteratively as described above.
Special features of sector decomposition for real radiation
-----------------------------------------------------------
We see that expression (\[fi4\]) has a high symmetry in the invariants $y_j$. To proceed in a way analogous to the treatment of loop integrals, we could now do a “primary sector decomposition" to integrate out the $\delta$-function as explained in section \[itersd\]. This would lead to $n$ primary sectors, where $n$ is the number of two-particle invariants $s_{ij}$, i.e. $n=6$ in the example above. All invariants are treated on equal footing in this step. The primary sector decomposition is very useful in the case of loop integrals, mainly for the following reason: it preserves the feature that singularities [*only*]{} occur at special [*points*]{} at the boundary of parameter space: they occur only if $y_{i_1},\ldots ,y_{i_r}= 0$ for a subset $\{i_1\ldots i_r\}$ of $\{1\ldots n\}$. In other words, in the case of loop integrals in the Euclidean region, no singularities can occur for $y_i\to 1$ or in the interior of parameter space, and by primary sector decomposition the $\delta$-constraint is integrated out without destroying this feature. In addition, the integration limits from zero to one for all remaining variables are guaranteed without further transformations.
In the case of real radiation, the situation is different, because we are forced to stay within the physically allowed region. In the parametrisation above, this is reflected by the fact that after integrating out the constraint $\delta(1-\sum_{i=1}^n y_i)$ from momentum conservation, we still have the constraint $\Theta(-\Delta_4)$. Solving the equation $\Delta_4=0$ for say, $y_k$, we obtain the solution $y_k^{\pm}=(\sqrt{x}\pm\sqrt{z})^2$, so $y_k^-=0$ whenever $x=z$. For example, for $k=3$, we have y\_3\^=()\^2/y\_4. \[y3pm\] The substitution $y_3=y_3^-+t_3\,(y_3^+-y_3^-)$ in order to remap all integrations to the unit interval will lead to a complicated structure of those denominators in the matrix element which contain $y_3$. In fact, we see that $1/y_3$ will develop a singularity if $t_3=0$ and $y_3^-$ simultaneously, i.e. whenever $t_3=0$ and $y_2y_5=y_1y_6$. Thus we found two properties which did not occur in the case of loop integrals:
1. Square-root terms appear naturally when solving the phase space constraints. Such terms are potentially dangerous as they may destroy the polynomial structure which is a prerequisite for the sector decomposition, leading to expressions like $g(x,y)=a+y-\sqrt{a^2+x^2}$, where $a$ is a constant. However, it is obvious that such terms can be easily transformed into a form with the required behaviour under rescaling of the variables.
2. After having mapped the phase space integration limits to the unit hypercube, singularities can occur for a [*manifold*]{} which (partly) lies [*inside*]{} the phase space integration region.
How these singularities can be remapped to the boundaries will be shown in a specific example below and discussed more generally in Section \[sec:remap\]. Here we would like to point out that we cannot solve the constraint $\Theta(-\Delta_4)$ for the same variable $y_k$ in each primary sector, because in primary sector $k$, $y_k$ has been eliminated. Therefore a judicious choice of $y_k$ — to be an invariant which occurs only in very few or no denominators of the complete matrix element — would still lead to complicated denominators in primary sector $k$, where the constraint had to be solved for $y_{i\not=k}$. For this reason it is advisable not to use primary sector decomposition in the case of complicated matrix elements for real radiation.
loop integrals phase space integrals
----------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
parametrisation ${\cal F},{\cal U}$ functions in terms of many different options, should
Feynman parameters fixed be adapted to topologies
primary sector dec. very convenient not recommended
singularity structure in Euclidean region only singularities inside integration
endpoint singularities region generic
: Main differences to loop integrals in the sector decomposition procedure for phase space integrals over IR divergent real radiation \[table:diffs\]
To choose a parametrisation which is adapted to the denominator structure of the problem, one can follow the idea of iterative splittings outlined above. Matrix elements involving massless particles contain invariants of the form $s_{i_1\ldots i_n}=(p_{i_1}+\ldots +p_{i_n})^2$ with $n\geq 2$ in the denominator.
For example, the four-particle cut of the diagram in Fig. \[Fig:rainbow\] contains an integral of the form [@Binoth:2004jv] \[EqJ4\] J\_4 &=& \_[0]{}\^ \_[i=1]{}\^6dy\_i (-\_4) (-\_4)\^[-1/2-]{} (1-\_[j=1]{}\^[6]{} y\_j) .\
In this case, it is suggestive to introduce the triple invariant $s_{134}/Q^2=y_2+y_4+y_6$ as a genuine phase space variable, such that this denominator factorises immediately. This example will be worked out in detail in the following section.
Obviously, it is advantageous to use triple invariants as phase space integration variables if the amplitude contains a splitting of one particle into three final state particles, double invariants if the amplitude contains several $1\to 2$ splittings, etc. Therefore the choice of parametrisation is most conveniently done on a topology basis, i.e. different parametrisations are applied to certain classes of denominator structures, as already mentioned above. As the full matrix element contains interferences of amplitudes of different “splitting history", it is in general impossible to achieve a factorised form for [*all*]{} denominators. However, minimising the number of decompositions by convenient parametrisations is vital to limit the size of the expressions produced by iterated sector decomposition.
The main differences to loop integrals in the sector decomposition procedure for phase space integrals are again summarised in Table \[table:diffs\].
Example of a four-particle final state {#sec:example}
--------------------------------------
To explain the concept, we go back to the example of the previous section, the massless $1\to 4$ phase space, and topologies containing $s_{134}$ or $s_{234}$ in the denominator. In order to achieve a convenient parametrisation, we first multiply eq. (\[fi4\]) by $$1=\int dx_4 \,\delta(x_4-y_2-y_4-y_6)\int d x_5 \,\delta(x_5-y_3-y_5-y_6)$$ and eliminate $y_1,y_4,y_5$ using the $\delta$-functions (see eq. (\[inv\]) for the definition of the scaled invariants). Then we solve the constraint $(-\Delta_4)\geq 0$ for $y_3 = s_{23}/Q^2$ and substitute $y_3\rightarrow y_3^-+t_3\,(y_3^+-y_3^-)$. For the remaining variables we substitute x\_4&=&t\_4\
x\_5&=&t\_1+t\_5(1-t\_1)(1-t\_4)\
y\_2&=&t\_1(1-t\_2)t\_4\
y\_6&=&t\_1t\_4\[remap\] to arrive at the following form for the phase space &&d\_[14]{} = (2)\^[4- 3D]{} (Q\^2)\^[3 D/2-4]{} 2\^[-2D+1]{} d\_[D-2]{} d\_[D-3]{} d\_[D-4]{}\
&& \_0\^1 dt\_1…dt\_5 \[(1-t\_1)t\_4(1-t\_4)\]\^[D-3]{}\[t\_1t\_2(1-t\_2)t\_5(1-t\_5)\]\^ \[t\_3(1-t\_3)\]\^[(D-5)/2]{}.\[fi4tra\] The expression for $J_4$ in eq. (\[EqJ4\]) then becomes J\_4&=& \_[0]{}\^[1]{} dt\_1…dt\_5 \[t\_1(1-t\_2)\]\^[-1-]{}t\_4\^[-1-2]{}(1-t\_1)\^[1-2]{}(1-t\_4)\^[2-2]{}\
&&\[t\_2t\_5(1-t\_5)\]\^[-]{}\[t\_3(1-t\_3)\]\^[-1/2-]{} ((t\_1(1-t\_2)+t\_2)-\_3())\
\_3()&=&t\_2t\_5+t\_1(1-t\_2)(1-t\_5)-2(1-2t\_3)\
&=&y\_3()/(1-t\_4). We see that in this parametrisation, the denominators in $J_4$ are factorising completely. However, other denominators in the full matrix element will in general contain $\tilde{y}_3(\vec{t})$ in the denominator. In this case it is convenient to shuffle the square-root terms to the numerator by the following non-linear transformation [@Anastasiou:2003gr]: We substitute t\_3&=& y\_3=. \[quad\] The Jacobian therefore cancels one factor of $y_3$ in the denominator: == , leading to &&\_0\^1 [d]{} t\_3 \^ =\_0\^1 [d]{} t\_3 \^\
&=&\_0\^1 [d]{} z\_3 \^ \[y\_3\^-+z\_3(y\_3\^+-y\_3\^-)\]\^[4-D]{}. This way the square-roots in the denominator are eliminated and the limits $t_3\to 0$ and $y_3^-\to 0$ are decoupled, but note that instead of $1/y_3(\vec{t})$ we now have a factor \^= \^[D-5]{}= (1-t\_4)\^[D-5]{}\^[D-5]{}.The factor $(1-t_4)^{D-5}$ will be combined with phase space factors and is of endpoint-type anyway, but there are singularities which now occur on a manifold defined by $f(t_1,t_2,t_5)=0$. In the case at hand they are easily remapped to the boundaries by splitting e.g. the $t_2$-integration region at t\_2\^0= \[t20\] and substituting t\_2=t\_2\^0u\_2 && t\_2<t\_2\^0,\
t\_2=1-(1-t\_2\^0)u\_2 && t\_2>t\_2\^0\[hole\] to obtain again integrals from zero to one.
Possible types of singularities and their treatment {#sec:remap}
---------------------------------------------------
As we have seen in the previous section, we have to deal with the following types of singularities:
- endpoint singularities
- singularities on a manifold not confined to the boundaries of phase space, more precisely the boundaries after having solved all constraints and remapped the integrations to the unit hypercube.
Endpoint singularities, if not factorising from the start, are easily extracted by the sector decomposition algorithm. It should be mentioned however that, if we do not use primary sector decomposition, endpoint singularities can occur not only if an integration variable goes to zero, but also at the upper integration boundary (which is equal to one, after appropriate remapping). In order to apply the algorithm described in section \[itersd\], we should remap the singularities for $t_k\to 1$ such that they occur at the origin only. As some variables can cause singularities at zero [*and* ]{} one, a transformation $t_k\to 1-t_k$ is not recommended. Instead, we split the integration range at 1/2: After the split $$\int_0^1 {\rm d} t_k=\underbrace{\int_0^\frac{1}{2} {\rm d} t_k}_{(a)}+
\underbrace{\int_\frac{1}{2}^1 {\rm d} t_k}_{(b)}$$ and the substitution $t_k=u_k/2$ in $(a)$ and $t_k=1-u_k/2$ in $(b)$, all endpoint singularities occur at $u_k\to 0$ only. The disadvantage of such splittings is the fact that we end up with $2^n$ integrals after $n$ splittings, but in practice, considering the physically possible singular limits, some of the integration variables clearly never will lead to a singularity when approaching one, and therefore do not require such a splitting.
Concerning the singularities at the interior of phase space, the recipe is less simple. However, for $N<5$ in a $1\to N$ or a $2\to N-1$ phase space, it is easy to see that they can always be remapped to the phase space boundaries. Quite in general, the boundaries of the physical region in the space of invariants follow from the momentum conserving $\delta$-function and the Gram determinants $\Delta_N=\Delta(p_1,\ldots,p_N)=\det(p_i\cdot p_j)$. As the Gram matrices are symmetric, the determinants will be polynomials of maximal degree two in each invariant $s_{ij}$. Masses do not alter this argument, and one can show that always $\Delta_3\geq 0$ and $\Delta_4\leq 0$ [@Byckling:1970wn]. The case $N=3$ is trivial, so let us first consider the case $N=4$. Solving the constraint $\Theta(-\Delta_4)$ for one of the invariants $y_k$ leads to $y_k^\pm=(\sqrt{a_k}\pm \sqrt{b_k})^2/c_k$, where the structure of $a_k,b_k,c_k$ is fixed by the fact that $\Delta_4\leq 0$ is a Källen function: these terms must be [*linear*]{} in each invariant (see e.g. eq. (\[y3pm\])). After having performed substitutions of the type (\[remap\]) to eliminate the momentum conserving $\delta$-function, the linearity is not manifestly preserved, but as the singularity structure cannot change by these substitutions, some of the $t_i$ must always factorise, which guarantees that the condition $\Delta_4\leq 0$ imposing the phase space boundaries in the new variables can be solved for, say, the variable $t_{j}^0$ in such a way that $t_{j}^0$ is the ratio of two polynomials in the remaining parameters (see e.g. eq. (\[t20\])), therefore leading to structures amenable to sector decomposition.
For $N\geq 5$, in a $1\to N$ or a $2\to N-1$ phase space, additional constraints are present due the fact that, for 4-dimensional momenta, $\Delta_N=0$ for $N\geq 5$. However, if the phase space is expressed in terms of a convolution of processes of lower multiplicity as explained above, the same reasoning for the remapping of singularities as in the $N<5$ case can be applied.
Different phase space parametrisations are related by Lorentz transformations, therefore it is sufficient to show this property for a particular parametrisation. This does not mean that all parametrisations actually do have the desired properties, it only states that a better parametrisation must exist where the remapping to a form more suitable for sector decomposition is possible.
One last point concerning different types of singularities should be made: In renormalisable theories, the “physical" singularities are not worse than logarithmic, which means that the parameter integrals after sector decomposition should be of the form $\int_0^1 dx\,x^{a+b{\epsilon}}f(x)$, where $a\geq -1$. If only the denominators are considered in a complex matrix element, terms with $a<-1$ will occur. This type of spurious singularity will finally cancel with terms from the numerator, but the cancellation is not manifest if we leave the numerator symbolic throughout the whole procedure. Therefore it is advisable to include the numerator at the level of the ${\epsilon}$-expansion, at least for the parts where $a<-1$.
Construction of a differential Monte Carlo program
--------------------------------------------------
The isolation of infrared poles by sector decomposition is an algebraic procedure, leading to a set of finite functions for each pole coefficient as well as for the finite part. The finite functions have the form of parameter integrals over the unit interval and are therefore well suited for integration by Monte Carlo methods. If a full cross section beyond the leading order, composed of both real and virtual corrections, is to be calculated, the combination of the sector decomposition approach for the real radiation part with analytic results (if available) for the part involving loop corrections is certainly possible. In the case of NNLO corrrections, it is also advisable, as the fully numerical evaluation of two-loop integrals in combination with the phase space integration is in general rather slow, if viable at all. However, at NLO, examples of a fully numerical evaluation of complete processes based on the combination of sector decomposition with contour deformation do exist [@Lazopoulos:2007ix; @Lazopoulos:2007bv].
A hybrid approach can consist for example in the reduction of the phase space integrals to cut master integrals, evaluating only the master integrals by sector decomposition [@GehrmannDeRidder:2003bm]. Concerning the mixed one-loop times single unresolved real radiation part of NNLO calculations, its treatment so far always involved a reduction to master integrals [@Anastasiou:2004qd; @Anastasiou:2005qj; @Anastasiou:2005pn], except in the very recent calculation of the $O(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to semileptonic decay $b \to c\, l\,\bar \nu_l$ [@Melnikov:2008qs]. For these mixed real-virtual contributions, it can further be useful to do parts of the Feynman parameter integrations for the master integrals analytically, to obtain Hypergeometric functions where transformation formulas for the arguments [@Erdelyi; @Huber:2005yg] can be used if necessary to arrive at a more convenient form. Then one can proceed by applying sector decomposition to the integral representation of the Hypergeometric functions in combination with the phase space variables [@Heinrich:2004jv; @Anastasiou:2005pn].
To obtain differential results, the combination of the output of the sector decomposition procedure with any infrared safe measurement function is possible, as has been first noted in [@Anastasiou:2003gr]. The flexibility to do so is achieved by expanding the singular factors produced by the decomposition into plus-distributions, using the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{plusdist}
&&x^{-1+\kappa\epsilon}=\frac{1}{\kappa\,
\epsilon}\,\delta(x)+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(\kappa\epsilon)^n}{n!}
\,\left[\frac{\ln^n(x)}{x}\right]_+\;,\nn\\
&&\mbox{where }\nn\\
&&\int_0^1 dx \,f(x)\, \left[g(x)/x\right]_+=\int_0^1 dx \,
\frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x}\,g(x)\;.\end{aligned}$$ This is basically equivalent to the ${\epsilon}$-expanded form of eq. (\[tjsubtr\]), the only difference being that, instead of integrating out the singular factors explicitly, the integrands are kept in the form of distributions: $\int_0^1 dx\,x^{-1+\kappa\epsilon}\,f(0,y)$ is written as $\int_0^1 dx\,\frac{1}{\kappa\,
\epsilon}\,\delta(x)\,f(x,y)$ instead of $\frac{1}{\kappa\,
\epsilon}\,f(0,y)$. This allows for the combination with arbitrary functions $f(x,y)$.
The following features which are special to the sector decomposition approach as compared to Monte Carlo programs based on analytic subtraction terms should be pointed out:
- The pole coefficients are only calculated numerically, such that the cancellation of poles between real, real-virtual (existing beyond NLO only) and purely virtual contributions can be verified only numerically. However, this is in general not a problem because the pole coefficients contain less integration variables and therefore a high numerical precision can be achieved more easily than for the finite part.
- The expansion into plus distributions cannot be done in complete isolation from the measurement function, because it has to be assured that the subtraction terms only come to action in phase space regions which are allowed by the measurement function. To illustrate this point, consider the simple one-dimensional example where the measurement function is just a step function $\Theta(x-a),\, a>0$, and the “matrix element" after sector decomposition is given by $f(x)$. If we expand into plus distributions and [*afterwards*]{} just multiply with our measurement function, we obtain $$\int_0^1\, dx \,\frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x}\,\Theta(x-a)=f(0)\,\ln{a}+
\int_a^1\, dx \,\frac{f(x)}{x}\;.
\label{nosubt}$$ Clearly, the $f(0)$ term stems from the subtraction of a singularity at $x=0$, which is now killed by our measurement function anyway, such that inclusion of the $f(0)$ term would lead to a wrong result. The correct way is of course to include the measurement function into the expression the plus distribution acts on. However, this does [*not*]{} mean that the ${\epsilon}$–expansions and subtractions have to be redone each time the measurement function is changed. It can be achieved by including symbolic functions in the ${\epsilon}$–expansion which are written to the numerical code with zero arguments (respectively the appropriate singular limit in the general case) if they correspond to subtraction terms. The symbolic functions can be specified later in a subroutine of the numerical program.
- The subroutines defining jets, observables etc. will be based on the four-momenta of the particles involved in the scattering process. The four-momenta can easily be constructed from the [*original*]{} phase space integration variables. Before the decomposition, the phase space integration variables, let us call them $s_{ij}$, have a certain functional form, $s_{ij}=s_{ij}(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$. Performing now iterated sector decomposition will remap the parameters $t_i$, in a different way in each subsector of the decomposition tree, such that [*after* ]{} iterated sector decomposition, the functional dependence of the original variables on the Monte Carlo integration parameters $t_1,\ldots,t_n$ is different for each subsector. Of course it is easy to keep track of the remappings done in each sector, but the Monte Carlo program will consist of a sum of contributions from each subsector $k$, each one defining the functional form $s_{ij}^{(k)}(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ in a different way. This is not a problem in principle, but the complexity of NNLO matrix elements is already enormous, so multiplying the evaluation time by the number of subsectors, which is of the order of several hundreds for an NNLO process, can lead to unacceptable CPU times.
- As the subtractions done after sector decomposition are of the form $$\int_0^1 dx \,\frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x}$$ in each variable, which means that poles in each variable are [*locally*]{} subtracted, the method in general leads to expressions which have a good numerical behaviour. In fact, as even integrable singularities of the type $\int_0^1 dx dy\,\frac{1}{x+y}$ are decomposed, the expressions produced by iterated sector decomposition are of a form which is very convenient for numerical integrations. However, if the matrix elements to evaluate exceed a certain degree of complexity, there is a turnover where the advantage gained from the form of the individual functions is destroyed by the sheer number of functions to evaluate. This has been found for example in the attempt to calculate the full real corrections for $e^+e^-\to 3$jets at NNLO using only sector decomposition. The calculation of this process has recently been accomplished [@GehrmannDe; @Ridder:2007bj; @GehrmannDe; @Ridder:2007hr; @GehrmannDeRidder:2007jk; @Ridder:2008ug] using analytic “antenna" subtraction [@GehrmannDeRidder:2005cm]. Due to the large number of massless particles, the infrared structure is extremely complicated, and the number of antenna subtraction terms needed for the analytic subtraction of the poles is already quite large. Using sector decomposition leads to an unacceptable number of terms in this case. On the other hand, if massive particles are involved, the situation is completely different: while analytic integrations of subtraction terms become nearly impossible for NNLO calculations with several mass scales, the infrared singularity structure is less complex in the presence of masses, such that the number of terms produced by sector decomposition will be moderate, and the mass dependence of the finite terms produced by the decomposition does not pose a problem for the numerical integration.
Conclusions and outlook
=======================
The method of sector decomposition is interesting from a more formal field theoretical point of view as well as for phenomenological applications. Within the context of dimensional regularisation, it offers a [*constructive*]{} scheme for the factorisation and subtraction of infrared poles to (in principle) all orders in perturbation theory, not only for individual integrals, but also for entire squared matrix elements.
Quite in general, the method consists of two parts: the first is an algebraic one, where the singularities are isolated in terms of a Laurent series in ${\epsilon}$, the coefficients being finite parameter integrals. The second part consists in the evaluation of these parameter integrals, which in general is not possible analytically, and is therefore done numerically by Monte Carlo integration. Obviously the precision which can be achieved this way is intrinsically limited, compared to the evaluation of functions where all integrations have been performed analytically, or where deterministic numerical integration methods can be applied. However, in most practical applications considered so far, sufficient precision could be reached within a reasonable amount of integration time.
Applications of the method to multi-loop integrals have been very successful in providing predictions and cross-checks for cutting-edge analytical calculations, e.g. various types of two-loop box integrals or three-loop vertex functions. A restriction of the method for multi-loop integrals presented here is given by the fact the numerical evaluation is straightforward only for Euclidean points, where all kinematic invariants are negative. For one-scale problems, like massless two-point or three-point functions, this is not a restriction at all, but if more than three external legs or/and masses are present, there will be branch cuts and thresholds which hinder a straightforward numerical evaluation. Solutions to this problem already have been suggested [@Binoth:2005ff; @Anastasiou:2006hc; @Anastasiou:2007qb; @Lazopoulos:2007ix; @Lazopoulos:2007bv; @Melnikov:2008qs; @Anastasiou:2008rm] and are subject to current research.
Although the algorithm is valid to all orders in principle, there are certainly limitations from CPU-time and memory once a certain degree of complexity is reached. It is not possible to make a general statement about where exactly the limit is, as it depends not only on the computing resources but also on the way the algorithm is programmed. Further, the number of loops and scales is not the only measure of complexity. Non-planar diagrams in general lead to more complicated expressions, often containing spurious singularities with worse than logarithmic behaviour at intermediate stages.
In combination with its application to infrared singular real radiation, the method of sector decomposition has proven very useful recently to obtain differential results for full processes at NNLO [@Melnikov:2008qs; @Melnikov:2006kv; @Melnikov:2006di; @Anastasiou:2005pn; @Anastasiou:2005qj; @Anastasiou:2004xq; @Anastasiou:2004qd]. The main advantages compared to methods based on analytic subtraction are the following: the subtraction procedure lends itself to automation and, due to the “local" nature of the subtraction terms, leads to expressions with good numerical behaviour. There is no need for an analytic integration of subtraction terms over the singular phase space regions, which is a big advantage in the presence of massive particles. The main drawback of the method consists in the fact that it leads to very large expressions for complex processes, as the number of terms is increased in each decomposition step. In particular for processes involving many massless particles, necessitating a large number of subtraction terms, like e.g. $e^+e^-\to 3$jets or $pp\to 2$jets at NNLO, the size of the expressions produced by sector decomposition reaches a limit where differential results with sufficient numerical precision cannot be obtained within reasonable CPU times. Fortunately, most processes relevant for high precision phenomenology involve both massive and massless particles, where the method of sector decomposition has an enormous potential, not suffering from the limitations imposed by analytic integrability.
Part of the problem with intractably large expressions is related to the fact that the algorithm, in its fully automated form, makes a decomposition already if the [*necessary*]{} condition to produce a singularity in $1/{\epsilon}$ is fulfilled (e.g. vanishing of the function ${\cal F}$ in the case of loop integrals). However, this is not always [*sufficient*]{} to produce a singularity. Knowledge about the physical singularity structure (i.e. the soft and collinear limits) and inspection by eye of certain terms can certainly help to prevent unnecessary decompositions, but the applicability of such criteria is rather limited for complicated expressions as occurring e.g. in NNLO matrix elements, where a fully automated treatment is mandatory. Therefore, in order to minimise the number of produced terms, it would be useful to have an algorithm which finds the [*minimal*]{} number of decompositions necessary to extract the singularities. In the case of scalar loop integrals, this is basically a mathematical problem. If full processes are considered, a solution depends crucially on the way the numerator functions are treated. In any case this issue deserves further study.
Finally, it is clear that the key to an optimal solution often consists in combining several methods in a clever way. The universality of sector decomposition, as a general method to isolate singularities from parameter integrals, suggests that it is a good candidate for such combined approaches.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank T. Binoth for fruitful collaboration on the subject, especially in what concerns the algorithm for multi-loop integrals. I am also very grateful to V. A. Smirnov for providing analytic challenges of always increasing complexity allowing to test my program, and for continuous encouragement. I also would like to thank A. Gehrmann-DeRidder and T. Gehrmann for useful comparisons and encouragement concerning the application to phase space integrals. Further, I am grateful to T. Binoth, M. Czakon, T. Gehrmann and V. A. Smirnov for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council.
[10]{}
N. N. Bogoliubov and O. S. Parasiuk, [*On the multiplication of the causal function in the quantum theory of fields*]{}, [*Acta Math.*]{} [**97**]{} (1957) 227–266.
K. Hepp, [*Proof of the [B]{}ogolyubov-[P]{}arasiuk theorem on renormalization*]{}, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**2**]{} (1966) 301–326.
W. Zimmermann, [*Convergence of [B]{}ogolyubov’s method of renormalization in momentum space*]{}, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{} (1969) 208–234.
T. Kinoshita, [*Mass singularities of [F]{}eynman amplitudes*]{}, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} (1962) 650–677.
T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, [*Degenerate systems and mass singularities*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**133**]{} (1964) B1549–B1562.
K. Pohlmeyer, [*[Large Momentum Behavior of the Feynman Amplitudes in the $\phi^4$ in Four-Dimensions Theory]{}*]{}, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**23**]{} (1982) 2511.
P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, [*[Dimensionally Renormalized Green’s Functions for Theories with Massless Particles. 1]{}*]{}, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**52**]{} (1977) 39.
P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, [*[Dimensionally Renormalized Green’s Functions for Theories with Massless Particles. 2]{}*]{}, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**52**]{} (1977) 55.
E. R. Speer, [*Ultraviolet and infrared singularity structure of generic [F]{}eynman amplitudes*]{}, [*Annales Poincare Phys. Theor.*]{} [**23**]{} (1975) 1–21.
E. R. Speer, [*[Mass Singularities of Generic Feynman Amplitudes]{}*]{}, [ *Annales Poincare Phys. Theor.*]{} [**26**]{} (1977) 87–105.
K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, [*[Infrared R Operation and Ultraviolet counterterms in the MS Scheme]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B114**]{} (1982) 340–344.
K. G. Chetyrkin and V. A. Smirnov, [*[R\* Operation Corrected]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B144**]{} (1984) 419–424.
V. A. Smirnov, [*[Renormalization and asymptotic expansions]{}*]{}. Birkhaeuser (Progress in physics 14, 380 p.) Basel, Switzerland, 1991.
V. A. Smirnov, [*Evaluating [F]{}eynman integrals*]{}, [*Springer Tracts Mod. Phys.*]{} [**211**]{} (2004) 1–244.
M. Roth and A. Denner, [*High-energy approximation of one-loop [F]{}eynman integrals*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B479**]{} (1996) 495–514, \[[[hep-ph/9605420]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9605420)\].
T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, [*An automatized algorithm to compute infrared divergent multi-loop integrals*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B585**]{} (2000) 741–759, \[[[ hep-ph/0004013]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0004013)\].
G. Heinrich, [*et al*]{}, [*a public version is in preparation.*]{}
C. Bogner and S. Weinzierl, [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**178**]{} (2008) 596 \[[0709.4092]{}\]. G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, [*[Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B44**]{} (1972) 189–213.
C. G. Bollini and J. J. Giambiagi, [*[Dimensional Renormalization: The Number of Dimensions as a Regularizing Parameter]{}*]{}, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [ **B12**]{} (1972) 20–25.
A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and G. Heinrich, [*Four-particle phase space integrals in massless [QCD]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B682**]{} (2004) 265–288, \[[[ hep-ph/0311276]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0311276)\].
C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [*A new method for real radiation at [NNLO]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D69**]{} (2004) 076010, \[[[hep-ph/0311311]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0311311)\].
T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, [*Numerical evaluation of phase space integrals by sector decomposition*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B693**]{} (2004) 134–148, \[[[hep-ph/0402265]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0402265)\].
C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [*Real radiation at [NNLO]{}: $e^+ e^- \to 2$ jets through [O]{}$(\alpha_s^2)$*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **93**]{} (2004) 032002, \[[[ hep-ph/0402280]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0402280)\].
A. Denner and S. Pozzorini, [*An algorithm for the high-energy expansion of multi-loop diagrams to next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B717**]{} (2005) 48–85, \[[[hep-ph/0408068]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0408068)\].
C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [*Higgs boson production at hadron colliders: Differential cross sections through next-to-next-to-leading order*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{} (2004) 262002, \[[[hep-ph/0409088]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0409088)\].
M. Czakon, J. Gluza, and T. Riemann, [*Master integrals for massive two-loop [B]{}habha scattering in [QED]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D71**]{} (2005) 073009, \[[[hep-ph/0412164]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0412164)\].
C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [*Fully differential higgs boson production and the di-photon signal through next-to-next-to-leading order*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B724**]{} (2005) 197–246, \[[[hep-ph/0501130]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0501130)\].
C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [*The electron energy spectrum in muon decay through [O]{}$(\alpha^2)$*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**09**]{} (2007) 014, \[[[hep-ph/0505069]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0505069)\].
G. Heinrich, [*Towards $e^+ e^- \to 3$ jets at [NNLO]{} by sector decomposition*]{}, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C48**]{} (2006) 25–33, \[[[hep-ph/0601062]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0601062)\].
K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, [*The [W]{} boson production cross section at the [LHC]{} through [O]{}$(\alpha_s^2)$*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**96**]{} (2006) 231803, \[[[ hep-ph/0603182]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0603182)\].
C. Anastasiou, S. Beerli, S. Bucherer, A. Daleo, and Z. Kunszt, [*[Two-loop amplitudes and master integrals for the production of a Higgs boson via a massive quark and a scalar-quark loop]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**01**]{} (2007) 082, \[[[hep-ph/0611236]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0611236)\].
M. Czakon, J. Gluza, and T. Riemann, [*[The planar four-point master integrals for massive two- loop Bhabha scattering]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [ **B751**]{} (2006) 1–17, \[[[ hep-ph/0604101]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0604101)\].
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, and A. Freitas, [*[Electroweak two-loop corrections to the effective weak mixing angle]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**11**]{} (2006) 048, \[[[hep-ph/0608099]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0608099)\].
M. Awramik, M. Czakon, and A. Freitas, [*[Bosonic corrections to the effective weak mixing angle at O($\alpha^2$)]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B642**]{} (2006) 563–566, \[[[ hep-ph/0605339]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0605339)\].
R. Boughezal and M. Czakon, [*[Single scale tadpoles and O($G_F m(t)^2
\alpha_s^3$) corrections to the rho parameter]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [ **B755**]{} (2006) 221–238, \[[[ hep-ph/0606232]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0606232)\].
A. Denner, B. Jantzen, and S. Pozzorini, [*[Two-loop electroweak next-to-leading logarithmic corrections to massless fermionic processes]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B761**]{} (2007) 1–62, \[[[hep-ph/0608326]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0608326)\].
K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, [*Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through [O]{}$(\alpha_s^2)$*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D74**]{} (2006) 114017, \[[[ hep-ph/0609070]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0609070)\].
C. Anastasiou, G. Dissertori, and F. Stockli, [*[NNLO QCD predictions for the $H \to WW \to l l \nu \nu$ signal at the LHC]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**09**]{} (2007) 018, \[[[ 0707.2373]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph] 0707.2373)\].
C. Anastasiou, G. Dissertori, F. Stockli, and B. R. Webber, [*[QCD radiation effects on the $H\to WW\to l \nu l \nu$ signal at the LHC]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [ **03**]{} (2008) 017, \[[[ \[hep-ph\] 0801.2682]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph] 0801.2682)\].
K. Melnikov, [*[[O]{}$(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to semileptonic decay $b \to c
l \bar \nu_l$]{}*]{}, [[ \[hep-ph\] 0803.0951]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph] 0803.0951).
C. Anastasiou, S. Beerli, and A. Daleo, [*[The two-loop QCD amplitude $gg
\to h,H$ in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model]{}*]{}, [[0803.3065]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph] 0803.3065).
V. A. Smirnov, [*Analytical result for dimensionally regularized massless on-shell double box*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B460**]{} (1999) 397–404, \[[[hep-ph/9905323]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9905323)\].
J. B. Tausk, [*Non-planar massless two-loop [F]{}eynman diagrams with four on- shell legs*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B469**]{} (1999) 225–234, \[[[hep-ph/9909506]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9909506)\].
T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, [*Two-loop master integrals for $\gamma^* \to 3$ jets: The planar topologies*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B601**]{} (2001) 248–286, \[[[hep-ph/0008287]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0008287)\].
T. Gehrmann and E. Remiddi, [*Two-loop master integrals for $\gamma^* \to 3$ jets: The non- planar topologies*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B601**]{} (2001) 287–317, \[[[ hep-ph/0101124]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0101124)\].
L. W. Garland, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Koukoutsakis, and E. Remiddi, [*The two-loop [QCD]{} matrix element for $e^+ e^- \to 3$ jets*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B627**]{} (2002) 107–188, \[[[hep-ph/0112081]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0112081)\].
V. A. Smirnov, [*Analytical result for dimensionally regularized massless master non-planar double box with one leg off shell*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [ **B500**]{} (2001) 330–337, \[[[ hep-ph/0011056]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0011056)\].
V. A. Smirnov, [*Analytical result for dimensionally regularized massive on- shell planar double box*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B524**]{} (2002) 129–136, \[[[hep-ph/0111160]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0111160)\].
A. I. Davydychev and V. A. Smirnov, [*Analytical evaluation of certain on-shell two-loop three- point diagrams*]{}, [*Nucl. Instrum. Meth.*]{} [ **A502**]{} (2003) 621–623, \[[[ hep-ph/0210171]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0210171)\].
T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, [*Numerical evaluation of multi-loop integrals by sector decomposition*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B680**]{} (2004) 375–388, \[[[hep-ph/0305234]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0305234)\].
G. Heinrich and V. A. Smirnov, [*Analytical evaluation of dimensionally regularized massive on-shell double boxes*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B598**]{} (2004) 55–66, \[[[ hep-ph/0406053]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0406053)\].
V. A. Smirnov, [*Analytical result for dimensionally regularized massless on-shell planar triple box*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B567**]{} (2003) 193–199, \[[[hep-ph/0305142]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0305142)\].
T. Gehrmann, G. Heinrich, T. Huber, and C. Studerus, [*Master integrals for massless three-loop form factors: One- loop and two-loop insertions*]{}, [ *Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B640**]{} (2006) 252–259, \[[[hep-ph/0607185]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0607185)\].
G. Heinrich, T. Huber and D. Maitre, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B662**]{} (2008) 344 \[[0711.3590]{}\]. A. Ferroglia, M. Passera, G. Passarino, and S. Uccirati, [*All-purpose numerical evaluation of one-loop multi-leg [F]{}eynman diagrams*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B650**]{} (2003) 162–228, \[[[hep-ph/0209219]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0209219)\].
T. Binoth, G. Heinrich, and N. Kauer, [*A numerical evaluation of the scalar hexagon integral in the physical region*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B654**]{} (2003) 277–300, \[[[ hep-ph/0210023]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0210023)\].
A. Lazopoulos, K. Melnikov, and F. J. Petriello, [*[NLO QCD]{} corrections to the production of t-tbar-[Z]{} in gluon fusion*]{}, [[0709.4044]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph] 0709.4044).
A. Lazopoulos, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [*[QCD]{} corrections to tri-boson production*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D76**]{} (2007) 014001, \[[[hep-ph/0703273]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0703273)\].
D. E. Soper, [*[QCD]{} calculations by numerical integration*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**81**]{} (1998) 2638–2641, \[[[hep-ph/9804454]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9804454)\].
D. E. Soper, [*Techniques for [QCD]{} calculations by numerical integration*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D62**]{} (2000) 014009, \[[[hep-ph/9910292]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9910292)\].
T. Binoth, J. P. Guillet, G. Heinrich, E. Pilon, and C. Schubert, [*An algebraic / numerical formalism for one-loop multi-leg amplitudes*]{}, [ *JHEP*]{} [**10**]{} (2005) 015, \[[[hep-ph/0504267]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0504267)\].
Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, [*Numerical integration of one-loop [F]{}eynman diagrams for [N]{}-photon amplitudes*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D74**]{} (2006) 093006, \[[[ hep-ph/0610028]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0610028)\].
C. Anastasiou, S. Beerli, and A. Daleo, [*Evaluating multi-loop [F]{}eynman diagrams with infrared and threshold singularities numerically*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**05**]{} (2007) 071, \[[[ hep-ph/0703282]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0703282)\].
H. Hironaka, [*Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero*]{}, . Ann. Math. 79, (1964), 109.
C. Bogner and S. Weinzierl, [*Periods and [F]{}eynman integrals*]{}, [[0711.4863]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-th] 0711.4863).
A. D. Kennedy, T. Binoth, and T. Rippon, [*Automating renormalization of quantum field theories*]{}, [[0712.1016]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph]
0712.1016).
W. E. Caswell and A. D. Kennedy, [*[The Asymptotic Behaviour of Feynman Integrals]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D28**]{} (1983) 3073.
A. D. Kennedy, [*[A simple proof of the [BPH]{} theorem]{}*]{}, [[hep-th/9612113]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9612113).
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and D. Kreimer, [*[Hopf algebra approach to Feynman diagram calculations]{}*]{}, [*J. Phys.*]{} [**A38**]{} (2005) R385–R406, \[[[hep-th/0510202]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0510202)\].
G. Heinrich, [*A numerical method for [NNLO]{} calculations*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**116**]{} (2003) 368–372, \[[[hep-ph/0211144]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0211144)\].
N. Bogoliubov and D. Shirkov, [*[Introduction to the theory of quantized fields]{}*]{}. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1959.
C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, [*Quantum Field Theory*]{}. McGraw-Hill (International Series in Pure and Applied Physics), New York, 1980.
N. Nakanishi, [*Graph Theory and [F]{}eynman Integrals*]{}. Gordon and Breach, New York, 1971.
A. I. Davydychev, [*A simple formula for reducing [F]{}eynman diagrams to scalar integrals*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B263**]{} (1991) 107–111.
O. V. Tarasov, [*[A new approach to the momentum expansion of multiloop Feynman diagrams]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B480**]{} (1996) 397–412, \[[[hep-ph/9606238]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9606238)\].
O. Zavialov, [*Renormalized Quantum Field Theory*]{}. Kluwer, 1990.
O. V. Tarasov, [*Connection between [F]{}eynman integrals having different values of the space-time dimension*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{} (1996) 6479–6490, \[[[ hep-th/9606018]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9606018)\].
L. D. Landau, [*[On analytic properties of vertex parts in quantum field theory]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{} (1959) 181–192.
R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. I. Olive, and J. C. Polkinghorne, [*The Analytic S-Matrix*]{}. Cambridge University Press, 1966.
F. V. Tkachov, [*[Landau equations and asymptotic operation]{}*]{}, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A14**]{} (1999) 683–715, \[[[hep-ph/9703423]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9703423)\].
I. Gelfand and G. Shilov, [*[Generalized Functions]{}*]{}, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York, 1964.
E. Byckling and K. Kajantie, [*Particle Kinematics*]{}. John Wiley & Sons, 1973.
E. Byckling and K. Kajantie, [*[Reductions of the phase-space integral in terms of simpler processes]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**187**]{} (1969) 2008–2016.
A. Erdelyi (ed.), [*Higher transcendental functions*]{}, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953.
T. Huber and D. Maitre, [*[HypExp, a Mathematica package for expanding hypergeometric functions around integer-valued parameters]{}*]{}, [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**175**]{} (2006) 122–144, \[[[hep-ph/0507094]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0507094)\].
G. Heinrich, [*A numerical approach to infrared divergent multi-parton phase space integrals*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**135**]{} (2004) 290–294, \[[[hep-ph/0406332]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0406332)\].
A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, [ *[Second-order [QCD]{} corrections to the thrust distribution]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{} (2007) 132002, \[[[0707.1285]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph]
0707.1285)\].
A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, [ *[[NNLO]{} corrections to event shapes in $e^+e^-$ annihilation]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**12**]{} (2007) 094, \[[[ \[hep-ph\] 0711.4711]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph] 0711.4711)\].
A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, [ *[Infrared structure of $e^+e^- \to 3$ jets at [NNLO]{}]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**11**]{} (2007) 058, \[[[ 0710.0346]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/[hep-ph] 0710.0346)\].
A. G.-D. Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, [*[Jet rates in electron-positron annihilation at [O]{}$(\alpha_s^3)$ in [QCD]{}]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} (2008) 172001, \[[0802.0813]{}\].
A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, and E. W. N. Glover, [*[Antenna subtraction at [NNLO]{}]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**09**]{} (2005) 056, \[[[hep-ph/0505111]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0505111)\].
[^1]: We will use “infrared" to denote both soft and collinear divergences.
[^2]: By “Euclidean" we mean that all kinematic invariants formed from external momenta are negative.
[^3]: In Refs. [@Czakon:2004wm; @Awramik:2006ar; @Awramik:2006uz; @Boughezal:2006xk] the checks have been performed with an implementation of sector decomposition by M. Czakon, independent from the one in [@Binoth:2000ps].
[^4]: An infinitesimal imaginary part $+i\delta$ in the propagators is understood, and we use $\mu=1$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we analyze the convergence rates of well known Tikhonov regularization scheme for solving the nonlinear ill-posed problems by incorporating the conditional stability estimates. In particular, we obtain the convergence rates via two different approaches. The first approach is the standard one via Bregman distances and the second one is in terms of weaker norms. The important aspect in the second approach is that the regularization is only used to constrain the regularized solutions to a set where stability holds. Moreover, a novel smoothness condition is introduced termed as approximate Hölder stability estimates, which is further exploited to obtain the convergence rates. We also discuss the convergence rates for Tikhonov regularization with sparsity constraints by incorporating the conditional stability estimates. At the end, some examples are given to complement the abstract theory.
\
title: 'Convergence rates of nonlinear inverse problems in Banach spaces: Conditional stability and approximation of Hölder stability'
---
\
, [[email protected]]{}
Introduction
============
Let $F: D(F) \subset U \to V$ be a nonlinear operator between the Banach spaces $U$ and $V$ having domain $D(F)$ and $\|\cdot\|$ denotes their norm. Let $U^*$ and $V^*$ be the respective duals of the Banach spaces $U$ and $V$ and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{U^*, U}$ represents the dual pairing between $U^*$ and $U$. We study the nonlinear ill-posed problems governed by the operator equation $$F(u) = v, \quad u\in D(F), v \in V,$$ and our foremost objective is to find or approximate the exact solution $u^{\dagger}$ of $(1.1)$. Since, in practice, the exact data is not always available, so we have to restrict ourselves to find the stable approximations of the exact solution. In general, variational regularization (in particular, Tikhonov regularization), regularization with sparsity constraints, regularization via iterative methods etc., are incorporated for obtaining the stable approximations of the exact solution $u^{\dagger}$. For Hilbert spaces, a widely used regularization method is the Tikhonov regularization which involves the minimization of the following functional:$$\|F(u)-v'\|^2+\alpha\|u-u_0\|^2, \quad u\in D(F),\ \alpha > 0,$$ where $v'$ is some noisy approximation of $v$ and $u_0\in U$ is the initial guess of the exact solution. Because of its tendency to smooth the solutions, Tikhonov regularization does not yield satisfactory output in Hilbert spaces, especially if there are jumps or sparsity in the structure of exact solution. So, in the recent years other types of Tikhonov regularization have been explored in Banach spaces, see $[15, 33]$.
Typically, for the minimizers of Tikhonov regularization, existence, stability, convergence to the exact solution and convergence rates are of most interest. However, one of the most challenging task among them is to determine the convergence rates, which in particular, demonstrate the speed of the convergence of Tikhonov minimizers. The determination of convergence rates have a very long tradition in inverse problems (see, e.g. $[4, 5, 13, 16, 24$-$26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37$-$39, 41]$). In the present scenario, we are peculiarly interested in the convergence rates at which minimizers of the following Tikhonov regularization method converges to the exact solution: $$T_{\alpha}(u, \delta) := \|F(u)-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha R(u), \ u\in D(F),$$ with $1 \leq p < \infty$, $R: U \to [0, \infty]$ is a stabilizing functional which is convex and proper, i.e. $D(R)\neq \emptyset$, where $D(R)=\{u\in U:R(u)<\infty\}$ is the domain of $R$, $\alpha$ is the regularization parameter and $v^{\delta}$ is some noisy approximation of $v\in V$ satisfying $$\|v^{\delta}-v\| \leq \delta.$$ An element $u^{\dagger} \in D$, where $D= D(F)\cap D(R)$, is called a $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$, if it is a solution of $(1.1)$ and also minimizes the functional $R$, i.e. $$R(u^{\dagger})= \min\{R(u): u \in D\ \text{such that}\ F(u) = v \}.$$
In general, convergence rates can be determined via two different approaches. First one is on the basis of source and non-linearity conditions, see, for instance $[13, 18, 24, 33]$ for variational regularization and $[5, 25, 34]$ for iterative regularization. Second one is solely on the basis of stability estimates which have been derived in $[10, 41]$ for variational regularization methods and statistical inverse problems; and in $[21]$ for iterative regularization (in particular Landweber iteration method) in Banach spaces. However, these two concepts are interconnected. The advantage of the latter is that we can rely on a series of existing stability estimates which have been developed independently in the community of inverse problems; results related to logarithmic stability can be found in $[22, 23]$, and results related to Hölder’s stability can be found in $[1, 7, 8, 12, 21, 41]$.
In this paper, our first and most important objective is to determine the convergence rates of Tikhonov regularization scheme $(1.2)$ by incorporating the following conditional stability estimates.
Let $u_1, u_2\in D(F)$. We say that $F$ satisfies the following conditional stability estimate, if there exists a constant $C > 0$, and an index function $\eth$ such that $$D_{\zeta}(u_1, u_2) \leq C\times \eth(\|F(u_1)-F(u_2)\|), \quad \forall \ u_1, u_2 \in \Im,$$
where $\Im\subseteq D(F)$ is some known or unknown set and $D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger})$ denotes the Bregman distance (Subsection $2.1$) between $u_1$ and $u_2$. In particular, we obtain the convergence rates via two different approaches. First approach is the standard one in which we obtain the convergence rates in terms of Bregman distance and second approach is in terms of weaker norms of the Banach space $U$. Here, by weaker norm, we mean to say that a norm on a Banach space $U$ which induces a topology coarser than the norm topology. Further, we prove our results on convergence rates by taking $\Im$ in $(1.4)$ as some level set $M_{\alpha}(K)$ defined as follows:$$M_{\alpha}(K) := \{ u \in D: T_{\alpha}(u, 0) \leq K\}, \ K>0,$$ since $\Im$ is not or not completely known.
Before discussing further, we want to emphasize that there exist many ill-posed inverse problems satisfying conditional stability estimates given by $(1.4)$. To see this, let us discuss some inverse problems in the form of following three examples.
$($classical inverse scattering problem$)$: The classical inverse scattering problem is concerned with the recovery of refractive index of a medium in the presense of near or far field measurements of scattered time-harmonic acoustic waves $[20]$. The forward problem is what follows: Given one or several wave(s) $u^i$ which solves the Helmholtz equation $\Delta u^i+k^2u^i=0$ and a refractive index $\eta=1-f$, determine the total field(s) $u=u^i+u^s$ such that $$\Delta u+k^2\eta u=0, \ \text{in}\ \mathbb{R}^3$$ $$\frac{\partial u^s}{\partial t}-\iota ku^s=O\bigg(\frac{1}{t^2}\bigg),\ \text{as}\ |x|=t\to\infty.$$ Condition $(1.7)$ is known as the *Sommerfeld radiation condition*. The corresponding inverse problem is the reconstruction of the refractive index $\eta=1-f$ from the far field data $u^{\infty}$. Note that every solution of $(1.6)$ satisfying $(1.7)$ has the following asymptotic behavior $$u(x)=u^i(x)+\frac{e^{\iota kt}}{t}\bigg(u^{\infty}(\hat{x})+O\bigg(\frac{1}{t^2}\bigg)\bigg), \ \text{as}\ |x|=t\to\infty,$$ uniformly for all directions $\hat{x}=\frac{x}{t}$ is in the ball $\Im=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^3: |x|=1\}$. Mathematically, the forward operator $F$ is the mapping $$F:L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3)\to L^2(\Im\times \Im): F(f)=u^{\infty}.$$ In $[20,\ \text{Corollary}\ 2.5]$, it has been shown that, under certain conditions, this inverse problem fulfills a conditional stability estimate of the type $(1.4)$ with the index function $$\eth(t)=\ln(3+t^{-1})^{-\mu\theta}, \ 0<\theta<1,$$ and $R(f)=\|f\|^2/2$ $($see Remark $2.1)$, where $\mu\leq 1$ is some constant.
$($electrical impedance tomography with finitely many electrodes$)$: Consider the following elliptic partial differential equation $$\nabla\cdot(\sigma\nabla u)=0\ \text{in}\ \ \Xi.$$ The inverse problem under consideration is determining the coefficient function $\sigma$ from the knowledge of measurement of $u$ at the boundary of $\Xi$. This problem arises in electrical resistivity tomography or electrical impedance tomography (EIT), which is a novel technique to image the conductivity distribution $\sigma$ inside a subject $\Xi$ from current measurements on the subject’s boundary $\partial \Xi$ and electric voltage. To model the boundary measurements, let us consider the continuum model, in which there is a requirement to measure the local Neumann-to-Dirichlet (NtD) operator $$\Lambda(\sigma): g\mapsto u_{|_{\Psi}}, \ \text{where}\ u\ \text{solves}\ (1.8)\ \text{with}\ \sigma\partial_{\nu} u_{|_{\partial \Xi}}=\begin{cases} g\ \ \ \text{on}\ \Xi,\\ 0\ \ \ \text{else},\end{cases}$$ where $\Psi\subseteq \partial \Xi$ and the more realistic complete electrode model (CEM) with electrodes $$E^1, E^2, \cdots, E^M\subseteq \partial \Xi,$$ with all having the same contact impedance $z>0$. We refer to $[17]$ and the references therein for more details on this problem and CEM. To this end, let $\Theta$ is a finite-dimensional subset of piecewise-analytic functions on a partition of $\Xi$ and $$\Theta_{[a, b]}:=\{\sigma\in \Theta: a\leq \sigma(x)\leq b\ \text{for all}\ x\in \Xi\}.$$Now, the following conditional stability estimate holds for the inverse conductivity problem in $\Theta_{[a, b]}$ when the complete infinite-dimensional NtD-operator is measured $[17, \ \text{Theorem}\ 2.3]$: $$\|\Lambda(\sigma_1)-\Lambda(\sigma_2)\|_{\eta(L_{\star}^2(\Psi))}\geq c\|\sigma_1-\sigma_2\|_{L^{\infty}(\Xi)},\ \forall\ \sigma_1, \sigma_2\in \Theta_{[a, b]}.$$ Here, $\eta(L_{\star}^2(\Psi))$ denotes the operator norm on the space $L_{\star}^2(\Psi)$ of $L^2$-functions with vanishing integral mean on $\Psi$. So, clearly an estimate of the type $(1.4)$ is satisfied with the index function $\eth(t)=t^2$ and $R(\sigma)=\|\sigma\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\Xi)}/2$.
$($Parameter identification problem $[12, 19]):$ For $U=V=L^2(0, S)$, consider the parameter identification problem which involves deducing the parameter $g\in U$ in the following reaction-diffusion problem $$\frac{\partial }{\partial t}u(\zeta, t)-\Delta u(\zeta, t)+g(t)u(\zeta, t)=0, \ \text{for}\ \zeta\in \Xi, \ 0<t\leq S,$$ $$\frac{\partial }{\partial n}u(\zeta, t)=0, \ \text{for}\ \zeta\in \partial\Xi, \ 0<t\leq S,\ \ \ \ u(\zeta, 0)=u_0(\zeta)\ \text{for}\ \zeta\in \Xi,$$ from the integral data $$f(t)= \int_{\zeta\in \Xi}u(\zeta, t)\, d\zeta, \ \ 0\leq t\leq S$$ of the state variable $u$ and given domain $\Xi$. The forward operator $F:D(F)\subset U\to V$ with domain $D(F):=\{g\in U\ |\ g\geq 0\ \text{a.e.}\}$ is defined as $$g\in L^2(0, S)\mapsto \int_{\zeta\in \Xi}u(\zeta, \cdot)\, d\zeta \in L^2(0, S).$$Then for $\frac{1}{2}<\theta<1$, it is known that under certain assumptions, there exists a constant $R=R(\rho)$ such that $$\|g_1-g_2\|_{L^2(0, S)}\leq R\|F(g_1)-F(g_2)\|_{L^2(0, S)}^{\frac{\theta}{\theta+1}},$$ whenever $g_1, g_2\in D(F)$ and $\|g_1\|_{H^{\theta}(0, S)}\leq \rho$, $\|g_2\|_{H^{\theta}(0, S)}\leq \rho$, where $H^{\theta}(0, S)$ is the standard Sobolev space. In other words, an estimate of the type $(1.4)$ is satisfied with the index function $\eth(t)=t^{\frac{2\theta}{\theta+1}}$, $\frac{1}{2}<\theta <1$ and $R(g)=\|g\|^2_{L^2(0, S)}/2$.
Since there are inverse problems in which conditional estimate of the type $(1.4)$ hold, it is worth to formulate the convergence rates for such problems. For the inverse problems in which conditional stability estimate of the type $(1.4)$ is not satisfied, we define a novel smoothness concept of *approximate Hölder stability estimates* (Definition $3.1$), by measuring the violation of $(1.4)$ with the particular index function $\eth(t)=t^k, \ 0<k\leq 1$. The construction of the results on convergence rates, by incorporating the approximate Hölder stability estimates, is the second objective of the paper.
It is well known that regularization via sparsity constraints is an important regularization scheme under certain conditions (cf. $[11]$). This scheme involves the minimization of a functional obtained by adding discrepancy to the penalization term, where this penalization term is weighted norm of the coefficients of $u\in U$ with respect to a particular orthonormal basis of $U$ (provided there exist orthonormal basis of $U$). Since, the convergence rates for sparsity regularization scheme, by employing the conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$, can be obtained in a similar manner as for Tikhonov regularization scheme $(1.2)$, this regularization scheme is also included in our work. And to deduce its convergence rates is the last objective of the paper.
Rest of the paper is structured in the following way: All the basic results, definitions and assumptions required in our framework are accumulated in Section $2$. Third section comprises the determination of the following three results on convergence rates for the minimizers of $(1.2)$:
- convergence rates in terms of Bregman distance by employing the conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$.
- convergence rates in terms of Bregman distance by means of approximate Hölder stability estimates given by the distance function $(3.12)$.
- convergence rates in terms of weaker norms for the special case of conditional stability estimates, i.e. in which the regularization is only used to constrain the regularized solutions to a set where stability holds.
In Section $4$, we study the interplay of different smoothness concepts of variational inequalities (cf. $[15]$), conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$ and approximate Hölder stability estimates with distance function $(3.12)$. We also compare the convergence rates obtained in Section $3$ with the available rates in the literature in this section. Section $5$ comprises discussion on two concrete examples where our results on the convergence rates can be fitted. Convergence rates for Tikhonov regularization via sparsity constraints are exploited in the penultimate section and last section concludes the paper.
Preliminaries and assumptions
=============================
For variational regularization methods, it is more appropriate to show the convergence of minimizers of $(1.2)$ in Banach spaces via Bregman distances instead of Ljapunov functional or conventional norm based functionals $[31]$. Therefore, let us start this section by recalling the definition of Bregman distance.
Bregman distance
----------------
$[33]$ Let $R: U \to \mathbb{R}^+ \cup \{0, \infty\}$ be a convex and proper functional having subdifferential $\partial R$ and $u\in U$ be such that $\zeta \in \partial R(u) \subset U^*$. Then, with respect to $R$, Bregman distance $D_{\zeta}( u^*, u)$ for any element $u^* \in U$ from $u$ is given by $$D_{\zeta}( u^*, u) := R(u^*) - R(u) - \langle \zeta, u^*-u \rangle_{U^*, U}.$$ From the above definition, it is clear that $D_{\zeta}(\cdot, u)$ is defined at $u$ only if $\partial R(u) \neq \emptyset$. Let $D_B$ denotes the Bregman domain and it consists of all the elements $u \in D(R)$ for which $\partial R(u) \neq \emptyset$.
If we consider $R(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2$, then from $(2.1)$, we have $D_{\zeta}( u^*, u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u^*-u\|^2$. Further, one can observe that Bregman distance $D_{\zeta}(\cdot, \cdot)$ is similar to a metric but, in general, it does not satisfy the symmetric property and the triangular inequality.
Next lemma is a basic result which will be employed frequently in our main results. For proof, we refer to $[33, \text{Lemma} \ 3.20]$.
For a normed space $U$ and $p \geq 1$, we have $$\|u+u^*\|^p \leq 2^{p-1}(\|u\|^p + \|u^*\|^p), \quad u, u^* \in U.$$
Now to assure the well-posedness, convergence (to the exact solution), and stability of the Tikhonov regularized solutions of $(1.2)$, the following assumptions are required.
1. The Banach spaces $U$ and $V$ are associated with the topologies $O_U$ and $O_V$, respectively, and these topologies are coarser than the norm topology.
2. The norm $\|\cdot\|_V$ is sequentially lower semi-continuous with respect to topology $O_V$.
3. The functional $R: U \to [0, \infty]$ is sequentially lower semi-continuous with respect to $O_U$ as well as convex.
4. $D:= D(F) \cap D(R) \neq \emptyset$.
5. The level sets $M_{\alpha}(K)$, for every $\alpha > 0$ and $K > 0$, are sequentially pre-compact and closed with respect to $O_{U}$, where the set $M_{\alpha}(K)$ is defined via $(1.5)$.
6. Restriction of $F$ on $ M_{\alpha}(K)$ is sequentially continuous with respect to $O_U$ and $O_V$, for every $\alpha > 0$ and $K>0$.
Next lemma is a result on the existence, stability and convergence of Tikhonov minimizers of $(1.2)$ provided the Assumption $2.1$ be satisfied.
Let the Assumption $2.1$ be satisfied. Then the following holds:
1. the minimizer of the Tikhonov functional $(1.2)$ exists for any $\alpha > 0$ and $v^{\delta} \in V$.
2. the minimizers of $(1.2)$ are stable in the sense that if $\{v^k\}$ is a sequence converges to $v^{\delta} \in V$, with respect to the norm topology, then the corresponding sequence $\{u^k\}$ of minimizers of $(1.2)$, with $v^{\delta}$ replaced by $v^k$, has a convergent subsequence $\{u^{k'}\}$ with respect to $O_U$. The limit of the subsequence $\{u^{k'}\}$ is a minimizer of $(1.2)$.
3. if there exists a solution of $(1.1)$ in $D$ and $\alpha \ :(0, \infty) \to (0, \infty)$ satisfies $$\alpha(\delta) \to 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \ (\alpha(\delta))^{-1}\delta^p \to 0 \quad \text{as} \quad \delta \to 0,$$ then the minimizers converges in the same sense as stated in $[33, \ \text{Theorem}\ 3.26]$.
See $[33, \text{Chapter} \ 3]$.
In the next remark, we discuss an observation about the proof of part $(3)$ in Lemma $2.2$.
A careful inspection of the proof of part $(3)$ in Lemma $2.2$ leads us to conclude that minimizers of $(1.2)$ still converge to the exact solution even if we relax the condition $(\alpha(\delta))^{-1}\delta^p \to 0$ as $\delta \to 0$ to a weaker condition which only requires $(\alpha(\delta))^{-1}\delta^{p-\epsilon}$ to be bounded for any $\epsilon < p$ as $\delta \to 0$.
Since, it is already mentioned in the introduction section that some kind of smoothness to the exact solution (source-wise representation, variational inequality etc.) has to be incorporated for obtaining the convergence rates, let us recall the well known smoothness concept of variational inequalities for obtaining the convergence rates. For more literature on the existing smoothness concepts (e.g., source conditions, approximate source conditions and approximate variational inequalities), we refer to $[14]$ and the references therein.
$[15]$ Let $u^{\dagger}$ be a $R$-minimizing solution to $(1.1)$. Then $u^{\dagger}$ satisfies the following variational inequality, if there exist $\zeta \in \partial R(u^{\dagger})$ and constants $\rho > 0$, $\alpha_{\max} > 0$, $\beta_1 \in [0, 1)$, $\beta_2 \geq 0$ and an index function $\eth$ such that $$\beta_1 D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger})+ \beta_2\ \eth(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|) \geq \langle \zeta, u^{\dagger}-u\rangle_{U^*, U},$$ holds good for all $u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$ $($see $(1.5))$ and $\rho > \alpha_{\max} R(u^{\dagger})$.
Now, suppose that there exists a $u\in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$ such that $(2.2)$ is not satisfied with the index function $\eth(s)=s^t,\ t>0$. This possibility leads to the introduction of a newer smoothness concept known as *approximate variational inequality* $[15]$. Mathematically, one can say that if there exists a $u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$ with $$\beta_1 D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger})+ \beta_2 \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^t < \langle \zeta, u^{\dagger}-u\rangle_{U^*, U},$$ then the maximum violation of $(2.2)$ can be expressed as $$\sup_{u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)}\ \big(\langle \zeta, u^{\dagger}-u\rangle_{U^*, U} -
\beta_1 D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger})- \beta_2 \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^t\big).$$ The question, whether the validity of $(2.2)$ can be enforced by increasing the parameter $\beta_2$, leads to the following definition of approximate variational inequality.
$[15]$ Let $u^{\dagger}$ be a $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$. Then $u^{\dagger}$ satisfies an approximate variational inequality, if there exist $\zeta \in \partial R(u^{\dagger})$ and constants $\rho > 0$, $\alpha_{\max} > 0$, $\beta_1 \in [0, 1)$, $t > 0$, such that the distance function $d:[0, \infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $$d(r) := - \min_{u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)}\ \big(\langle \zeta, u-u^{\dagger}\rangle_{U^*, U} +
\beta_1 D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger}) +r \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^t\big),$$ satisfies $d(r) \to 0$ as $r \to \infty$.
Convergence rates via conditional and approximate Hölder estimates
==================================================================
This section covers major results of the paper related to the convergence rates for the minimizers of $(1.2)$ which further comprises three subsections. In Subsection $3.1$, we establish the convergence rates using the conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$ in terms of the Bregman distance. In Subsection $3.2$, we introduce the novel smoothness concept of approximate Hölder stability estimates with the distance function $(3.12)$ and further incorporate this concept to deduce the convergence rates. Subsection $3.3$ contains the convergence rates in terms of a weaker norm of the Banach space $U$ by incorporating the conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$.
Convergence rate in terms of Bregman distance:
----------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the beginning of this section, let us discuss first main result on the convergence rates in this subsection via the following theorem. Here, the convergence rates analysis is exclusively performed by incorporating conditional stability of the inverse mapping which replaces the classical approach of obtaining the convergence rates via source and non-linearity conditions as well as the recent generalized approach of variational inequalities holding on some level sets.
Let $F:D(F)\subset U \to V$ be a nonlinear operator between the Banach spaces $U$ and $V$. Moreover, let the following assumptions hold:
1. $u^{\dagger}$ is a $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$ and $\partial R(u^{\dagger})\neq \emptyset$.
2. For a given $\alpha_{\max} > 0$ and a constant $c>0$, set $$\rho = \alpha_{max}(c+R(u^{\dagger})).$$
3. Assumption $2.1$ holds and $p \geq 1$.
4. $F: M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)\subseteq D(F) \subseteq U \to V$ satisfies the following conditional stability estimate: $$C \ \eth(\|F(u_1)-F(u_2)\|) \geq D_{\zeta}(u_1, u_2), \quad \forall \ u_1, u_2 \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1),$$ where $C> 0$ is some constant, $ \eth$ is an index function and $\rho_1 = 2^{p-1}\rho$.
Let $\alpha = \alpha(\delta)$ is such that $0<\alpha(\delta) \leq \alpha_{max}$, $\frac{2\delta^p}{\alpha} \leq c$ $(c$ also satisfies $(3.1))$, and $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is the minimizer of $(1.2)$. Then, we have$$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) = O\bigg(\eth\big(\delta^{\frac{p-\epsilon}{p}}\big)\bigg), \ \ \text{for}\ \delta \to 0,$$ provided $\alpha(\delta)$ satisfies $\alpha(\delta)\sim \delta^{p- \epsilon}$, where $0 < \epsilon <p$ $($cf. Remark $3.1$ for the interpretation of including $\epsilon$ in the parameter choice rule $\alpha)$.
First of all, we claim that $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is in $M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)$ for $\rho_1 = 2^{p-1}\rho$. From the definition of $T_{\alpha_{\max}}(u, 0)$, we have $$T_{\alpha_{\max}}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, 0) = \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v\|^p + \alpha_{\max} R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}) \leq 2^{p-1}\big( \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^p + \delta^p\big) + \alpha_{\max} R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}),$$ where the last inequality follows from Lemma $2.1$ and $(1.3)$. Further, as $p \geq 1$, above can be written as $$T_{\alpha_{\max}}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, 0) \leq 2^{p-1}\big[ \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})+ \delta^p + \alpha_{\max} R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}) - \alpha R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})\big]$$ $$\qquad \qquad \qquad \leq 2^{p-1}\big[ T_{\alpha}(u^{\dagger}, \delta) + \delta^p + \alpha_{\max} R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}) - \alpha R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})\big],$$ where the last inequality holds by the definition of $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$. Again, $(3.4)$ with the definition of $T_{\alpha}(u^{\dagger}, \delta)$ and $(1.3)$ imply that $$T_{\alpha_{\max}}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, 0) \leq 2^{p-1}\big[ 2 \delta^p + \alpha
R(u^{\dagger}) + (\alpha_{\max} - \alpha) R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})\big].$$ Further, for estimating the right side of $(3.5)$, we need to find a suitable estimate for $R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})$. For that, as $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is a minimizer of $(1.2)$, we have $$\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^p+ \alpha R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}) \leq \|F(u^{\dagger})-v^{\delta}\|^p+\alpha R(u^{\dagger}).$$ Using the non-negativity of norm and $(1.3)$, we get $$\alpha R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}) \leq \delta^p+\alpha R(u^{\dagger}).$$ Inserting $(3.6)$ into $(3.5)$ yields $$T_{\alpha_{\max}}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, 0) \leq 2^{p-1}\alpha_{\max} \bigg[ \frac{\delta^p}{\alpha_{\max}} + \frac{\delta^p}{\alpha} + R(u^{\dagger})\bigg].$$ Now as $\alpha_{\max} \geq \alpha$, above estimate can also be written as $$T_{\alpha_{\max}}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, 0) \leq 2^{p-1}\alpha_{\max} \bigg[ 2\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha} + R(u^{\dagger})\bigg] \leq 2^{p-1}\alpha_{\max} \big[ c + R(u^{\dagger})\big].$$ Therefore, by the choice of $\rho$ in $(3.1)$, our claim holds, i.e. $$u_{\alpha}^{\delta} \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1),$$ where $\rho_1 = 2^{p-1}\rho$. Further, we claim that $u^{\dagger} \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$. In order to prove this argument, we use the definition of Tikhonov functional $T_{\alpha}(u, 0)$ and $(3.1)$ to obtain $$T_{\alpha_{\max}}(u^{\dagger}, 0) = \|F(u^{\dagger})-v\|^p+ {\alpha_{\max}}R(u^{\dagger}) < {\alpha_{\max}}(c+R(u^{\dagger})) = \rho,$$ which means $$u^{\dagger} \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho) \subset M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1).$$ This argument with $(3.7)$ imply that $(3.2)$ is applicable for $u_1= u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ and $u_2 = u^{\dagger}$. So, $(3.2)$ provides the estimate $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq C\times \eth(\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-F(u^{\dagger})\|) \leq C\times \eth\big( \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})- v^{\delta}\| + \delta\big),$$ where the last inequality holds because $\eth$, by definition, is a monotonically increasing function. Now to obtain the estimate for $D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger})$, it is clear from the above inequality that we need to establish a suitable upper bound on $\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|$. For this purpose, let us employ the definition of $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$, $(1.2)$ and $(1.3)$ to obtain $$T_{\alpha}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, \delta) = \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha R(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}) \leq \|F(u^{\dagger})-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha R(u^{\dagger})
\leq \delta^p + \alpha R(u^{\dagger}).$$ Since $R$ is a non-negative functional, we have $$\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^p \leq \delta^p + \alpha R(u^{\dagger}) < \alpha \bigg(
\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha} + \frac{\rho}{\alpha_{\max}}\bigg),$$ where the last inequality is obtained from $(3.1)$. On inserting $(3.9)$ into $(3.8)$ yields $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq C\times \eth\bigg(\alpha^{\frac{1}{p}}\bigg(
\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha} + \frac{\rho}{\alpha_{\max}}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}} + \delta\bigg).$$ Further, as $\frac{2\delta^p}{\alpha} \leq c$, we get $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq C\times \eth\bigg(\alpha^{\frac{1}{p}}\bigg(
\frac{c}{2} + \frac{\rho}{\alpha_{\max}}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}} + \delta\bigg).$$ Finally, for the a-priori choice of $\alpha = \alpha(\delta) = \delta^{p-\epsilon}$ with $0 < \epsilon < p$, we get the result since $\frac{p-\epsilon}{p}<1$.
Before continuing our discussion on the convergence rates, let us mention the following important remarks. In the first remark, we argue about the relevance of the condition $\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha}\leq \frac{c}{2}$ and the parameter choice rule $\alpha(\delta)\sim \delta^{p-\epsilon}$ considered in Theorem $3.1$, and the second remark exhibits a few observations on the convergence rates obtained in Theorem $3.1$.
The condition $\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha} \leq \frac{c}{2}$ incorporated in Theorem $2.1$ makes sense as we know that $(\alpha(\delta))^{-1}\delta^p \to 0$ for $\delta \to 0$ from Lemma $2.2$. Also, we have considered $\alpha(\delta)\sim \delta^{p-\epsilon}$ in Theorem $2.1$, where $0<\epsilon <p$. This $\epsilon$ is necessarily required there for fulfilling the part $(3)$ of Lemma $2.2$.
It is clear from Theorem $3.1$ that a variety of convergence rates can be obtained for Tikhonov minimizers for different index functions $\eth$. In the case of Hilbert spaces, if we consider power type index functions, i.e. when $\eth(t)=t^{k}, 0<k\leq 2$, then $(1.4)$ are nothing but the so-called *Hölder stability estimates* given by $D_{\zeta}(u_1, u_2) \leq C\ \|F(u_1)-F(u_2)\|^k$. For these particular cases of index functions, Theorem $3.1$ provides the rate $O(\delta^{\frac{k(p-\epsilon)}{p}})$.
Next, the sufficient conditions are mentioned in the following remark, under which the inverse problems given by $(1.1)$ satisfy the conditional stability estimates $(3.2)$ in the case when $R(u) = \frac{1}{2} \|u\|^2$.
The conditional stability estimate $(3.2)$ can be obtained by a lower bound on the Fréchet derivative $F'$ of $F$, provided the latter is Fréchet differentiable. To see this, let there exists a constant $A > 0$ and an index function $\pounds$ such that $$\pounds\big(\big\|F'(u)(u-u^{\dagger})\big\|\big) \geq A \|u-u^{\dagger}\|^{2-\epsilon} \quad \forall u \in D(F) \cap B_r(u^{\dagger}),$$ where $B_r(u^{\dagger})$ is some open ball of radius $r$ $($sufficiently small$)$ around $u^{\dagger}$ and $\epsilon \in (0, 1]$. Last inequality and the following nonlinearity condition $$\|F(u')-F(u)-F'(u)(u'-u)\| \leq \frac{L}{2}\|u'-u\|^2 \quad \forall\ u, u' \in D(F),$$imply that $$A\|u-u^{\dagger}\|^{2-\epsilon} \leq \pounds\big(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})-F'(u)(u-u^{\dagger})\|+\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|\big)\hspace{20mm}$$ $$\leq\pounds(\frac{L}{2}\|u-u^{\dagger}\|^2 +\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|) \leq \pounds(\frac{L}{2}\|u-u^{\dagger}\|^2) +\pounds(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|),$$ provided the function $\pounds$ satisfies $\pounds(a+b)\leq \pounds(a)+\pounds(b)$. Further, as $r$ is sufficiently small $($let’s say $r<1)$, we have $\|u-u^{\dagger}\|^{2}\leq \|u-u^{\dagger}\|^{2-\epsilon}$. This with the last inequality and the definition of index function leads to the estimate$$A\|u-u^{\dagger}\|^{2-\epsilon} \leq \pounds(\frac{L}{2}\|u-u^{\dagger}\|^{2-\epsilon}) +\pounds(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|) \quad \forall u \in D(F) \cap B_r(u^{\dagger}),$$ where $A'$ is some constant depending on $A$ and $L$. Therefore, last inequality with the index function $\pounds(t)=t$, provides the estimate $$\|u-u^{\dagger}\| \leq A_1 \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^{\frac{1}{2-\epsilon}} \quad \forall u \in D(F) \cap B_r(u^{\dagger}),$$ where $A_1$ is a constant depending on $A$ and $L$. Now, in case of $R(u) = \frac{1}{2} \|u\|^2$, we have $D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger}) = \frac{1}{2}\|u-u^{\dagger}\|^2$ which means $(3.10)$ is a Hölder stability estimate for $k =\frac{2}{2-\epsilon}$ $($see Remark $3.2)$. In general, it is very difficult to obtain such a lower bound for $F'$ because of the ill-posedness of many inverse problems unless one projects the forward operator properly. This lower bound has been studied for many inverse problems under various assumptions, see, for instance, $[6, 35]$.
Throughout our analysis, we have assumed the functional $R$ to be convex. However, through the following remark, one can see that our theory is still applicable even if $R$ is not convex.
It can be observed that for proving Lemma $2.2$, convexity of $R$ is not required at all. Therefore, Theorem $3.1$ can also be proved without assuming $R$ to be convex in Assumption $2.1$, however, the condition $\partial R(u^{\dagger})\neq \emptyset$ is difficult to assume without the convexity of $R$. Example of a non-convex functional with $\partial R(u^{\dagger})\neq \emptyset$ is discussed in the image registration problem in $[26]$.
Convergence rates via approximate Hölder stability estimates:
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we discuss our another main result on the convergence rates by employing a novel smoothness concept of approximate Hölder stability estimates. To define this novel smoothness concept, let us first define the another version of conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$.
Let $u^{\dagger}$ be a $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$. We say that $u^{\dagger}$ satisfies the following conditional stability estimate, if there exist constants $C > 0$, $\rho > 0$, $\alpha_{\max} >0$ and an index function $\eth$ such that $$D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger}) \leq C\ \eth(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|), \quad \forall u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}(\rho)}.$$
Note that the Definition $3.1$ can be obtained from the Definition $1.1$ by fixing $u_2=u^{\dagger}$. In this subsection, for the sake of simplicity, we constrain ourselves only to the power type index functions, i.e. $\eth(t)=t^k, 0<k\leq 2$, although our results can also be extended for the arbitrary index functions.
For the power type index functions, conditional stability estimates $(3.11)$ are Hölder stability estimates (cf. Remark $3.2$). In general, there exist many inverse problems for which these Hölder stability estimates are not satisfied (example of such a problem is discussed in Proposition $4.2$). So, for all such problems, convergence rates can not be deduced via Theorem $3.1$. Therefore, this motivates the introduction of a novel smoothness concept of *approximate Hölder stability estimates* through which the convergence rates can be deduced. The main idea of approximate Hölder stability estimates is to measure the violation of $(3.11)$ with $\eth(t)=t^k, 0<k\leq 2$, via some distance function. So, if $(3.11)$ is not satisfied, then this implies the existence of at least one $u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}(\rho)}$ such that $$D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger}) > C \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^k.$$ The maximum possible violation of $(3.11)$ can be expressed as $$\sup_{u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)} \big( D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger})- C \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^k \big).$$ Now we are in position to define the novel smoothness concept termed as *approximate Hölder stability estimates* as the following.
Let $u^{\dagger}$ be a $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$. Then $u^{\dagger}$ satisfies the approximate Hölder stability estimates, if there exist constants $\rho > 0$ and $0<k \leq 1$ such that the distance function $\mathcal{D}: \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \to \mathbb{R}$, defined by $$\mathcal{D}(s) := -\inf_{u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)} \big( s \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^k - D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger})\big),$$ approaches to $0$ as $s \to \infty$.
Now, let us discuss some basic properties of the function $\mathcal{D}$ in the following proposition. The proofs of these properties are not discussed here as these can be reproduced from the proofs given in $[15, \text{Appendix}]$ for the distance function $d$ defined in the approximate variational inequality $(2.3)$.
Let the approximate Hölder stability estimates be satisfied by the $R$-minimizing solution $u^{\dagger}$ of $(1.1)$ in the same sense as described in Definition $3.2$. Then the associated distance function $\mathcal{D}(\cdot)$ satisfy the following properties:
1. $\mathcal{D}(s)$ is non-negative and finite for all values of $s$.
2. $\mathcal{D}(s)$ is well defined in the sense that it attains its infimum value.
3. $\mathcal{D}(s)$ is continuous for all $s$ and monotonically decreasing.
4. If for all $s \geq 0$, $\mathcal{D}(s) > 0$, then $\mathcal{D}$ becomes strictly monotonically decreasing.
Because of $(ii)$ in Proposition $3.1$, infimum in the Definition $3.2$ can be replaced by minimum. Next, let us state the following lemma which is essential to find the convergence rates for minimizers of $(1.2)$ provided the exact solution satisfies the approximate Hölder stability estimates via distance function given by $(3.12)$.
Let $F:D(F)\subset U \to V$ be a nonlinear operator between the Banach spaces $U$ and $V$. In addition to the assumptions $(1)$-$(3)$ of Theorem $3.1$, let $u^{\dagger}$ satisfies the approximate Hölder stability estimates in the sense of Definition $3.2$ with $\rho$ replaced by $\rho_1 = 2^{p-1}\rho$, for some $\rho > 0$. Further, if $\alpha = \alpha(\delta)$ is such that $0<\alpha(\delta) \leq \alpha_{\max}$, $\frac{2\delta^p}{\alpha} \leq c$ and $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is the minimizer of $(1.2)$, then we have $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq C_1s\delta^k+ C_2s\alpha^{\frac{k}{p}} +\mathcal{D}(s),$$ where $C_2 = C_1\big(\frac{c}{2} + \frac{\rho}{\alpha_{\max}}\big)^{\frac{k}{p}}$, $C_1 = 2^k$ and $\mathcal{D}(s) \to 0$ as $s \to \infty$.
On the lines of Theorem $3.1$, it can be shown that $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is in $M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)$. Therefore, $(3.12)$ implies that $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq s \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-F(u^{\dagger})\|^k+\mathcal{D}(s).$$ Incorporate the inequality $(a+b)^{\epsilon}\leq 2^{\epsilon}(a^{\epsilon}+b^{\epsilon})$ for $a, b>0$ and $0<\epsilon\leq 1$ in the last inequality to reach at $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq 2^{k}s [\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-F(u^{\dagger})\|^k+\|v^{\delta}-v\|^k]+\mathcal{D}(s).$$ Further using $(3.9)$, $(1.3)$ and $\frac{2\delta^p}{\alpha}\leq c$, the above inequality can be estimated as $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq 2^k s\bigg[ \alpha^{\frac{k}{p}}\bigg(\frac{c}{2}+\frac{\rho}{\alpha_{\max}}\bigg)^{\frac{k}{p}} + \delta^k\bigg]+\mathcal{D}(s),$$which completes the proof for $C_2 = 2^k\big(\frac{c}{2} + \frac{\rho}{\alpha_{\max}}\big)^{\frac{k}{p}}$.
Now, we state our second main result in which we obtain the convergence rates by engaging the approximate Hölder stability estimates as the smoothness condition.
Let the assumptions of Lemma $3.1$ hold. Also, let $\mathcal{D}(s)\neq 0$ for all values of $s$ and define $$\phi(s) := \bigg(\frac{\mathcal{D}(s)}{s}\bigg)^{\frac{p}{k}}\qquad \text{and}\qquad \psi(s) := \bigg(\frac{\mathcal{D}(s)}{s}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{t}},$$ with $t< k$. Let $\alpha = \alpha(\delta)$ is such that $0<\alpha(\delta) \leq \alpha_{\max}$, $\alpha=\delta^{\frac{pt}{k}}$, $\frac{2\delta^p}{\alpha} \leq c$, and additionally $\delta^{k-t}\leq c_1$ for some constant $c_1 > 0$. Then we have $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) = O\big(\mathcal{D}(\psi^{-1}(\delta))\big) \quad \text{as} \ \delta \to 0.$$ More specifically, we have the following: $$\lim_{\delta\to 0}\eta(\delta)=0\ \ \text{where}\ \ \eta(\delta):= \frac{\delta^t}{\mathcal{D}(\psi^{-1}(\delta))},$$ which means $$\delta^t=o(\mathcal{D}(\psi^{-1}(\delta)))\ \ \text{as}\ \ \delta\to 0.$$
Clearly $\phi(s)$ and $\psi(s)$ are strictly monotonically decreasing functions as $\mathcal{D}(s)$ is a strictly monotonically decreasing function $($see Proposition $3.1)$. This means inverses $\phi^{-1}(s)$ and $\psi^{-1}(s)$ of $\phi(s)$ and $\psi(s)$, respectively, exist and are also strictly monotonically decreasing. From Lemma $3.1$, we know that $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq C_1s\delta^k+ C_2s\alpha^{\frac{k}{p}} + \mathcal{D}(s).$$ Take $s := \phi^{-1}(\alpha)$. Then we have $$s\alpha^{\frac{k}{p}} = s \phi(s)^{\frac{k}{p}} = \mathcal{D}(s).$$ Further, from the choice of parameter $\alpha = \delta^{\frac{pt}{k}}$ and $(3.14)$, we have $$s\alpha^{\frac{k}{p}}= s\delta^{t}= \mathcal{D}(s)= s \psi(s)^t\implies s=\psi^{-1}(\delta).$$ Incorporating $(3.14)$ and $(3.15)$ in $(3.13)$ to reach at the estimate $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq (\delta^{k-t}C_1+C_2+1)\mathcal{D}(\psi^{-1}(\delta)) \leq (c_1C_1+C_2+1)\mathcal{D}(\psi^{-1}(\delta)).$$ This completes first part of the proof. For the second part, we know that $\psi(s)=\delta$ which gives $$\eta(\delta)= \frac{\delta^t}{\mathcal{D}(\psi^{-1}(\delta))}= \frac{\psi(s)^t}{\mathcal{D}(s)}= \frac{s^{-1}\mathcal{D}(s)}{\mathcal{D}(s)}=\frac{1}{\psi^{-1}(\delta)}.$$For $\delta\to 0$, we have $\psi^{-1}(\delta)\to \infty$ and hence, the assertion follows.
Clearly, the function $\eta$ in Theorem $3.2$ expresses a deficit in the convergence rates as compare to the rates obtained via Hölder stability estimates (see Remark $3.2$) because of the fact that latter are being fulfilled approximately. Further, the deficit is more in case $\mathcal{D}(s)$ declines to $0$ slowly as $s\to \infty$. Finally, we end this subsection by commenting on the condition $\delta^{k-t}\leq c_1$ employed in Theorem $3.2$ through the following remark.
We have introduced a parameter $t$ in the Theorem $3.2$ so that the condition $\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha}\to 0$ is satisfied by the parameter choice rule $\alpha$. Accordingly, we require the bound $\delta^{k-t}\leq c_1$ in the right hand side of $(3.13)$ to get everything in terms of the multiple of $\mathcal{D}(s)$.
Convergence rates in terms of weaker norms
------------------------------------------
In both the Subsections $3.1$ and $3.2$, convergence rates have been deduced in terms of the Bregman distance. In this subsection, we make an attempt to investigate the convergence rates for the minimizers of $(1.2)$ in terms of an appropriate *weaker norm* of the Banach space $U$, and not in terms of the Bregman distance. A norm on a Banach space is said to be weaker, if it induces a topology coarser than the norm topology, for instance, $L^p$ norm of the space $L^p(\mathbb{R})$ is weaker than the norm of the Sobolev space $W^{k, p}(\mathbb{R})$, where $p\geq 1$ and $k\in \mathbb{Z}$.
Now, let us first describe the encouragement behind studying the convergence rates in terms of weaker norms. It is known that exist ill-posed inverse problems given by $(1.1)$ in which a different kind of conditional stability estimate holds (e.g. $(3.16)$) which is not of the form given by $(3.11)$. More precisely, $(3.11)$ with the choice of $R(u)=\|u\|^2/2$ can be written as $$\|u-u^{\dagger}\|\leq C\ \eth_1(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|),$$ where both the norms defined in last inequality are strong and $\eth_1=\sqrt{\eth}$. But there are some inverse problems given by $(1.1)$ which satisfy the following conditional stability estimate: $$\|u-u^{\dagger}\|_{\eta}\leq C\ \eth(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|),\ C>0,$$ where $\|\cdot\|_{\eta}$ is a norm weaker than the strong norm $\|\cdot\|$, because it is induced from a topology weaker than the norm topology. A concrete example of this situation is given in Example $5.2$. Therefore, it is reasonable to study the convergence rates of inverse problems satisfying $(3.16)$.
Further, in this subsection, we consider the Tikhonov regularizaton scheme which involves the minimization of the following functional: $$T^1_{\alpha}(u, \delta) := \|F(u)-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha\|u-u_0\|^p, \quad u\in D(F),$$ where $v^{\delta}$ satisfies $(1.3)$ and $u_0 \in U$. Clearly, $T^1_{\alpha}(u, \delta)$ is obtained by taking $R(u) =\|u-u_0\|^p$ in $T_{\alpha}(u, \delta)$ (see $(1.2)$). Next, let us discuss our another important result on convergence rates for the minimizers of $(3.17)$ in terms of a weaker norm under certain assumptions.
Let $F:D(F)\subset U \to V$ be a nonlinear operator between the Banach spaces $U$ and $V$. Moreover, let the following assumptions hold:
1. $u^{\dagger}$ is a $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$.
2. Assumption $2.1$ holds with $R(u) = \|u-u_0\|^p$.
3. $u_0$ is in some neighborhood of $u^{\dagger}$, i.e. there exists some $K_1 > 0$ such that $$\|u_0-u^{\dagger}\| \leq K_1.$$
4. $F: D(F)\subset U \to V$ satisfies the following conditional stability estimate: $$\|u_1-u_2\|_{\eta} \leq C\ \eth(\|F(u_1)-F(u_2)\|),$$ for an index function $\eth$, provided $\|u_1- u_2\| \leq M$, where $M$ and $C$ are positive constants and $\|\cdot\|_{\eta}$ is an appropriate norm which induces a topology coarser than the norm topology on $U$.
Let $\alpha = \alpha(\delta)$ be such that $0<\alpha(\delta) \leq \alpha_{max}$, $\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha} \leq c$ for some constant $c >0$, $M$ satisfies $(c+K_1^p)^{\frac{1}{p}} +K_1 \leq M$ and $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ be the minimizer of $(3.17)$. Then we have$$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}- u^{\dagger}\|_{\eta} = O\bigg(\eth\big(\delta^{\frac{p-\epsilon}{p}}\big)\bigg), \ \ \text{for}\ \delta \to 0,$$ provided $\alpha(\delta)\sim \delta^{p- \epsilon}$, where $0 < \epsilon < p$.
From the definition of $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$, $(1.3)$ and $(3.18)$, we get $$\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}-u_0\|^p \leq \|F(u^{\dagger})-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha\|u^{\dagger}-u_0\|^p
\leq \delta^p + \alpha K_1^p.$$ Consequently, we have $$\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^p \leq \alpha\bigg(\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha}+K_1^p\bigg) \leq \alpha (c+K_1^p),$$ and $$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}-u_0\|^p \leq c+K_1^p.$$ Therefore, $(3.18)$ and $(3.22)$ imply that $$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}-u^{\dagger}\| \leq \|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}-u_0\|+ \|u_0-u^{\dagger}\| \leq M.$$ Above estimate implies that $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ and $u^{\dagger}$ satisfy the estimate $(3.19)$. Hence, $(3.19)$ and $(1.3)$ yield $$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}-u^{\dagger}\|_{\eta} \leq C\ \eth(\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-F(u^{\dagger})\|) \leq C_1\ \eth(\big(\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})-v^{\delta}\|^k+\delta^k\big),$$ where $C_1 = 2^{k}C$. Finally, substitute $(3.21)$ in the above inequality and proceed similar to the proof of Theorem $3.1$ to get the required rates.
From $(3.23)$, it is clear that regularization is only used in Theorem $3.3$ to constrain the minimizers of $(3.17)$ to a set on which the conditional stability estimates $(3.19)$ hold.
Interplay of smoothness concepts and Comparison of convergence rates
====================================================================
In this section, we study the interplay of different smoothness concepts, for instance, variational inequalities $(2.2)$, conditional stability estimates $(3.11)$, approximate Hölder stability estimates $(3.12)$, and compare the convergence rates obtained by incorporating different smoothness concepts in coming Subsections $4.1$ and $4.2$, respectively.
Interplay of different smoothness concepts:
-------------------------------------------
Let us start this subsection by comparing the variational inequality $(2.2)$ and the conditional stability estimate $(3.11)$ by means of Theorem $4.1$.
Let the $R$-minimizing solution $u^{\dagger}$ of $(1.1)$ satisfies the variational inequality $(2.2)$ for $u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$ with the same constants as defined in Definition $2.1$. Then $u^{\dagger}$ also satisfies the conditional stability estimate $(3.11)$ with $C = \frac{\beta_2}{1-\beta_1}$ and the same index function, provided $R(u) \leq R(u^{\dagger})$.
Using the definition of Bregman distance and $(2.2)$, we get $$D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger}) = - \langle \zeta, u-u^{\dagger} \rangle_{U^*, U} +R(u)-R(u^{\dagger})$$ $$\qquad \quad \ \ \ \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\leq \beta_1 D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger})+ \beta_2\ \eth(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|) + R(u)-R(u^{\dagger}).$$ The above inequality can also be rewritten as $$(1-\beta_1)D_{\zeta}(u, u^{\dagger}) \leq \beta_2\ \eth(\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|) +R(u)-R(u^{\dagger}).$$ Thus, $u^{\dagger}$ satisfies the conditional stability estimate $(3.11)$ provided $R(u)\leq R(u^{\dagger})$.
It may be of possible impression that $R(u) \leq R(u^{\dagger})$ never holds as $u^{\dagger}$ is a $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$. The situation would be more clearer with the following points:
1. If $u^{\dagger}$ is a global minimizer of $R$, i.e. $ R(u^{\dagger})\leq R(u)$ for all $u\in U$, then from Theorem $4.1$ we conclude that conditional stability estimates $(3.11)$ are not implied by the variational inequalities $(2.2)$.
2. However, if $u^{\dagger}$ is not a global minimizer of $R$, then it might be possible that $R(u) \leq R(u^{\dagger})$ for all $u\in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$. This is because $u^{\dagger}$ is a minimizer of only those elements of $D$ which satisfy $(1.1)$ but not for the approximate solutions, i.e. Tikhonov minimizers $(1.2)$ of $(1.1)$.
Next, let us examine the validity of the estimate $R(u) \leq R(u^{\dagger})$ for $u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$ assumed in Theorem $4.1$, by the following proposition.
Let $u \in U$ be such that $u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho)$ and $u^{\dagger}$ be a R-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$. Further, for some $\alpha > 0$
1. if $u$ is the minimizer of Tikhonov functional $T_{\alpha}(u, 0)$, then the condition $R(u) \leq R(u^{\dagger})$ holds trivially.
2. if $u$ is the minimizer of Tikhonov functional $T_{\alpha}(u, \delta)$, then the condition $R(u) \leq R(u^{\dagger})$ holds provided $ \|F(u)-v^{\delta}\| \geq \delta$.
Let us first prove the second part. From $(1.2)$, we have $$\|F(u^{\dagger})-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha R(u^{\dagger}) \geq \|F(u)-v^{\delta}\|^p + \alpha R(u),$$ and therefore, on using the estimate $(1.3)$ in above, we reach to $$\alpha R(u)- \alpha R(u^{\dagger}) \leq - \|F(u)-v^{\delta}\|^p + \delta^p .$$ It is clear from the above inequality that $R(u)\leq R(u^{\dagger})$ provided $ \|F(u)-v^{\delta}\| \geq \delta$ which completes the proof. First part of the proposition can be easily deduced from the second part by taking $\delta=0$.
In Theorem $3.1$, we have established the convergence rates for Tikhonov minimizers by first showing them to be the elements of some level set, and then incorporated the conditional stability estimates $(3.2)$. To be more precise, it can be observed from Theorem $3.1$ that the conditional stability estimate $(3.2)$ are required to be satisfied only by the Tikhonov minimizers in the set $M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)$, instead of whole set $M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)$. Therefore, this observation on combining Theorem $4.1$ and Proposition $4.1$ lead to the following corollary.
Let us restrict to the set of Tikhonov minimizers given by $(1.2)$ which are also the elements of $M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)$ for some $\rho_1>0$. Then,
1. the variational inequality $(2.2)$ always implies the conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$ in the case of non-noisy data and hence $(1.4)$ is a more generalized condition.
2. for the noisy data, robustness of $(2.2)$ depends on the noise level $\delta$.
Now, via next proposition, we show that there exist inverse problems which satisfy the variational inequality $(2.2)$ but not the condition $R(u)\leq R(u^{\dagger})$ required in Theorem $4.1$.
If the stabilizing functional $R$ is such that the exact solution of $(1.1)$ is also a global minimizer of $R$, then the variational inequality $(2.2)$ is always satisfied but it does not imply the conditional stability estimate $(3.11)$.
Suppose that the functional $R$ is such that the solution $u^{\dagger}$ of $(1.1)$ is also a global minimizer of $R$. This means $0\in \partial R(u^{\dagger})$ and therefore, inequality $(2.2)$ is always satisfied since the following $$\beta_1(R(u)-R(u^{\dagger}))+\beta_2\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|^t\geq 0, \ u \in D(F),$$ is true for any $\beta_1, \beta_2\geq 0$. But the above inequality does not imply the conditional stability estimates $(3.11)$, since $R(u)\geq R(u^{\dagger})$ for all $u\in U$ (cf. Theorem $4.1$). Concrete example of such a situation is discussed in $[26]$ in the form of image registration problem.
Before ending this subsection, let us make the following remark on the relation between the conditional stability estimates $(3.11)$ and the approximate Hölder stability estimates defined via distance function $(3.12)$. In addition, the relation between the variational inequalities $(2.2)$ and the approximate Hölder stability estimates is not difficult to deduce from Theorem $4.1$ and Remark $4.1$.
Let the $R$-minimizing solution $u^{\dagger}$ of $(1.1)$ satisfies the conditional stability estimate $(3.11)$. Then $u^{\dagger}$ also satisfies the approximate Hölder stability estimate in the sense of Definition $3.2$ and there exists an $s_0$ such that $\mathcal{D}(s_0) = 0$.
Comparison of convergence rates:
--------------------------------
At this point, we are available with the convergence rates for Tikhonov minimizers in terms of the Bregman distance, obtained via conditional stability estimates $(3.2)$ and approximate Hölder stability estimates with the distance function $(3.12)$ (Theorems $3.1$ and $3.2$) as well as convergence rates in terms of weaker norms (Theorem $3.3$). So, it is worth to compare these rates with each other and with the already existing rates in the literature. For the sake of completeness, first we recall the convergence rates available in the literature, obtained by the engaging variational inequalities $(2.2)$ and the approximate variational inequalities with the distance function $(2.3)$, via the following propositions.
Let the Assumption $2.1$ holds and $u^{\dagger}$ be the $R$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$. Let $u^{\dagger}$ satisfies the variational inequality $(2.2)$ with the index function $\eth(s)=s^t$, where $0<t < p$. Then, with the a-priori choice $\alpha(\delta) \sim \delta^{p-t}$, we have the following convergence rates $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) = O(\delta^t), \quad \text{as} \ \ \delta \to 0,$$ where $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is the minimizer of $(1.2)$ and $1 < p < \infty$.
$[15,$ Theorem $3.3]$.
Before continuing with the discussion on available literature, let us discuss an important remark about the variational inequality $(2.2)$ and the conditional stability estimates $(3.2)$.
The formidable capability of variational inequalities $(2.2)$ is shown by Proposition $4.3$ as the convergence rates have been obtained without any additional requirement on the non-linearity of $F$ and the solution smoothness. Same is the case with conditional stability estimates $(3.2)$ as shown by Theorem $3.1$.
Let the $R$-minimizing solution $u^{\dagger}$ of $(1.1)$ satisfies an approximate variational inequality in the sense of Definition $2.2$ with $0<t<p$. Further, if $\alpha$ fulfills the condition $(3)$ of Lemma $2.2$, then we have $$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) \leq K_1 \frac{\delta^p}{\alpha} + K_2 \alpha^{\frac{t}{p-t}}r^{\frac{p}{p-t}}+K_3 d(r),$$for all $r \geq 0$ and $\delta \in (0, \bar{\delta})$, where $K_1, K_2, K_3$ and $\bar{\delta}$ are positive real constants.
$[15$, Lemma $4.5]$.
With the usage of Proposition $4.4$, convergence rates have been obtained in $[15]$ via approximate variational inequality $(2.3)$ under crucial assumptions on the distance function $d(r)$. Now, we are in the position to compare the rates obtained in Theorems $3.1$-$3.3$ and the rates obtained via variational and approximate variational inequalities.
- Rates obtained via conditional stability estimates $(3.2)$ in Theorem $3.1$ are approximately equal to $O(\delta^k)$ in the case when $\epsilon\to 0$ and $\eth(s)=s^k$ for $k>0$. Further, from Proposition $4.3$, we can see that the rates obtained via variational inequality $(2.2)$ are $O(\delta^t)$ with $t<p$. Therefore, from Theorem $3.1$, we conclude that conditional stability estimates $(3.2)$ with some specific index functions yield better rates of convegence only when $k>p$, however variational inequalities gives better convergence rates whenever $k<p$. We emphasize the fact that this comparison makes sense, provided both the smoothness concepts $(3.2)$ and $(2.2)$ are comparable (cf. Theorem $4.1$).
- There is a deficit in the convergence rates obtained via approximate Hölder stability estimates $(3.12)$ in Theorem $3.2$ as compare to the rates obtained in Theorem $3.1$. This is clearly because of the fact that the conditional stability estimates $(3.11)$ are satisfied only in an approximate sense.
- It is not straight-forward to compare the estimates obtained for Bregman distance via approximate Hölder stability estimates $(3.12)$ in Lemma $3.1$ and approximate variational inequality $(2.3)$ in Proposition $4.4$. However, the distance function is appearing in both the estimates. Furthermore, we need a different set of parameters to obtain the convergence rates via approximate Hölder stability estimates in Theorem $3.2$ than in case of approximate variational inequality $[15, \ \text{Theorem}\ 4.6]$.
- Convergence rates obtained via conditional stability estimates in Theorems $3.1$ and $3.3$ in terms of Bregman distance and weaker norm, respectively, are of the same order.
Examples
========
The aim of this section is to complement the theory presented in Section $3$ with concrete examples. In particular, we discuss two inverse problems in which the results of Theorems $3.1$ and $3.3$ are applicable. In the first example, we consider the Calderón’s inverse problem which involves the determination of electrical conductivity from the information of Dirichlet to Neumann map associated with some boundary value problem. In the second example, we consider the inverse problem which involves the determination of a potential function from the knowledge of Neumann to Dirichlet map for the wave equation.
Calderón’s inverse problem $[2]$ is a well known severely ill-posed inverse problem which is the mathematical bedrock of electrical impedance tomography $($EIT$)$. Ulhmann $[40]$, recently studied the Calderón’s inverse problem problem and further, we refer to $[3, 27, 28, 36]$ for some important results related to uniqueness for EIT. In $[2, 9]$, two results on the Lipschitz-type stability of Calderón’s inverse problem have been established, provided some a-priori information about the electrical conductivity is known. To be more precise, in $[2]$ a real valued case is discussed whereas a complex valued case is discussed in $[9]$. In our study, we consider the real valued case which involves the determination of $w \in H^1(\Xi)$ where $w$ satisfies $$\begin{cases} \text{div}(\gamma \nabla w) = 0, \ \ \text{in} \ \Xi \\ \quad \ w = g, \quad \ \quad \text{on} \ \partial \Xi.\end{cases}$$ Here $g \in H^{1/2}(\partial \Xi)$, $\Xi \subset \mathbb{R}^n, n \geq 2$ is a bounded domain having smooth boundary and $\gamma$ is a positive and bounded function representing the electrical conductivity of $\Xi$. The inverse problem associated with EIT is the determination of electrical conductivity $\gamma$ from the information of $\Lambda_{\gamma}$, i.e. the Dirichlet to Neumann map which is defined as $$\Lambda_{\gamma}: H^{1/2}(\partial \Xi) \to H^{-1/2}(\partial \Xi): \ g \to \bigg(\gamma \frac{\partial w}{\partial \nu}\bigg)\bigg|_{\partial \Xi},$$ where the vector $\nu$ is the outward normal to $\partial \Xi$. The operator $F$ associated with the inverse problem is defined by $$F : U \subset L_{+}^{\infty}(\Xi) \to L(H^{1/2}(\partial \Xi), H^{-1/2}(\partial \Xi)): F(\gamma) = \Lambda_{\gamma},$$ where $L(H^{1/2}(\partial \Xi), H^{-1/2}(\partial \Xi))$ is the space of all bounded linear operators from $H^{1/2}(\partial \Xi)$ to $H^{-1/2}(\partial \Xi)$. Under the assumption that $\gamma \in L^{\infty}(\Xi)$, for the case $n = 2$, uniqueness of the solution to the inverse problem $(5.1)$ is discussed in $[3]$ and for $n \geq 3$, it is considered in $[32]$ provided $\gamma \in W^{3/2, \infty}(\Xi)$, where $W^{3/2, \infty}(\Xi)$ is the Sobolev space.
Next, we recall the Lipschitz stability estimate established by Alessandrini and Vessella in $[2]$ for the inverse problem $(5.1)$ under certain assumptions.
Let $\gamma_1, \gamma_2$ be two real and piecewise constant functions of the form $$\gamma_i(x)=\sum_{k=1}^N \gamma_i^k\chi_{D_k}(x),\ \ x\in \Xi, i=1, 2, \ N>0,$$ where $\gamma_i^k$ are unknown real numbers, $D_k$ are known open sets, $\chi_{D_k}$ is the characteristic function of the set $D_k$ and $\Xi$ is a bounded domain. Then, under certain assumptions on $\Xi$, $D_k'$s and $\gamma_i'$s $($see $[2, \ \text{Assumption}\ 2.2])$, we have $$\|\gamma_1-\gamma_2\|_{L^{\infty}(\Xi)} \leq C \|\Lambda_{\gamma_1}-\Lambda_{\gamma_2}\|_{L(H^{1/2}(\partial \Xi), H^{-1/2}(\partial \Xi))},$$ where the constant $C>0$ depends only on the a-priori data.
From Theorem $5.1$, clearly an estimate of the type $(1.4)$ holds for the index function $\eth(s)=s^2$ and $R(\gamma)= \|\gamma\|^2/2$. So to this end, let the assumptions of Theorem $5.1$ are satisfied and accordingly, define the Banach space $U$ as the following: $$U= \text{span} \{\chi_{D_1}, \chi_{D_2}, \ldots, \chi_{D_N}\},$$ fitted with $L^p$ norm, where $p > 1$. Before continuing our discussion, let us mention an important remark related to the Banach space $U$.
The conductivities $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ considered in the Theorem $5.1$ are assumed to be the elements of finite dimensional space and accordingly, $U$ is considered to be a finite dimensional space. However, there is a possible impression that the inverse problem $(5.1)$ becomes well-posed by making such assumptions. But this impression can be negated via the following function discussed in $[2]$. Let $F:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^3$ be such that $$F(x)= \big((2+\cos 3\pi \alpha x)\cos 2\pi x, (2+\cos 3\pi \alpha x)\sin 2\pi x, \sin 2\pi\alpha x\big), \ x\in \mathbb{R},$$ where $\alpha$ is a parameter. It can be shown that $F$ is smoothly locally invertible. For $\alpha$ rational, $F$ is periodic whereas for $\alpha$ irrational, it is globally one-to-one but $F^{-1}$ is discontinuous at every point. Further, if $\alpha$ is irrational and $F$ is restricted to the interval $[-J, J]$ for some $>0$, then $F^{-1}$ is globally Lipschitz, but Lipschitz constant may blow up as $\alpha$ tends to any rational number.
Now, we recall an estimate established in $[21, \text{Equation}\ 5.6]$ for the operator $F$ given by $(5.1)$.
Let the assumptions of Theorem $5.1$ are satisfied. Then, we have$$\begin{split}
\|F(\gamma)-F(\gamma')\|_{L(H^{1/2}(\Xi), H^{-1/2}(\Xi))} \leq L \|\gamma-\gamma'\|_{L^p(\Xi)},
\end{split}$$ where the notations appearing have same meaning as in Theorem $5.1$.
Further, assume that $\gamma^{\dagger}$ is a $R$-minimizing solution of $(5.1)$ and $\Lambda_{\gamma}^{\delta}$ is some noisy approximation of $\Lambda_{\gamma}$ satisfying $$\| \Lambda_{\gamma}- \Lambda_{\gamma}^{\delta}\|_{L(H^{1/2}(\partial \Xi), H^{-1/2}(\partial \Xi))}\leq \delta,$$ where $\gamma^{\dagger} \in U$, and $\delta>0$. Now in particular, take $R(\gamma)=\frac{\|\gamma\|^2}{2}$ for $\gamma\in U,$ i.e. $p=2$ which means $(3)$ of the Assumption $2.1$ holds and $\partial R(\gamma^{\dagger})\neq \emptyset$. As the notion of weak and strong topology is equivalent for the finite dimensional spaces, and the forward operator $F$ is continuous because of Lemma $5.1$, $(6)$ of the Assumption $2.1$ holds. Now, if $(4)$ and $(5)$ of Assumption $2.1$ hold, then with the estimate $(5.3)$ of Theorem $5.1$, all the assumptions of Theorem $3.1$ are satisfied with $k=2$ $($see Remark $2.1)$ provided $\rho$ is chosen as mentioned in Theorem $3.1$. Therefore, we can obtain the convergence rates in accordance with the Theorem $3.1$.
Now, let us discuss our second example in which we recall another inverse problem and make an effort to fit the settings of Theorem $3.3$ in it.
Bao and Yun $[7]$, established a Hölder stability estimate for the inverse problem of determining the potential function $q = q(x)$ from $\Lambda_q$, i.e. Neumann to Dirichlet map of the wave equation $u_{tt}-\Delta u + qu = 0$ in $\Xi \times (0, T)$ with $u(x, 0) = u_t(x, 0) = 0$, where $\Xi$ is a bounded open set in $\mathbb{R}^n$ having a smooth boundary $\partial \Xi$ for $n \geq 2$ and $T > \ $diameter$\ (\Xi)$. We recall that Hölder stability estimate in this example and for that, we also recall the above-said inverse problem for the sake of completeness. Consider the wave equation $$\begin{cases}\begin{split}
u_{tt}-\Delta u+qu = 0 \qquad \text{for all} \ (x, t) \ \in \Xi \times (0, T),
\\ u = u_t = 0 \qquad\qquad\text{for all} \ x \in \Xi \ \text{and} \ t = 0,\hspace{4mm} \\ \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} = f \qquad\qquad \text{for all} \ (x, t) \ \in \partial \Xi \times (0, T). \end{split}\end{cases}$$ The associated Neumann to Dirichlet map $\Lambda_q$ with $(5.4)$ is defined as follows: $$\Lambda_q : f \in L^2(\partial \Xi \times (0, T)) \to u|_{\partial \Xi \times (0, T)} \in H^1(\partial \Xi \times (0, T)).$$ In $[7, \ \text{Theorem}\ 1.1]$, the following Hölder stability estimate has been established.
Suppose that $\|q_1-q_2\|_{H^{\beta}(\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq M^{\beta}$ for some $\beta >\frac{n}{2}+1$, $M>0$ and $\|q_i\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)} \leq M$, $i=1, 2$. Then, we have $$C \|\Lambda_{q_1}-\Lambda_{q_2}\|_*^{1-\epsilon} \geq \|q_1-q_2\|_{L^{\infty}(\Xi)},$$ where $0<\epsilon <1$ and $C>0$. Here $\|\cdot\|_*$ denotes the operator norm from $L^2(\partial \Xi \times (0, T))$ to $H^1(\partial \Xi \times (0, T))$ and $H^{\beta}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is the Sobolev space of order $\beta$.
The inverse problem associated with $(5.4)$ is to invert the map $$q \to \Lambda_q,$$ i.e. the reconstruction of $q(x)$ from given $\Lambda_q$. For our convenience, we write the above inverse problem as$$F: q \in L^{\infty}(\Xi) \mapsto \Lambda_q \in B\big(L^2 (\partial \Xi \times (0, T)), H^1(\partial \Xi \times (0, T))\big),$$ where $B\big(L^2 (\partial \Xi \times (0, T)), H^1(\partial \Xi \times (0, T))\big)$ is the Banach space of all bounded linear maps from $L^2 (\partial \Xi \times (0, T))$ to $H^1(\partial \Xi \times (0, T))$. Let us assume that there exists a $R$-minimizing solution $q^{\dagger}$ of $(5.6)$ corresponding to the wave equation $(5.4)$, i.e. $F(q^{\dagger}) = \Lambda_q$. Also let the initial approximation $q_0$ of the exact solution is such that $\|q^{\dagger}-q_0\|_{H^{\beta}} \leq K_1$ for some $K_1 > 0$. Observe that the assumption $(4)$ of Theorem $3.3$ is satisfied via Hölder stability estimate $(5.5)$ established in Theorem $5.2$ with the index function $\eth(s)=s^{2(1-\epsilon)}$, $0<\epsilon<1$ and $R(q)=\|q\|^2/2$. Therefore, if Assumption $2.1$ holds $($in particular, assumptions related to $F$ and level sets$)$, then from Theorem $3.3$, one can obtain the following convergence rates $$\|q_{\alpha}^{\delta}- q^{\dagger}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Xi)} = O\bigg(\delta^{\frac{(1-\epsilon)(p-\epsilon_1)}{p}}\bigg),$$ provided the regularization parameter is such that $\alpha(\delta)\sim \delta^{p- \epsilon_1}$, where $\epsilon_1<p$ and $q_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is the minimizer of the following Tikhonov functional: $$\|F(q)- \Lambda_q^{\delta}\|_*^p+ \alpha \|q-q_0\|_{H^{\beta}}^p.$$
Convergence rates for sparsity regularization via conditional estimates
=======================================================================
In the present section, we investigate the convergence rates for Tikhonov regularization via sparsity constraints by incorporating the conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$. The only purpose of including regularization via sparsity constraints in this article is that the convergence rates for this scheme can be obtained on the lines of Theorem $3.1$. Throughout this section, we assume that $U$ and $V$ denote Hilbert and reflexive Banach spaces, respectively. This type of regularization becomes trendy because of the interesting work done in $[11]$ and is based on the assumption that the exact solution $u^{\dagger}$ of $(1.1)$ has a sparse representation in terms of orthonormal basis of $U$. Our task is to find the approximate solution $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ of $(1.1)$ such that if $$u_{\alpha}^{\delta} = \sum_{j}\langle u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, \psi_j\rangle \psi_j, \ \text{then}\ \ \langle u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, \psi_j\rangle\neq 0 \ \text{for finitely many} \ j.$$Here $\{\psi_j\}$ represents the orthonormal basis of $U$, $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle$ denotes the inner product in $U$ and $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ is the minimizer of $$T^{\alpha}_{\text{spa}}(u, \delta):=\|F(u)-v^{\delta}\|^p+\alpha R_{\text{spa}}(u) \quad \text{where}\quad R_{\text{spa}}(u) := \sum_j r_j|\langle u, \psi_j\rangle |^q.$$ Clearly, in this regularization each coefficient is regularized individually via the weighting sequence $\{r_j\}$ with $r_j >0$ and $q\geq 1$. If the number of terms appearing in the summation of $R_{\text{spa}}$ are uncountable, that is the case when $U$ is not separable, then we take $R_{\text{spa}}(u)$ as the supremum of all finite partial sums. Further, for $u^{\dagger}\in D(R_{\text{spa}})$ and $\zeta \in \partial R_{\text{spa}}(u^{\dagger})$, the Bregman distance of $R_{\text{spa}}$ at $u^{\dagger}$ is $$D_{\zeta}( u, u^{\dagger}) = \sum_j r_j d_{\langle \zeta, \psi_j\rangle \over r_j}\big(\langle u, \psi_j \rangle,\langle u^{\dagger}, \psi_j \rangle\big),$$ where $$d_{\zeta}(u_1, u_2) = |u_1|^q-|u_2|^q-\zeta(u_1-u_2), \quad u_1, u_2 \in \mathbb{R}, \ \zeta \in q \big(\text{Sg}(u_2)\big)|u_2|^{q-1},$$ $$\partial R_{\text{spa}}(u^{\dagger}) = \big\{ \zeta \in U^* : \langle \zeta, \psi_j\rangle \in r_jq\big(Sg(\langle u^{\dagger}, \psi_j \rangle)\big) |\langle u^{\dagger}, \psi_j \rangle|^{q-1}\big\},$$ and $$\text{Sg}(x)=\begin{cases} 1,\ \ \ \qquad\text{for}\ x >0\\ -1, \ \qquad\text{for}\ \ x <0\\ [-1,1], \quad\text{for}\ x =0.\end{cases}$$
Now, in order to address the issues related to the existence, stability and convergence for sparsity regularized solutions, we need the following assumptions.
1. $O_U$ and $O_V$ are the weak topologies on $U$ and $V$, respectively.
2. $p\geq 1$ and $1\leq q \leq 2$ and weights $\{r_j\}$ satisfy $r \leq r_j < \infty$ for some positive constant $r$.
3. $D:= D(F) \cap D(R_{\text{spa}}) \neq \emptyset$.
4. $F$ is weakly continuous and $D(F)$ is weakly sequentially closed.
Let the Assumption $5.1$ holds. Then, minimizing $T^{\alpha}_{\text{spa}}$ is well-defined, stable and convergent in the sense of Lemma $2.2$.
See, $[33, \text{Theorem} \ 3.48]$.
Convergence rates for sparsity constraints regularization via variational inequality $(2.2)$ have been discussed in $[33]$. Next, the convergence rates for the minimizers of $T^{\alpha}_{\text{spa}}(u, \delta)$ are investigated by incorporating the conditional stability estimates $(1.4)$ with respect to Bregman distance and Hilbert space norm. We skip major part of the proof and write only the end results as the proof is similar to Theorem $3.1$.
Let the Assumption $5.1$ holds. Moreover, let the following assumptions hold:
1. $u^{\dagger}$ is a $R_{\text{spa}}$-minimizing solution of $(1.1)$ and an element in the Bregman domain of $R_{\text{spa}}$. Also, $\partial R(u^{\dagger})\neq \emptyset$.
2. For a given $\alpha_{\max} > 0$ and a constant $c>0$, set $$\rho = \alpha_{max}(c+R_{\text{spa}}(u^{\dagger})).$$
3. $F: M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)\subseteq D(F) \subseteq U \to V$ satisfies the following Hölder stability estimate: $$C\ \eth(\|F(u_1)-F(u_2)\|) \geq D_{\zeta}(u_1, u_2), \quad \forall \ u_1, u_2 \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1),$$ where $C> 0$ is some constant, $ \eth$ is an index function and $\rho_1 = 2^{p-1}\rho$.
For $q = 1$, we additionally assume
4. $F$ is Gâteaux differentiable in $u^{\dagger}$, and restriction of $F'(u^{\dagger})$ to $U_{\zeta} : = \{\sum_{j \in I_{\zeta}} x_j\psi_j : x_j \in \mathbb{R}\}$ is injective where $I_{\zeta} :=\{j: |\langle \zeta, \psi_j\rangle | \geq r\}$, $\zeta\in \partial R(u^{\dagger})$.
5. There exist constants $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \geq 0$ such that for all $u \in M_{\alpha_{\max}}(\rho_1)$, we have $$\|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})-F'(u^{\dagger})(u-u^{\dagger})\| \leq \gamma_1 D_{\zeta} (u, u^{\dagger})+\gamma_2 \|F(u)-F(u^{\dagger})\|.$$
Let $\alpha = \alpha(\delta)$ be such that $0<\alpha(\delta) \leq \alpha_{max}$, $\frac{2\delta^p}{\alpha} \leq c$ and $u_{\alpha}^{\delta}$ be the minimizer of $T^{\alpha}_{\text{spa}}(u, \delta)$. Then, for $\delta \to 0$, we have$$D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}) = O\bigg(\eth\big(\delta^{\frac{p-\epsilon}{p}}\big)\bigg) \quad \text{and}\quad \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})- v^{\delta}\| = O\big(\delta^{\frac{p-\epsilon}{p}}\big),$$provided $\alpha(\delta)$ satisfies $\alpha(\delta)\sim \delta^{p- \epsilon}$ with $0 < \epsilon <p$. Moreover, in terms of Hilbert norm
1. for $q > 1$, we have $$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}- u^{\dagger}\| = O\bigg(\eth\big(\delta^{\frac{p-\epsilon}{2p}}\big)\bigg).$$
2. for $q = 1$, we have $$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}- u^{\dagger}\| \leq K_1 \eth\big(\delta^{\frac{p-\epsilon}{p}}\big)+K_2\delta^{\frac{p-\epsilon}{p}},$$ for some constants $K_1, K_2>0$.
The convergence rates in the form of Bregman distance given by $(6.1)$ follows directly from Theorem $3.1$ and the estimate for $\|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})- v^{\delta}\|$ follows from $(3.9)$, $\frac{\delta^p}{\alpha}\leq \frac{c}{2}$ and the parameter choice $\alpha(\delta)\sim \delta^{p- \epsilon}$. Finally, let us investigate the convergence rates with respect to Hilbert space norm. For $q > 1$, from $[33, \text{Theorem} \ 3.54]$ we know that $$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}- u^{\dagger}\|^2 \leq K_1 D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger}),$$ for some constant $K_1 > 0$. This estimate with $(6.1)$ leads to the convergence rate $(6.2)$. If $q = 1$, $[33, \text{Theorem} \ 3.54]$ provides us the following estimate $$\|u_{\alpha}^{\delta}- u^{\dagger}\| \leq K_2 D_{\zeta}(u_{\alpha}^{\delta}, u^{\dagger})+K_3 \|F(u_{\alpha}^{\delta})- v^{\delta}\|,$$ with constants $K_2, K_3 > 0$. Thus, by using $(6.1)$, estimate $(6.3)$ can be obtained which can be further employed to obtain the convergence rates depending on the index function.
Discussion
==========
We have obtained the convergence rates of Tikhonov regularization scheme for non-linear ill-posed problems in Banach spaces by incorporating the conditional stability estimates as well as a novel stability condition termed as approximate Hölder stability estimates. The convergence rates obtained in the case of conditional stability estimates are better than the rates obtained via variational inequalities in some special cases. Via approximate Hölder stability estimates, there is a deficit in convergence rates because of the fact that Hölder stability estimates are satisfied in the approximate manner. Moreover, we have established the convergence rates in terms of weaker norms by using the conditional stability estimates. We have also discussed the interplay of conditional stability estimates, approximate Hölder stability estimates and the variational inequality and deduce the conditions under which the conditional stability estimates are the generalizations of the variational inequalities. The theory presented in Theorems $3.1$ and $3.3$ is complemented with concrete examples. At the end, we have also obtained the convergence rates for Tikhonov regularization via sparsity constraints in terms of Bregman distance and Hilbert norms.
[10]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The increased penetration of volatile renewable energy into distribution networks necessities more efficient distributed voltage control. In this paper, we design distributed feedback control algorithms where each bus can inject *both active and reactive* power into the grid to regulate the voltages. The control law on each bus is only based on local voltage measurements and communication to its physical neighbors. Moreover, the buses can perform their updates *asynchronously* without receiving information from their neighbors for periods of time. The algorithm enforces *hard upper and lower limits* on the active and reactive powers at every iteration. We prove that the algorithm converges to the optimal feasible voltage profile, assuming linear power flows. This provable convergence is maintained under bounded communication delays and asynchronous communications. We further numerically test the performance of the algorithm using the full *nonlinear AC power flow* model. Our simulations show the effectiveness of our algorithm on realistic networks with both static and fluctuating loads, even in the presence of communication delays.'
author:
- 'Sindri Magnússon, Guannan Qu, and Na Li [^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: |
**Distributed Optimal Voltage Control\
with Asynchronous and Delayed Communication**
---
Distributed Optimization, Smart Grid, Voltage Control, Distributed Control.
[Nomenclature]{} {#nomenclature .unnumbered}
================
Parameters
----------
The number of buses (not including the substation) .
$\mathcal{N}=\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is the set of buses with $0$ being the substation; $\mathcal{N}=\mathcal{N}_0\setminus \{0\}$; $\mathcal{E}$ is the set of lines in the network.
$\sigma_i\in \mathcal{N}$ is the parent of bus $i$; $\mathcal{C}_i$ is the set of children of bus $i$; $\mathcal{P}_i$ is the set of lines in the network on the unique path from the substation to bus $i$.
The number of edges in the shortest path between the nodes $i,j\in \mathcal{N}$.
The resistance and reactance on the transmission line between $i,j$.
The matrices in linearized branch-flow model.
Upper and lower limits of the active and reactive power, respectively.
Upper voltage limit, lower voltage limits, and apparent power limits.
Parameters of the cost function $C{^{\texttt{P}}}(\cdot)$ related to bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$.
Parameters of the cost function $C{^{\texttt{Q}}}(\cdot)$ related to bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$.
$a_{\min}=\{a_1{^{\texttt{P}}},\ldots, a_N{^{\texttt{P}}}, a_1{^{\texttt{Q}}},\ldots, a_N{^{\texttt{Q}}}\}$; $L=(||X||^2+||R||^2)/2$.
The iteration index.
$\tau_{ij}(t)$ is the communication delay in the communication link $(i,j)\in \mathcal{E}$ at iteration $t$; $\tau_{\max}$ is the maximum delay, i.e., $\tau_{ij}(t)\leq \tau_{\max}$ for all $(i,j)\in \mathcal{E}$ and $t$.
The step-size in our algorithm
Variables and Functions
-----------------------
The active powers, reactive powers, and squared voltage magnitude, respectively.
Dual variables associated with the upper and lower voltage constraint, respectively.
$\lambda={\underline{\lambda}}-\bar{\lambda}$; ${\boldsymbol\lambda}=({\underline{\lambda}},\bar{\lambda})$.
The communicated messages.
Delayed version of the communicated messages.
$z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}$ is a local estimation of $R\lambda$; $z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}$ is a local estimation of $X\lambda$.
The cost functions for the active and reactive powers, respectively.
The dual function and the Lagrangian function, respectively.
Notations
---------
The set of real, complex, and natural numbers, respectively.
The set of real $n$ vectors and $n{\times} m$ matrices, respectively.
The $i,j$-th entry of matrix $P$ and $i$-th entry of vector $p$, respectively.
Inner product of vectors.
The imaginary unit $\vec{i}=\sqrt{-1}$.
$N\times1$ column vector with all ones.
The projection of vector $x$ onto the positive orthant and the box constraint $[{\underline{x}},\bar{x}]$.
Euclidean norm for vectors, spectral norm for matrices.
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
Power girds are increasing the volume of renewable energy generation from unpredictable sources such as solar and wind. As a consequence, large scale penetration of renewable energy will cause faster voltage fluctuations than today’s networks can handle [@carvalho2008distributed; @molzahn2017survey]. This means that too much injection of renewable energy can easily overload the power systems. However, the grid becomes better equipped to handle these challenges than before. For example, many smart home appliances will have adjustable active power demands that can be used to stabilize the voltage fluctuations caused by abruptly changes in renewable power generation. Similar flexible active power adjustments can come from smart distributed power generators and batteries of electric vehicles. It is also possible to use flexible reactive power to regulate the voltage fluctuations, e.g., from PV-inverters. However, to take advantage of the flexible active and reactive power injections and to use them to regulate the voltage fluctuations sophisticated control algorithms are needed.
Related Work
------------
There is a vast literature on voltage control algorithms. Most works focus on VAR control where the buses regulate the voltage fluctuations by adjusting reactive power injection based on voltage measurements. Perhaps the most established of these algorithms are droop controllers [@farivar2013equilibrium; @jahangiri2013distributed], which are implemented in the IEEE 1547-2018 standard [@droopStd2018ieee]. In these algorithms each bus updates its reactive power based on piecewise-linear control law from local voltage measurements. However, droop control can fail in ensuring feasible voltages [@Li2014] and can become inefficient in large networks [@Zhu_2015]. Other algorithms based purely on local measurements have addressed some of these issues by relaxing voltage or reactive power constraints [@Li2014; @Zhu_2015]. However, even though such local control algorithms may work well in some cases, e.g., when the voltage or reactive power limits are relaxed, they generally fail in providing feasible solutions as illustrated in [@Cavraro2016; @Bolognani2019]. In particular, they cannot guarantee that the voltage and reactive power limits are satisfied simultaneously. This means that communication between the network’s buses is necessary to solve the general voltage control problem.
This has motivated studies on distributed VAR voltage control where each bus updates its reactive power based on local voltage measurements and communications to its neighbors in the power network [@Bolognani2013; @bolognani2014distributed; @magnusson2017voltage; @kekatos2014stochastic; @liu2018hybrid; @liu2018distributed; @qu2018optimal]. The convergence of all these algorithms to a stable voltage profile is proved under linearzed power flow models. However, for the algorithms in [@Bolognani2013; @bolognani2014distributed; @magnusson2017voltage] to work the physical limits on the reactive power must be relaxed, which is often prohibitive in practice. The algorithms in [@kekatos2014stochastic; @liu2018hybrid; @liu2018distributed] relax the voltage constraint and introduce a penalty on violating the constraint instead. Moreover, all of the above papers consider only reactive power control, whereas we consider both reactive and active power control in this paper.
To perform joint active and reactive power control typically requires solving an Optimal Power Flow (OPF) problem. There is much literature on distributed algorithms for solving OPF [@dall2013distributed; @erseghe2014distributed; @magnusson2015distributed; @vsulc2014optimal; @Zhang_2015; @kraning2014dynamic]. However, solving a full OPF problem is a time consuming process that requires multiple communication rounds. It is impractical to repeatedly solve a full OPF problem at the fast time scales that are needed to respond to volatile voltage fluctuations. This has motivated studies on dynamic/online OPF algorithms [@dall2016optimal; @tang2017real], where the OPF problem is updated at every iteration based on the most recent measurements. However, these algorithms require global information, i.e., they assume that at every iteration either a system operator communicates with all the buses or that every bus communicates to every other bus. Such global communications are often difficult or expensive since they lead to long delays and large network congestion in addition to violating the privacy of buses. Our work in this paper considers distributed algorithms where only neighbors in the power network communicate and communication can be asynchronous or delayed.
Limited communication, such as asynchronous updates and delays, are common in practice but hard to handle in distributed algorithms. Most existing voltage control algorithms require the buses to wait until they receive information from all of their neighbors before they can perform a control action, which is clearly a limitation if the algorithms are supposed to run in real time. There are some exception, however. For example, algorithms with random package delays and asynchronous updates are studied in [@gatsis2012residential; @liu2018distributed; @bolognani2014distributed]. Other types of communication limitations have also been considered, such as event triggered communications [@olivier2015active; @fan2016distributed; @Magnusson2019optimal] and limited bandwidth [@magnusson2019voltage]. However, all of these works have some limitations. For example, the algorithms in [@gatsis2012residential; @olivier2015active; @Magnusson2019optimal] require global communications and the work in [@bolognani2014distributed; @liu2018distributed; @magnusson2017voltage; @magnusson2019voltage] only considers reactive power control and must either relax the reactive power or voltage constraints to ensure convergence.
Main Contributions
------------------
The main contribution of this paper is to design asynchronous distributed algorithms for optimal voltage control using *both active and reactive power* adjustment. Each bus updates its active/reactive power with a local control law that is only based on local voltage measurements and communications from its *neighbors in the network*. The buses can perform their local updates asynchronously even if they do not receive any communication from other nodes over some period of time. The algorithm *enforces hard upper and lower limits* on the active and reactive powers at every iteration of the algorithm. We prove the algorithms converges to an optimal solution to an optimal power flow problem with a feasible voltage profile, even with asynchronous and delayed communications. We prove the convergence assuming a linearized relationship between voltage and power injections. However, we illustrate the performance of our algorithm using the *full nonlinear AC power flow model* in the numerical studies. We show that our algorithm can well handle *time-varying environments* where the loading situation of the distribution network is changing in the meantime of the algorithm. Moreover, our numerical results shows that our algorithm can reduce $80\%$ of the communication compared to a synchronous algorithm for achieving similar voltage control performance.
There is an intuitive explanation for why our algorithm is robust to asynchronous and delayed communications. Our algorithm is equivalent to asynchronous dual decomposition algorithms [@Low_1999; @chiang2007layering]. This equivalence is not obvious. In fact, the major efforts of our proofs go into showing this equivalence. Nevertheless, this means that our algorithm enjoys the strong robustness properties for asynchronous communications that have been established over a long time for dual decomposition in theory and practice [@chiang2007layering].
It should be highlighted that our work makes a significant contribution to distributed voltage control even in the absence of asynchronous and delayed communications. This is, firstly, because existing distributed voltage control algorithms consider only reactive power control. Moreover, it is generally not possible to extend the ideas used to decompose these algorithms to handle both reactive and active power control. Secondly, most distributed voltage control algorithms that ensure convergence to a feasible voltage profile do so by allowing a violation of the reactive power constraint in the transient. There are two exceptions to this [@Bolognani2019; @qu2018optimal]. In the algorithm in [@Bolognani2019], to compute each new control action the nodes need to solve a subproblem by performing multiple iterations of communications, which is clearly limiting for algorithms that should run in real-time. However, our algorithm only requires one communication round per control action. Compared to [@qu2018optimal], our algorithm development is different. The algorithm in [@qu2018optimal] is based on inexact primal-dual saddle point iterations, which generally converge very slowly. Our algorithm is equivalent to asynchronous dual decomposition, which generally has better convergence properties. This is also why we can prove convergence in the presence of asynchronous and delayed communications.
A very preliminary version of this work was presented in \[33\]. Compared to this paper, \[33\] considers only reactive power control, omits most of the proofs and only presents very limited numerical tests. Including real power as control actions requires a significant amount of change in the algorithm and the analysis. All the numerical tests are new and many high-fidelity cases are tested and discussed. Finally, almost the entire paper has been rewritten, with much more detailed discussions on the main results and proofs explaining why the method works.
System Model and Problem Formulation {#sec:SysModandPF}
====================================
System Model: Branch Flow for Radial Networks
---------------------------------------------
Consider a radial power distribution network with $N+1$ buses represented by the set $\mathcal{N}_0=\{0\}\cup \mathcal{N}$, where $\mathcal{N}=\{1,\ldots, N\}$. Bus $0$ is a feeder bus and the buses in $\mathcal{N}$ are branch buses. Let $\mathcal{E}\subseteq \mathcal{N}_0\times \mathcal{N}_0$ denote the set of directed flow lines, so if $(i,j)\in \mathcal{E}$ then $i$ is the parent of $j$. For each $i$, let $s_i=p_i+\vec{i}q_i \in \C$, $V_i\in \C$, and $v_i\in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ denote the complex power injection, complex voltage, and squared voltage magnitude, respectively, at Bus $i$. For each $(i.j)\in \mathcal{E}$, let $S_{ij}=P_{ij}+\vec{i}Q_{ij}\in \C$, $I_{ij}\in \C$, and $z_{ij}=r_{ij}+\vec{i}x_{ij}\in \C$ denote the complex power flow, current, and impedance in the line from Bus $i$ to Bus $j$. The relationship between the variables can be expressed as [@baran1989optimal; @Baran1989],
\[eq:LinBranchFlow\] $$\begin{aligned}
-p_i =& P_{\sigma_i i}-r_{\sigma_i i} l_{\sigma_i,i}-\sum_{k:(i,k)\in \mathcal{E}} P_{ik}, \hspace{0.8cm}i\in \mathcal{N}, \\
-q_i =& Q_{\sigma_i i}-x_{\sigma_i i} l_{\sigma_i,i}- \sum_{k:(i,k)\in \mathcal{E}} Q_{ik}, \hspace{0.6cm}i\in \mathcal{N}, \\
v_j-v_i =& -2(r_{ij} P_{ij}+x_{ij}Q_{ij}) \notag
+ (r_{ij}^2+x_{ij}^2)l_{ij}, \\ & \hspace{4.8cm}(i,j) \in \mathcal{E}, \\
l_{ij} =& \frac{P_{ij}^2+Q_{ij}^2}{v_i} \hspace{3.3cm}(i,j)\in \mathcal{E},
\end{aligned}$$
where $\sigma_i$ is the parent of bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$, i.e., the unique $\sigma_i\in \mathcal{N}_0$ with $(\sigma_i,i)\in \mathcal{E}$, and $l_{ij}=|I_{ij}|^2$.
We develop our voltage control algorithm for the general nonlinear power flow in Equation . However, we prove the convergence of the algorithm by consider a linearied version of the above model. In particular, we consider the linear Distflow approximation of the above equations, which gives a good approximation in radial distribution networks [@Baran1989]. The linear Distflow model is obtained by setting $l_{ij}=0$ in which case Equation can be written as $${v}= {R}{p}+ {X}{q}+ \vec{1}v_0, \label{eq:PhysicalRelationship-1}$$ where ${v}=[v_1,\ldots,v_N]\tran$, ${q}=[q_1,\ldots,q_N]\tran$, $p=[p_1,\ldots,p_N]\tran$, $${X}_{ij}=2 \hspace{-0.4cm} \sum_{(h,k)\in\mathcal{P}_i\cap \mathcal{P}_j} \hspace{-0.4cm} x_{hk},~~\text{ and }~~{R}_{ij}=2 \hspace{-0.4cm} \sum_{(h,k)\in\mathcal{P}_i\cap \mathcal{P}_j} \hspace{-0.4cm} r_{hk},$$ where $\mathcal{P}_i\subseteq \mathcal{E}$ is the set of edges in the path from Bus 0 to Bus $i$.
Optimal Voltage Control {#subsec:VoltReg}
-----------------------
The goal of this paper is to design distributed feedback control laws for the active and reactive powers that drive the voltages ${v}$ to some feasible range ${v}\in [{\underline{v}}, {\bar{v}}]$. To that end, we assume that the active and reactive power injections can be adjusted within some interval $p \in[{\underline{p}},{\bar{p}}]$ and ${q}\in[{\underline{q}},{\bar{q}}]$.[^3] The active power can typically be adjusted by demand response programs in smart home appliances, HVAC systems, vehicle charging stations, etc. The reactive power can be adjusted by PV-inverters. For active and reactive power injection $p,q\in {\mathbb{R}}^N$ the resulting voltage $v(p,q)$ can be computed by solving Equation , i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
v(p,q)= \text{ Solution to Equation~\eqref{eq:LinBranchFlow} for given $p$ and $q$. }
\end{aligned}$$ Ideally, we wish to find the optimal active and reactive power: $$\label{MainProblem}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{p,q\in {\mathbb{R}}^N}{\text{minimize}}
& & C{^{\texttt{P}}}(p) +C{^{\texttt{Q}}}(q) \\
& \text{subject to}
&& {\underline{v}}\leq {v}(p,q) \leq {\bar{v}}\\
&&& {\underline{p}}\leq p \leq {\bar{p}}, \\
&&& {\underline{q}}\leq {q}\leq {\bar{q}}.
\end{aligned}$$ where $$C{^{\texttt{P}}}(p)= \sum_{i=1}^NC_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(p)=\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}}{2} p_i^2+b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}p_i +c_i{^{\texttt{P}}}\label{eq:c_i_p}$$ is the generation cost for active power and $$C{^{\texttt{Q}}}(q)= \sum_{i=1}^N C_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(q) = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{a_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}}{2} q_i^2+b_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}q_i +c_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}\label{eq:c_i_q}$$ is the generation cost of reactive power. We provide the dual of in Section \[Sec:AI\]. Throughout the paper we assume that Problem is feasible and $a_i>0$ for all $i$. Moreover, set $$a_{\min}:=\min\{a_1{^{\texttt{P}}},\ldots,a_N{^{\texttt{P}}},a_1{^{\texttt{Q}}},\ldots,a_N{^{\texttt{Q}}}\}.$$ The goal of this paper is to devise distributed algorithms that solve the problem that are robust to communication delays and use asynchronous update among devices.
Distributed Optimal Voltage Control
-----------------------------------
We will propose a distributed feedback control algorithm to solve . Ideally, we would like algorithms that use only local information. That is, each bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$ initializes its active and reactive powers as $$p_i(0)\in[{\underline{p}}_i,\bar{p}_i] ~~\text{ and }~~ q_i(0)\in[{\underline{q}}_i,\bar{q}_i]$$ and then updates it as follows, for iteration index $t\in{\mathbb{N}}$,
\[EQ:FBC\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \textbf{Measurement:}&& v_i(t) = {v}_i({q}(t)) \label{EQ:FBC-A} \\
&\textbf{P-Control:} && p_i(t{+}1){=}\texttt{AlgP}_i^t(\texttt{Local\_Info}_i(t)), \label{EQ:FBC-B} \\
&\textbf{Q-Control:} && q_i(t{+}1){=}\texttt{AlgQ}_i^t(\texttt{Local\_Info}_i(t)), \label{EQ:FBC-C} $$
where $\texttt{AlgP}_i^t:{\mathbb{R}}^{3(t+1)}\rightarrow [{\underline{p}}_i,\bar{p}_i]$ and $\texttt{AlgQ}_i^t:{\mathbb{R}}^{3(t+1)}\rightarrow [{\underline{q}}_i,\bar{q}_i]$ are, respectively, the local active and reactive power control algorithms and $$\begin{aligned}
\texttt{Local\_Info}_i(t)=&\{p_i(0),\ldots,p_i(t),q_i(0),\ldots,q_i(t), \\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~v_i(0),\ldots,v_i(t)\},
\end{aligned}$$ is the local information available to bus $i$ at iteration $t$. Unfortunately, there exists no local algorithm that is guaranteed to solve the optimization problem, due to the impossibility result in [@Cavraro2016]. Therefore, it is necessary to include some communication into the control law. Such communication can be modeled as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
(p_i(t{+}1),q_i(t{+}1)) = \texttt{Alg}_i^t(\texttt{Local\_Info}_i(t),\texttt{Comm}_i(t)),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\texttt{Comm}_i(t)$ is information that bus $i$ has received from other buses until iteration $t$. In this paper, we consider algorithms in this form when the communicated information $\texttt{Comm}_i(t)$ at each iteration comes only from physical neighbours of node $i$. Moreover, there the algorithms considered in this paper are provably robust to asynchronous and delayed communication.
Algorithm and Main Results {#subseq:PF-LDP}
==========================
Algorithm {#subseq:Alg}
---------
We now illustrate the distributed algorithm for solving Problem . We first illustrate the main steps of the algorithm and then provide the main convergence results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**DIST-OPT: Distributed Optimal Voltage Control**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. **Initialization:** Set $t=0$, $z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)=z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)={\underline{\lambda}}_i(0)=\bar{\lambda}_i(0)=\alpha_i(0)=\beta_i(0)=0$ for $i\in \mathcal{N}$.
2. **Local Control:** Each bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$ injects into the grid the active and reactive power $$\begin{aligned}
p_i(t) = \left[\frac{1}{a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}}\left( z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)-b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}\right) \right]_{\underline{p}_i}^{\bar{p}_i}\\
q_i(t) = \left[\frac{1}{a_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}}\left( z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)-b_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}\right) \right]_{\underline{q}_i}^{\bar{q}_i}
\end{aligned}$$
3. **Local Measurement:** Each bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$ measures the voltage magnitude $$\begin{aligned}
v_i(t)=v_i(p(t),q(t))
\end{aligned}$$ and then updates
\[eq:LamUp\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{\lambda}}_i(t+1) =& \lceil{\underline{\lambda}}_i(t)+\gamma({\underline{v}}_i-v_i(t))\rceil_+ \label{eq:DLamUp1}\\
\bar{\lambda}_i(t+1) =& \lceil \bar{\lambda}_i(t)+\gamma(v_i(t)-\bar{v}_i)\rceil_+ \label{eq:DLamUp2} \\
\lambda_i(t+1) =&{\underline{\lambda}}_i(t+1)-\bar{\lambda}_i(t+1),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma>0$ is a step-size parameter.
4. **Communication:** Each bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$ sends the following information to its neighbours:
- **If $i$ has a parent:** Send to parent $\sigma(i)$ the variable $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:AlphaUpdate}
\alpha_i(t+1)=\lambda_i(t+1)+\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i} \hat{\alpha}_j(t), \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{C}_i$ is the set of the children of node $i$. The parent $\sigma(i)$ receives the possibly delayed version $$\hat{\alpha}_i(t+1)= \alpha_i(t+1-\tau_{i\sigma(i)}(t)).$$
- **If $i$ has a child:** Send to each child $j\in \mathcal{C}_i$ the variable $$\beta_j(t+1)=(\beta_j{^{\texttt{P}}}(t+1),\beta_j{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t+1))$$ where[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_j{^{\texttt{P}}}(t+1)= & R_{ii}\left(\lambda_i(t+1)+ \sum_{r\in \mathcal{C}_i\setminus \{j\}} \hat{\alpha}_r(t) \right) \notag \\
& + \hat{\beta}_{i}{^{\texttt{P}}}(t). \\
\beta_j{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t+1)= & X_{ii}\left(\lambda_i(t+1)+ \sum_{r\in \mathcal{C}_i\setminus \{j\}} \hat{\alpha}_r(t) \right) \notag \\
& + \hat{\beta}_{i}{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t). \label{EQ:BetaUpdate}\end{aligned}$$ Each child $j$ receives the possibly delayed version $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\beta}_j{^{\texttt{P}}}(t+1)&= \beta_j{^{\texttt{P}}}(t+1-\tau_{ij}(t)),\\
\hat{\beta}_j{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t+1)&= \beta_j{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t+1-\tau_{ij}(t)).
\end{aligned}$$
5. **Local Computation:** Each bus $i\in \mathcal{N}$ updates $$\begin{aligned}
z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t+1)=&R_{ii}\bigg(\lambda_i(t+1) \notag
{+}\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i} \hat\alpha_j(t+1) \bigg) \\&+\hat\beta_{i}{^{\texttt{P}}}(t+1). \\ z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t+1)=&X_{ii}\bigg(\lambda_i(t+1) \notag
{+}\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i} \hat\alpha_j(t+1) \bigg) \\&+\hat\beta_{i}{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t+1). \label{eq:MainZ}
\end{aligned}$$
6. **Update Iteration Index:** $t=t+1$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that all the variables besides voltage $v$ and the active/reactive powers $p$ and $q$ are axillary variables. As illustrated in the next section, they are related to the dual variables of problem . In **STEP 1** of the algorithm each bus initializes its parameters. For simplicity of presentation, all parameters are initialized at $t=0$. In **STEP 2** each bus $i$ injects active and reactive power into the system based on the available information in $z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)$ and $z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)$. In **STEP 3** each bus $i$ takes a local measurement of the voltage of $v_i(p(t),q(t))$ corresponding to the active and reactive power injections $p(t)$ and $q(t)$. Moreover, based on these measurements bus $i$ also updates the parameters ${\underline{\lambda}}_i$, $\bar{\lambda}_i$, and ${\lambda}_i$ according to .[^5] In **STEP 4** each bus $i$ communicates the parameter $\alpha_i(t+1)$ to their parent bus (cf. Equation ) and $\beta_j(t+1)$ to each of their children buses $j\in \mathcal{C}_i$. In **STEP 5**, each bus $i$ updates its variable $z_i(t+1)$ based on the local information $\lambda_i(t+1)$ and $\alpha_j(t+1)$ received from each of its child’s $j\in \mathcal{C}_i$ and $\beta_i(t+1)$ received from its parent. Note that the information in $\alpha_j(t+1)$ and $\beta_i(t+1)$ received by bus $i$ delayed by $\tau_{ji}$ and $\tau_{\sigma_ii}$, respectively.
It should be highlighted the computation done at each iteration by each bus consists of only a few binary operations per iteration and takes only a few microseconds. In particular, if we count the number of binary operations performed at each iteration then we find that
- in **step 2)** each bus performs $1$ subtraction, $1$ division, and $1$ projection,
- in **step 3)** each bus performs $2$ additions, $3$ subtractions, $2$ multiplications, and $2$ projections,
- in **step 4)** each bus performs at most $3c+2$ additions and 2 multiplications, where $c$ is the maximal number of children of a node, i.e., $c=\max_{i=1,\ldots,N} |\mathcal{C}_i|$ where $\mathcal{C}_i$ is the set of children of node $i$ and $|\mathcal{C}|$ denotes the cardinality of the set $\mathcal{C}$,
- in **step 5)** each bus performs at most $2c+4$ additions and 2 multiplications.
That is at most $22+5c$ binary operations, where $c$ is typically small, e.g., $c=4$ for the test network we use in Section \[Sec:Simulation\]. This computation takes few microseconds on modern processors, as we report in Section \[Sec:Simulation\].
Main Results
------------
We illustrate the performance of the algorithm on the full nonlinear power flow model in Section \[Sec:Simulation\]. Due to the high nonlinearities of the AC power flows it is generally difficult to prove the convergence of voltage control algorithms using the full AC model. However, we prove the algorithms convergence assuming the linear relationship in Equation between $v$, $p$, and $q$.
\[MainTheorem\] Suppose that $$\label{Eq:linearizedV}
v(p,q)=Rp+Xq+\vec{1} v_0$$ and that there exists $p,q\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$ such that (Slater’s condition): $$\label{Eq:Slater}
{\underline{p}}< p < {\bar{p}},~~~~ {\underline{q}}< {q}< {\bar{q}},~~ \text{ and } ~~{\underline{v}}< {v}({q}) < {\bar{v}},$$ and that the communication delays are bounded by $\tau_{\max}$, i.e., $\tau_{ij}(t)\leq \tau_{\max}$ for all $i,j,t\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Let the step-size $\gamma$ be chosen from the interval $$\label{eq:MainStepSize}
\gamma\in \left(0, \frac{2 }{(1+((\tau_{\max}+1)d+1) \sqrt{N})L} \right),$$ where $d=\max_{i,j\in \mathcal{N}} {\texttt{dist}}(i,j)$ is the diameter of the network and $$L=2\left(\frac{||R||^2+||X||^2}{a_{\min}}\right).$$ Then the following holds $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} (p(t),q(t))=(p^{\star},q^{\star}),$$ where $(p^{\star},q^{\star})$ is the optimal solution to Problem .
See Appendix \[Sec:Conv\].
The theorem shows that our distributed algorithm converges to the optimal solution to the problem provided that the step-size is small enough. Moreover, the convergence is maintained even if the communication from neighboring buses is delayed. This means that each bus can asynchronously update its active and reactive powers based only on local measurements without waiting for communication from other nodes, as long as the time between communications is bounded. We note that theoretical step-size in Equation . We show in the simulations in Section \[Sec:Simulation\] that much larger step-sizes can be used. We now illustrate the intuition into why the algorithm works.
Extension to General Cost and Constraint {#subsec:general}
----------------------------------------
As will be illustrated in the next section, **STEP 2** of the **DIST-OPT** algorithm can be equivalently written as $$\begin{aligned}
(p_i(t),q_i(t)) =& \arg\min_{p_i,q_i} C_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(p_i) +C_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(q_i) - z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t) p_i - z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t) q_i \nonumber\\
\text{s.t.}\quad &{\underline{p}}_i\leq p_i\leq \bar{p}_i \label{step2_interpretation}\\
& {\underline{q}}_i\leq q_i\leq \bar{q}_i \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where here $C_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(\cdot)$ and $C_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(\cdot)$ are the quadratic functions defined in , , and . In other words, $p_i(t)$ and $q_i(t)$ are in fact the solution of a local optimization problem, where the constraint corresponds to the local active/reactive power capacity constraint in , and the cost corresponds to the local cost $C_i{^{\texttt{P}}}$ and $C_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}$ in , plus a linear term depending on the multipliers $z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)$, $z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)$. Here the multipliers $z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)$, $z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)$ capture the voltage constraint violation at time $t$, and their role in can be understood as forcing the control action $(p_i(t), q_i(t))$ to respond to the voltage violation. As Theorem \[MainTheorem\] shows, the algorithm will converge to the solution of .
Given this interpretation, our algorithm can be extended to handle more general local cost functions and constraints. In particular, instead of the optimization problem , we consider the following more general problem, $$\label{MainProblem_new}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{p,q\in {\mathbb{R}}^N}{\text{minimize}}
& & \sum_{i=1}^N \tilde{C}_i(p_i,q_i) \\
& \text{subject to}
&& {\underline{v}}\leq {v}(p,q) \leq {\bar{v}}\\
&&& \mathbf{g}_i(p_i,q_i)\leq \mathbf{0}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{C}_i(p_i,q_i)$ is a strictly convex function and $\mathbf{g}_i(p_i,q_i)$ is convex. Here the bold $\mathbf{g}_i$ means that it is a vector, and can include more than one constraint. As an example, this $\mathbf{g}_i$ could include the apparent power limit constraint, $$p_i^2 + q_i^2 \leq \bar{s}_{i}^2$$ in addition to the box constraint $\underline{p}_i \leq p_i\leq\bar{p}_i$ and $\underline{q}_i\leq q_i \leq\bar{q}_i$.
In light of the interpretation , we can actually derive a generalized version of our algorithm to solve the more generalized problem . To do this, we simply replace **STEP 2** in the **DIST-OPT** algorithm with the following step, $$\begin{aligned}
(p_i(t),q_i(t)) =& \arg\min_{p_i,q_i} \tilde{C}_i(p_i,q_i) - z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t) p_i - z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t) q_i \label{eq:general_constr} \\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \mathbf{g}_i(p_i,q_i)\leq \mathbf{0}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ which is essentially with the local cost and local constraint replaced with the generalized cost $\tilde{C}_i(p_i,q_i)$ and the generalized constraint $\mathbf{g}_i(p_i,q_i)\leq \mathbf{0}$. Compared with the original **STEP 2**, is a local optimization problem that might not have a simple closed form solution as the original **STEP 2**. However, in the case that $\tilde{C}_i$ are convex quadratic functions, and $\mathbf{g}_i$ is the apparent power constraint, is a simple convex Quadratic Constrained Quadratic Programming (QCQP) problem with two variables and can be solved efficiently [@convex_boyd]. In the simulation section, we test this more generalized form of our algorithm to verify its validity.
Algorithm Intuition {#Sec:AI}
===================
We now give intuition into the algorithm and explain why it solves Problem . A key insight is that our **DIST-OPT** algorithm is equivalent to asynchronous dual decomposition methods similar to [@Low_1999; @chiang2007layering] where the primal problem is solved using old dual variables. This is in no way obvious. For example, if we would directly apply similar dual decomposition approaches as in [@chiang2007layering] to then we get an algorithm where [every node needs to communicate to every other node in the network.]{} However, in our algorithm the nodes communicate only to their neighbours in the network. We achieve this by introducing the axillary variables $z^R_i$, $z^Q$, $\beta^R$, $\beta^Q$, and $\alpha$, and their updates in **Step 4** and **Step 5** of the algorithm. We designing these updates by exploiting the special structures of the voltage control problem. [These axillary variables and their updates are novel in our algorithm and make our algorithm fully distributed, only neighbor to neighbor communication is needed.]{} We illustrate this insight in more detail now.
We need to start by introducing the dual of the optimization problem in Equation , which is given by $$\label{dual_problem}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{{\boldsymbol\lambda}=({\underline{{\lambda}}},{\bar{{\lambda}}})}{\text{maximize}}
& & D({\boldsymbol\lambda}) := \min_{(p,q) \in [{\underline{p}},\bar{p}] \times [{\underline{q}},\bar{q}]} \mathcal{L}(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda}) \\
& \text{subject to}
& & {\boldsymbol\lambda}\in{\mathbb{R}}_+^{2N} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\underline{{\lambda}}}$ and ${\bar{{\lambda}}}$ are, respectively, the dual variable associated to the voltage lower and upper bounds and $D:{\mathbb{R}}^{2N}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is the dual function and $\mathcal{L}(\cdot)$ is the Lagrangian function defined as $$\label{EQ:LAG}
\mathcal{L}(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda})= C{^{\texttt{P}}}(p)+C{^{\texttt{Q}}}(q) + {\underline{{\lambda}}}\tran ( {\underline{v}}-{v}(p,q)) + {\bar{{\lambda}}}\tran ( {v}(p,q)- {\bar{v}}),$$ where ${\boldsymbol\lambda}=({\underline{\lambda}},\bar{\lambda})\in {\mathbb{R}}^N\times {\mathbb{R}}^N$, see Chapter 5 in [@nonlinear_bertsekas] for details. We have the following result proved in Appendix \[APP:Lemma:DualMain\].
\[Lemma:DualMain\] The dual gradient is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dualGrad}
\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}) = \left[\begin{array}{c} {\underline{v}}-{v}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda})) \\ {v}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}) )-{\bar{v}}\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where
\[eq:LocalProblem-c\] $$\begin{aligned}
p({\boldsymbol\lambda}) =& \left[ {\Lambda_{\texttt{P}}}^{-1}R( {\underline{{\lambda}}}-{\bar{{\lambda}}}) -b{^{\texttt{P}}}\right]_{{\underline{p}}}^{{\bar{p}}}, \\ {q}({\boldsymbol\lambda}) =& \left[ {\Lambda_{\texttt{Q}}}^{-1}{X}( {\underline{{\lambda}}}-{\bar{{\lambda}}}) -b{^{\texttt{Q}}}\right]_{{\underline{q}}}^{{\bar{q}}},
$$
and $$\Lambda_{\texttt{P}}=\texttt{diag}(a_1{^{\texttt{P}}},\ldots,a_N{^{\texttt{P}}})~\text{ and }~\Lambda_{\texttt{Q}}=\texttt{diag}(a_1{^{\texttt{Q}}},\ldots,a_N{^{\texttt{Q}}}).$$ Moreover, $\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda})$ is $L$-Lipschitz continuous where $$L=2\left(\frac{||R||^2+||X||^2}{a_{\min}}\right).$$
Note that $({p}({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}))$ in Equation is the projection of the unconstrained minimizer of $L(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda})$ to the box constraint $[{\underline{p}},\bar{p}]\times[{\underline{q}},\bar{q}]$. In general, the optimal solution of a constrained optimization problem cannot be obtained by projecting the unconstrained optimizer to the constraint set, even for quadratic problems. However, this works here because of the special structures of the matrices in our problem, see Appendix \[APP:Lemma:DualMain\] for the details.
From the lemma we can derive a standard dual decent algorithm by setting
\[eq:primal\_update\_Cent\] $$\begin{aligned}
p_i(t)=& \left[\frac{1}{a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}}\left( \sum_{j=1}^N R_{ij} \lambda_i(t) -b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}\right)\right]_{{\underline{p}}_i}^{{\bar{p}}_i}, \\
q_i(t)=& \left[\frac{1}{a_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}}\left( \sum_{j=1}^N X_{ij} \lambda_i(t) -b_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}\right)\right]_{{\underline{q}}_i}^{\bar{q}_i},
\end{aligned}$$
where $\lambda_i(t)= {\underline{{\lambda}}}_i(t) -{\bar{{\lambda}}}_i(t)$ and ${\boldsymbol\lambda}=({\underline{{\lambda}}}_i,{\bar{{\lambda}}}_i)$ is updated according to Equation , which is equivalent to the following gradient update $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol\lambda}(t{+}1) =& \lceil {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)+ \gamma \nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)) \rceil_+. \label{eq:dual descent}
\end{aligned}$$ This algorithm is guaranteed to converge to the optimal solution (provided that $\gamma>0$ is small enough) since it is simply gradient ascent for maximizing the dual $D(\cdot)$. The downside of this update is that to calculate $q_i(t+1)$ in Equation bus $i$ needs information form every other bus in the network. This is countered in the **DIST-OPT** algorithm where only neighbour to neighbour communication is needed. This is obtained by replacing the sums in Equation by $$z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)\approx \sum_{j=1}^N R_{ij} \lambda_i(t)~~\text{ and }~~ z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)\approx \sum_{j=1}^N X_{ij} \lambda_i(t)$$ which can be computed in distributed fashion, see Equation . In particular, $z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)$ and $z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)$ are delayed versions of $\sum_{j=1}^N R_{ij} (\lambda_i(t))$ and $\sum_{j=1}^N X_{ij} (\lambda_i(t))$, respectively, as shown in the following lemma (proved in the extended version [@Magnusson2019Extended])
\[lemma:delayEqu\] If $\tau_{ij}(t)=0$ for all $i,j\in\mathcal{N}$ and $t\in {\mathbb{N}}$, then we have for all $i\in \mathcal{N}$ that
\[Eq:Delay\_Z\] $$\begin{aligned}
z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)=&\sum_{j=1 }^N R_{ij} \lambda_j(t-d_{ij}) ~~\text{ and }\\
z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)=&\sum_{j=1 }^N X_{ij} \lambda_j(t-d_{ij})
\end{aligned}$$
where $\lambda_j(t)=0$ for $t<0$ and $$d_{ij} = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } {\texttt{dist}}(i,j)\leq 1 \\
{\texttt{dist}}(i,j)-1 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ If $\tau_{ij}(t)\leq \tau_{\max}$ for all $i,j\in\mathcal{N}$ and $t\in {\mathbb{N}}$ then
\[Eq:Delay\_Z2\] $$\begin{aligned}
z_i{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)=\sum_{j=1 }^N R_{ij} \lambda_j(t-\bar{\tau}_{ij}(t)), \\
z_i{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)=\sum_{j=1 }^N X_{ij} \lambda_j(t-\bar{\tau}_{ij}(t)),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\bar{\tau}_{ij}(t)\leq (\tau_{\max}+1)d$.
The lemma shows that the **DIST-OPT** algorithm is equivalent to updating the dual variables ${\boldsymbol\lambda}=({\underline{{\lambda}}}_i,{\bar{{\lambda}}}_i)$ according to the recursion $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol\lambda}(t{+}1) =& \lceil {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)+ \gamma g(t) \rceil_+,\label{eq:delayed dual descent}
\end{aligned}$$ where $g(t)$ is an approximation of the dual gradient $\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))$ using old $\lambda$ values solve (cf. Equation and ). In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
(p(t),q(t)) =& \arg\min_{p,q} C{^{\texttt{P}}}(p) +C{^{\texttt{Q}}}(q) - z{^{\texttt{P}}}(t)\tran p - z{^{\texttt{Q}}}(t)\tran q \nonumber\\
\text{s.t.}\quad &{\underline{p}}\leq p\leq \bar{p} \nonumber \\
& {\underline{q}}\leq q\leq \bar{q} \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ and we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dualGradApprox}
g(t) = \left[\begin{array}{c} {\underline{v}}-{v}(p(t),q(t)) \\ {v}(p(t),q(t) )-{\bar{v}}\end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$ We use this interpretation of the **DIST-OPT** algorithm to prove Theorem \[MainTheorem\], see the extended version for details [@Magnusson2019Extended].
![Schematic diagram of two SCE distribution systems. []{data-label="fig:circuit"}](circuit56.png){width="\columnwidth"}
![Aggregated active load, reactive load and PV generation profile. []{data-label="fig:load"}](load_pv_profile.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Simulations {#Sec:Simulation}
===========
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
We evaluate our algorithm **DIST-OPT** on the full nonlinear AC power flow model (\[eq:LinBranchFlow\]), using Matpower [@5491276]. We do our experiments on the distribution circuit of South California Edison [@Farivar-2012-VVC-PES].[^6] All results are expressed as per-unit (p.u). The nominal voltage magnitude is $1 \text{p.u.}$ and the acceptable range is set as plus/minus 5% of the nominate value. We divide the simulation into two parts. In the first part, we use a realistic load and PV generation data over a one-day period, and evaluate the performance of our algorithm. In particular, we evaluate its ability to keep voltage within the acceptable limits and its robustness against communication delays, measurement noise and modeling error. In the second part, we focus on the optimality of the proposed algorithm, i.e. how well the algorithm can minimize the optimization problem in Equation . Note that since now we are considering the full AC-nonlinear power flow in Equation , the optimization problem is nonconvex.
Performance and Robustness under Time-Varying Load and PV Generation {#subsec:simu_timevarying}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
\
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
We consider the case where a subset of the buses have PV generation (bus 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 32). We use the load and PV generation profile in [@bernstein2017real]. The time span of the data set is one day (24 hours), and the time resolution is $6$ seconds. We plot the total load and PV generation profile across the buses in Figure \[fig:load\]. We assume that there are control components at all the buses and those control components can supply or consume at most $0.1$ p.u. active power and reactive power (i.e. $\bar{p}_i=0.1$, $\underline{p}_i = -0.1$, $\bar{q}_i = 0.1, \underline{q}_i = -0.1$). The parameter $a_i^P, a_i^Q$ is synthetic data in the range of $[1,2]$, and $b_i^P$ and $b_i^Q$ is set as $0$. Consistent with the time resolution of the dataset, the buses perform one iteration of the **DIST-OPT** algorithm every 6 seconds.
Figure \[fig:dynamic\] depicts the progress of the algorithm when there are no communication delays. The total serial running time of our algorithm is 5.383 seconds, running all 14400 iterations on all 55 buses. [^7] This means that computing 1 iteration takes roughly 7 microseconds on each bus. This is negligible compared to the 6 second time resolution. The resulting active injection and reactive power injection and voltage profile are shown in Figure \[fig:dynamic\_p\], \[fig:dynamic\_q\] and \[fig:dynamic\_v\], respectively. For comparison, we also simulate the voltage profile when no control is applied in Figure \[fig:dynamic\_v\_withoutcontrol\]. A comparison between Figure \[fig:dynamic\_v\] and Figure \[fig:dynamic\_v\_withoutcontrol\] shows that our algorithm can maintain the voltages within the upper and lower limit over almost the whole day. The only exception is around 16:00 where the voltages overshoot the feasible range for only a short period of time. During this time the PV generations are changing very rapidly as can be seen from Figure \[fig:load\]. However, our algorithm drives the voltages back to the feasible range in only few iterations. Further, Figure \[fig:dynamic\_p\] and Figure \[fig:dynamic\_q\] show that our algorithm does not violate the active and reactive capacity constraints at any time. We next test the robustness of our algorithm against communication delay, measurement noise and modeling error. In these tests, we use the same simulation setting as that of Figure \[fig:dynamic\].
*Robustness against communication delays.* We test two cases with different types of communication delays. In Figure \[fig:robust\_delay\_fixed\], we set the communication delays between each pair of buses $i$ and $j$ at different times to be a constant $\tau_{ij}(t) = 5$ (30 seconds). In Figure \[fig:robust\_delay\_random\], the delays $\tau_{ij}(t)$ are drawn independently and uniformly from $[0,\tau_{max}]$, where $\tau_{max}$ is the maximum delay and is set as $15$ (90 seconds). It can be seen that Figure \[fig:robust\_delay\_fixed\] has no significant difference from Figure \[fig:dynamic\_v\], while Figure \[fig:robust\_delay\_random\] exhibits small oscillations but are still able to maintain the voltage within the acceptable range. A delay of $5$ iterations means $30$ seconds, and a delay of $15$ iterations means $90$ seconds. These show our algorithm is robust against large communication delays. *Robustness against intermittent communication.* In Figure \[fig:robust\_asyn\] we consider intermittent communication, where the nodes communicate only every $5$th iteration (with no communication delay). When no communication occurs then the nodes update their control based on the last received communicated information. This means that the nodes communicates only once every $30$ seconds. This reduces the communication by $80\%$ compared to communicating at every iteration. Compared to Figure \[fig:dynamic\_v\], Figure \[fig:robust\_asyn\] exhibits small oscillations but the voltage is still maintained within the acceptable range. These show that when implementing our algorithm, each node does not need to communicate at every iteration, and can simply communicate every a few iterations (e.g. $5$ iterations, 30 seconds as in Figure \[fig:robust\_asyn\]), which greatly reduces the communication burden.
*Robustness againt measurement noise.* We test a case where the measurement is corrupted by Gaussian noise with stand error 0.01 p.u. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:robust\_noise\]. Compared to \[fig:dynamic\_v\], Figure \[fig:robust\_noise\] exhibits some small oscillations but still are able to maintain the voltage within the acceptable range.
*Robustness against modeling error.* We test a case where the $X_{ii}$ and $R_{ii}$ used in the algorithm are inaccurate, and are drawn from $[0.8,1.2]$ of the true value. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:robust\_modelerr\]. It can be seen that Figure \[fig:robust\_modelerr\] has no significant difference from Figure \[fig:dynamic\_v\].
In these simulations the algorithm performs one iteration during every 6 second time window. However, since the computation time is very quick $(\approx 7$ microseconds) we can easily perform hundreds of iterations per each 6 second time window provided that the communication is fast enough. Even if the communication is slow compared to the computation, these simulations show that it is fine if the nodes do not communicate at every iteration or if they do not wait for the received communication before performing their computation. This means that it is often reasonable to do multiple iterations per time window. However, the simulations show that performing one iteration per time window is often enough.
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
Optimality Under AC Power Model
-------------------------------
Theorem \[MainTheorem\] ensures that the **DIST-OPT** algorithm drives the system operating point to the solution of a optimization problem assuming that the power flow model is the linear. In this subsection, we test whether the optimality still holds under the nonlinear model, i.e. whether the fixed point of the algorithm is still the solution of the optimization problem the power flow equation is the full AC model.
To this end, we run three tests. In all the tests, we use a time-invariant load profile. In the first test, we set for each $i$, $\bar{p}_i = 0.1$, $\underline{p_i} = -0.1$ and $\bar{q}_i = \underline{q}_i = 0$, i.e., we only use active power $p$ injection to do the control. In the second test, we set $\bar{p}_i = \underline{p}_i = 0$ $\bar{q}_i = 0.1$, $\underline{q_i} = -0.1$, i.e., we use only reactive power $q$ to do the control. In the third test, we set $\bar{p}_i = 0.1$, $\underline{p_i} = -0.1$, $\bar{q}_i = 0.1$, $\underline{q_i} = -0.1$, i.e., we use both active power and reactive power to do the control. The cost function of the three cases are shown in Figure \[fig:static\_cost\], where the dashed line depict the optimal solution of under nonlinear AC Power Flow Model , using the SOCP relaxation in [@low2014convex]. It is seen from Figure \[fig:static\_ponly\_cost\] and Figure \[fig:static\_qonly\_cost\] that if we do only active power control or only reactive power control then **DIST-OPT** drives the system to the optimum whereas if we do joint active-reactive power control then **DIST-OPT** drives the system to a non-optimum point. To further support the above observation we re-do the three tests under $10$ randomly generated load conditions. We consider the relative absolute error $$\Big|\frac{Cost - Opt}{Opt}\Big| \times 100\%$$ where $Cost$ is the cost function achieved by running **DIST-OPT** for 4000 iterations, and $Opt$ is the optimal solution obtained by the SOCP relaxation. Our results indicate that the active-power-only and reactive-power-only controls achieve an 2.7% and 4.3% relative absolute error on average, respectively. However, joint active-reactive control achieves an 59.92% relative absolute error on average.
All these tests show that when doing active-power-only or reactive-power-only control, **DIST-OPT** can drive the system to (nearly) the optimum, and hence the conclusion of Theorem \[MainTheorem\] still holds under nonlinear AC power flow models. However, when doing joint active-reactive control, **DIST-OPT** may fail to reach the optimum. We conjecture this may be due to that the linearized power flow model that we used to develop our algorithm does not capture well some nonlinearities in the coupling between $p$ and $q$ in the full AC mode . Nevertheless, our algorithm does a good voltage regulations when we do a joint $p$ and $q$ control, as illustrated by our experiments in the previous section. Finally, we comment that reaching the optimal solution of an optimal power flow problem with nonlinear AC power flow equation is a very difficult non-convex problem, and to date there has been only limited theoretic understanding [@low2014convex]. Our results only empirically show **DIST-OPT** may reach the optimal solution under some circumstances. However to theoretically understand the optimality of **DIST-OPT** under nonlinear AC power flow remains challenging and interesting future work.
Test on the extended algorithm
------------------------------
In this subsection, we test the more generalized algorithm discussed in Section \[subsec:general\]. We use the same setting as that in Figure \[fig:dynamic\] in Section \[subsec:simu\_timevarying\], except that we add the following apparent power constraint, $$p_i^2 + q_i^2\leq \bar{s}_{i}^2$$ where $\bar{s}_{i}$ is set as $0.12$ (slightly larger than the box constraint on $p_i, q_i$). We run the extended algorithm described in Section \[subsec:general\] with the modified STEP 2 in . The resulting voltage trajectory is given in Figure \[fig:dynamic\_ap\_v\], and trajectories of active power $p_i$, reactive power $q_i$, and apparent power $s_i = \sqrt{p_i^2 + q_i^2}$ are given in Figure \[fig:dynamic\_ap\_pqs\]. The results show that the extended algorithm can meet the additional apparent power constraint while still guaranteeing the voltage lies between the upper and lower limit.
![Voltage profile of the extended **DIST-OPT** algorithm with apparent power constraint.[]{data-label="fig:dynamic_ap_v"}](dynamic_ap_v.png){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\textwidth"}
Colusion
========
We studied distributed voltage control algorithms where the buses perform local voltage control based only on local measurements and communication to neighbours in the network. We proved that our algorithms converge to an optimal voltage profile under linear power flow model even if the communication is asynchronous or delayed. The good performance of our algorithm and its robustness to asynchronous communications was further illustrated in simulations under realistic operation conditions using the full nonlinear AC power flow model. Our simulations showed that our algorithm could reduced $80\%$ of the communication compared to a synchronous algorithm while achieving similar performance. In future work we will study how we can extend our algorithms to cover more dynamic loads such as vehicle charging or smart appliances.
Convergence: Proof Theorem \[MainTheorem\] {#Sec:Conv}
==========================================
We now show that the algorithm converges to the optimal solution to Problem . The proof follows similar ideas as used in [@Low_1999] to prove the convergence of asynchronous dual decomposition for internet data flow. However, we note that our problem is not a special case of the internet data flow problem and the proof ideas need to be adjusted to our problem to work. In particular, the proof is based on the following two lemmas, proved in appendices \[APPLemma:Gradient\] and \[APP:Lemma:Descent\], respectively.
\[Lemma:Gradient\] For all $t\in {\mathbb{N}}$ following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
||\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)){-}g(t)|| \leq L\sqrt{N} \sum_{\tau=t-t_0}^{t-1} ||{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau){-}{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau+1)||,
\end{aligned}$$ where $t_0=d(\tau_{\max}+1)$, $$L=2\left(\frac{||R||^2+||X||^2}{a_{\min}}\right),$$ and $g(t)$ is the approximate dual gradient in Equation .
\[Lemma:Descent\] For all $t\in {\mathbb{N}}$ following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t{+}1)) \geq& D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(0)) {+} \bigg(\frac{1}{\gamma}{-}\frac{L}{2} {-}(\tau_{\max}(d{+}1){+}1) L \sqrt{N} \bigg) \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \times~\sum_{\tau=0}^{t} ||{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau+1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau)||^2
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, from the Slaters condition in Equation the duality gap is zero and, hence, if $\gamma$ is chosen as in Equation then $$\sum_{\tau=0}^{\infty} ||{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau{+}1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau)||^2<\infty \text{ and }\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} ||{\boldsymbol\lambda}(t{+}1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)||=0.$$
The two lemmas show that the approximate $g(t)$ converges to the true gradient $\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))$ as $t$ goes to infinity, i.e., $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }||\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-g(t)||=0.$$ In particular, Lemma \[Lemma:Gradient\] shows that the distance between $g(t)$ and $\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))$ is bounded by the finite sum $$\sum_{\tau=t-t_0}^{t-1} ||{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau+1)||,$$ times a constant factor. Lemma \[Lemma:Descent\] the shows that the terms of the sum converge to zero when $\gamma$ is chosen as in Equation . Therefore, the sum also converges to $0$, since it has only $t_0$ terms. We now use these results to proof the theorem.
We start by showing that every limit point of ${\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)$ is an optimal solution to the dual problem. Note that the sequence ${\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)$ is bounded since from Lemma \[Lemma:Descent\] $${\boldsymbol\lambda}(t) \in\{{\boldsymbol\lambda}\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^{2N} | D({\boldsymbol\lambda})\geq D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(0))\}~~\text{ for all }~~t\in {\mathbb{N}}$$ and every level sets is bounded [@nonlinear_bertsekas Proposition B.9].[^8] Let ${\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star}$ be some limit point of ${\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)$ and let ${\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i)$ be a subsequence that converges to ${\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star}$. Then we have from the continuity of $\nabla D(\cdot)$ that $ \lim_{i \rightarrow \infty } \nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i))=\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star}).$ The gradient approximate sequence $g(t_i)$ also converges to $\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star})$, since from the triangle inequality we get $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} ||\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star})-g(t_i))|| \leq \lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} ||\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star})-\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i))|| \\
+ \lim_{i \rightarrow \infty }||\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i))-g(t_i)|| =0
\end{gathered}$$ where the second limit convergence to zero because of lemmas \[Lemma:Gradient\] and \[Lemma:Descent\]. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lceil {\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star}+\gamma \nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star})\rceil_+ -{\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star} =& \lim_{i\rightarrow \infty} \lceil {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i)+\gamma g(t_i)\rceil_+-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i) \\
=& \lim_{i\rightarrow \infty} {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i+1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(t_i)=0,
\end{aligned}$$ from Lemma \[Lemma:Descent\]. From the projection theorem [@nonlinear_bertsekas Proposition 2.1.3] we have that $$\langle \nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star}),{\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star}-{\boldsymbol\lambda})\geq 0,~~\text{ for all }~~ {\boldsymbol\lambda}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2N},$$ which implies that ${\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star}$ is the optimal solution to the dual problem [@nonlinear_bertsekas Proposition 2.1.2].
We can now show that $q(t)$ converges to $q^{\star}$. The sequence $q(t)$ is bounded since it is in $[{\underline{q}} ,\bar{q}]$. Moreover, since the function $q(\cdot)$ is continuous, see Equation , and from strong duality, every subsequence of $q(t)$ convergences to $q^{\star}=q({\boldsymbol\lambda}^{\star})$. Therefore, we can conclude that $q(t)$ converges to $q^{\star}$.
Proof of Lemma \[Lemma:DualMain\] {#APP:Lemma:DualMain}
=================================
The gradient of the Lagrangian function in Equation with respect to $p$ and $q$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\mathcal{L}(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda})
{=} \left[\begin{array}{c}\nabla^p \mathcal{L}(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda}) \\ \nabla^q \mathcal{L}(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda})\end{array}\right]
{=}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\Lambda}{^{\texttt{P}}}p{+}b{^{\texttt{P}}}{+}R(\bar{{\lambda}}{-}{\underline{{\lambda}}}) \\
{\Lambda}{^{\texttt{Q}}}q{+}b{^{\texttt{Q}}}{+}X(\bar{{\lambda}}{-}{\underline{{\lambda}}})
\end{array}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ From Proposition 6.1.1 in [@nonlinear_bertsekas] the dual gradient is $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla D({\lambda}) = \left[\begin{array}{c} {\underline{v}}-{v}(p^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda})) \\ {v}(p^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}) )-{\bar{v}}\end{array}\right] \end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:inProofOpt}
(p^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}), q^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}) )= \underset{(p,q)\in[{\underline{p}},{\bar{p}}]\times [{\underline{q}},{\bar{q}}]}{\text{argmin }} \mathcal{L}(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda}). \vspace{-0.2cm}$$ Therefore, to prove Equation it suffices to show that $$p^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda})=p({\boldsymbol\lambda}) ~~\text{ and }~~{q}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda})={q}({\boldsymbol\lambda})$$ or, equivalently, to show that $(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}))$ is an optimal solution to Problem (its solution is unique since $a_{\min}>0$). By Proposition 2.1.2. in [@nonlinear_bertsekas] $(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}))$ is an optimal solution to Problem if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \nabla\mathcal{L}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}),{\boldsymbol\lambda}),
\left[\begin{array}{c} p{-}p({\boldsymbol\lambda}) \\
q{-}q({\boldsymbol\lambda})
\end{array} \right]
\right\rangle\geq 0 \end{aligned}$$ for all $(p,q)\in [{\underline{p}},{\bar{p}}] \times [{\underline{q}},{\bar{q}}]$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \nabla\mathcal{L}(p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda}),
\left[\begin{array}{c} p{-}p({\boldsymbol\lambda}) \\
q{-}q({\boldsymbol\lambda})
\end{array} \right]
\right\rangle {=}& \sum_{i=1}^N \nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p,q,\lambda) (p_i-p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})) \\
&{+} \sum_{i=1}^N \nabla_i^q \mathcal{L}(p,q,\lambda) (q_i{-}q_i({\boldsymbol\lambda}))
\end{aligned}$$ and hence it suffices to prove that each term of the two sums above is positive. We prove that each term of the first sum is positive, the proof for the second sum is identical. In particular, we prove that each term of the sum is positive by considering separately the following three cases:
1. If $p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})\in ({\underline{p}}_i,\bar{p}_i)$ then we show that $$\nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}),{q}({\boldsymbol\lambda}),{\boldsymbol\lambda})=0.$$
2. If $p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})={\underline{p}}_i$ then we show that $$\nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}),{\boldsymbol\lambda})\geq 0.$$
3. If $p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})=\bar{p}_i$ then we show that $$\nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}),{\boldsymbol\lambda})\leq 0.$$
We now conclude the proof by proving a), b), and c) below.
Note that $p({\boldsymbol\lambda})=\left[p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}) \right]_{{\underline{p}}}^{{\bar{p}}}$ where $$p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}):= \underset{p\in {\mathbb{R}}^n}{\text{argmin }} \mathcal{L} (p,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda}) = {\Lambda_{\texttt{P}}}^{-1} R( {\underline{{\lambda}}}-{\bar{{\lambda}}}) -b{^{\texttt{P}}}$$ is the unconstrained optimizer of $\mathcal{L}(\cdot,q,{\boldsymbol\lambda})$ (the optimal solution is independent of $q$). If $p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})\in ({\underline{p}}_i,\bar{p}_i)$ then $p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})=[p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda})]_i$. Using that ${\Lambda}_{\texttt{P}}$ is a diagonal we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q({\boldsymbol\lambda}),{\boldsymbol\lambda}) =& a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})+b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}+[R(\bar{{\lambda}}-{\underline{{\lambda}}})]_i \\
=& a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}[p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda})]_i+b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}+[R(\bar{{\lambda}}-{\underline{{\lambda}}})]_i = 0
\end{aligned}$$ since $\nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p^{\star}_{\text{UC}}({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q,{\boldsymbol\lambda}) =0$ and $p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\lambda})$ is the optimizer.
If $p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})={\underline{p}}_i$ then $[p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda})]_i \leq p({\boldsymbol\lambda})$. Therefore, since $a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}>0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 =& \nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q,{\boldsymbol\lambda})
= a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}[p_{\text{UC}}^{\star}({\boldsymbol\lambda})]_i+b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}+[R(\bar{{\lambda}}-{\underline{{\lambda}}})]_i, \\
\leq& a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda})+b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}+[R(\bar{{\lambda}}-{\underline{{\lambda}}})]_i = \nabla_i^p \mathcal{L}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}),q,{\boldsymbol\lambda})
\end{aligned}$$ Condition c) follows from similar arguments as condition b).
Finally we show that $\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda})$ is $L$-Lipschitz continuous. Take ${\boldsymbol\lambda}_1=({\underline{{\lambda}}}_1,\bar{{\lambda}}_1), {\boldsymbol\lambda}_2=({\underline{{\lambda}}}_2,\bar{{\lambda}}_2)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^{2n}$, then from Equations and $$\begin{aligned}
||\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}_1){-}\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}_2)|| \leq& \sqrt{2}|| {v}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}_1),{q}({\boldsymbol\lambda}_1)){-}{v}(p({\boldsymbol\lambda}_1),{q}({\boldsymbol\lambda}_2))|| \\
\leq& \sqrt{2} \big(||R||~|| p({\boldsymbol\lambda}_1)-p({\boldsymbol\lambda}_2)|| \\ &~~~~~~~~~~~ +||X||~|| {q}({\boldsymbol\lambda}_1)-{q}({\boldsymbol\lambda}_2)||)\\
\leq& \sqrt{2} \left( \frac{||R||^2 {+}||X||^2}{a_{\min}} \right)~|| {\underline{\lambda}}_1{-}{\underline{\lambda}}_2{+}\bar{\lambda}_2{-}\bar{\lambda}_1||\\
\leq& 2 \left( \frac{||R||^2 +||X||^2}{a_{\min}} \right) ~|| {\boldsymbol\lambda}_1-{\boldsymbol\lambda}_2||,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the triangle inequality in the first and last inequality and the fact that $||\Lambda_{\texttt{P}}^{-1}||,||\Lambda_{\texttt{Q}}^{-1}||\leq1/a_{\min}$ to obtain the 3rd inequality.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:delayEqu\] {#APP:lemma:delayEqu}
=================================
We need the following definition.
Consider a rooted tree $\mathcal{T}=(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E})$.
- For each node $i\in \mathcal{N}$ we define the set of **$r$-th descendants** of $i$ as follows $$\mathcal{C}_i^r=\{ j\in \mathcal{N} : \sigma^r(j)=i\}.$$ Moreover, define the set of $i$ and all of its descendants as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}(i)=&\bigcup_{k=0}^{\infty} \mathcal{C}_i^r
\end{aligned}$$
- We define the **height** of a node $i\in \mathcal{N}$ as follows $$\texttt{Height}(i)=\max\{n\in {\mathbb{N}}: C_i^n \neq \emptyset \}.$$
- We define the **depth** of node $i\in \mathcal{N}$ as the distance from $i$ to the root node $R\in \mathcal{R}$, i.e., $$\texttt{Depth}(i)={\texttt{dist}}(i,R).$$
- We define the **most recent common ancestor** of nodes $i,j\in \mathcal{N}$ as follows $$\texttt{MRCA}(i,j)=\underset{k\in \mathcal{A}_i \cap \mathcal{A}_j}{\text{argmax}} ~\texttt{Depth}(k),$$ where $\mathcal{A}_i=\{k\in \mathcal{N}: \sigma^r(i)=k \text{ for some }r\in {\mathbb{N}}\}$ is the set of ancestors of node $i$.
Using the notation from the definition, we have the following claims (proved in the sequel):
- **Claim 1:** For $\alpha_i(t)$ defined in Equation we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_i(t)+\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i} \alpha_j(t) = \sum_{j\in \mathcal{D}(i)} \lambda_{j}(t-d_{ij}),
\end{aligned}$$ where we set $\lambda_j(t)=0$ for $t<0$.
- **Claim 2:** For $\beta_i(t)$ defined in Equation we have $$\beta_i(t)= \sum_{k=1}^{\texttt{Depth}(i)} \chi_{\sigma^k(i)} \sum_{j\in \mathcal{D}(i,k)} \lambda(t-d_{ij}),$$ where $\chi=[X_{11},\ldots,X_{NN}]$ and $\mathcal{D}(i,k)=\mathcal{D}(\sigma^k(i)) \setminus \mathcal{D}(\sigma^{k-1}(i))$ and $\lambda_j(t)=0$ for $t<0$.
- **Claim 3:** We have $X_{ij}=X_{kk}$ where $k=\texttt{MRCA}(i,j)$, i.e., $X_{ij}=\chi_{\texttt{MRCA}(i,j)}$.
Plug in the equations from the three claims into Equation proves equations and . We now prove the claims.
The equation follows from the following equation (proved in the sequel) $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_i(t)=&\lambda_i(t)+\sum_{r=1}^{\texttt{Height}(i)} \sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i^r} \lambda_j(t-r), \\
=& \sum_{j\in \mathcal{D}(i)} \lambda_{j}(t-{\texttt{dist}}(i,j)).
\end{aligned}$$ We proof the result by induction over $\texttt{Height(i)}$. Suppose first that $\texttt{Height(i)}=0$, i.e., node $i$ is a leave. Then the result follows from Equation . Suppose now that the equation holds for $\texttt{Height(i)}=r$. Then from Equation $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_i(t) =& \lambda_i(t)+\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i} \alpha_j(t) \\
=& \lambda_i(t)+\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i} \lambda_j(t-1) + \sum_{r=2}^{\texttt{Height}(i)} \sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i^r} \lambda_j(t-r) \\
=& \lambda_i(t)+\sum_{r=1}^{\texttt{Height}(i)} \sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}_i^r} \lambda_j(t-r)
\end{aligned}$$ where we use the induction premises in the second equality.
Writing out the recursion in Equation and using that $\beta_j(t)=0$, for all $t$, if $i$ if $i$ has no parent (i.e., if $j$ is the root) then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_i(t){=}& \hspace{-0.2cm} \sum_{k=1}^{\texttt{Depth}(i)} \hspace{-0.2cm} \chi_{\sigma^k(i)} \left(\lambda_{\sigma^k(i)}(t+1-k)+ \hspace{-0.7cm} \sum_{ r\in \mathcal{C}_{\sigma^k(i)} \setminus \{\sigma^{k-1}(i)\}} \hspace{-0.7cm} \alpha_j(t-k) \right) \\
{=}& \hspace{-0.2cm} \sum_{k=1}^{\texttt{Depth}(i)} \vspace{-0.2cm} \chi_{\sigma^k(i)} \vspace{-0.4cm} \sum_{j\in \mathcal{D}(i,k) } \vspace{-0.5cm} \lambda_{\sigma^k(i)}(t{+}1{-}(k{+}\overbrace{{\texttt{dist}}(\sigma^k(i),j)}^{={\texttt{dist}}(i,j)}))
\end{aligned}$$
Follows from that ${X}_{ij}=2 \sum_{(h,k)\in\mathcal{P}_i\cap \mathcal{P}_j} x_{hk}$ and that $\texttt{MRCA}(i,j)$ is the end point of the intersection of the two paths $\mathcal{P}_i$ and $\mathcal{P}_j$.
Proof of Lemma \[Lemma:Gradient\] {#APPLemma:Gradient}
=================================
From equations and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
||\nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)){-}g(t)|| =& \sqrt{2} || v(q({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)))-v(q(t))|| \\
\leq& \sqrt{N} L \sum_{\tau=t-t_0}^{t-1} || {\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau){-}{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau{+}1)||
\end{aligned}$$ where the $\sqrt{2}$ factor in the first equation comes from the duplication of $v(\cdot)$ in equations and and the second equation comes from the following three inequalities (proved below): $$\begin{aligned}
&||v(q({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))){-}v(q(t))|| \leq ||R|| || p({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-p(t)|| \notag \\ &\hspace{4.2cm} + ||X|| || q({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-q(t)||, \label{eq:VdelayBound}\\
& \hspace{-0.25cm} ||p({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)){-}p(t)|| {\leq} \frac{ \sqrt{2N} ||R||}{a_{min}} \sum_{\tau=t-t_0}^{t-1} || {\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau){-}{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau{+}1)|| , \label{eq:PdelayBound} \\
& \hspace{-0.25cm} ||q({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)){-}q(t)|| {\leq} \frac{\sqrt{2N} ||X||}{a_{min}} \sum_{\tau=t-t_0}^{t-1} || {\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau){-}{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau{+}1)|| . \label{eq:QdelayBound}
\end{aligned}$$
Equation follows from the definition of $v(\cdot)$ in Equation and the fact that $||\cdot||$ is the induced matrix norm. To prove Equation , Equation is provide similarly, we recall that from Equation and Lemma \[lemma:delayEqu\] we have $$p_i(t)=\left[ \frac{1}{a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}} \sum_{j=1}^N R_{ij} \lambda_j(t-\bar\tau_{ji}(t)) -b_i{^{\texttt{P}}}\right]_{{\underline{q}}_i}^{\bar{q}_i},$$ where $\bar\tau_{ij}(t)\leq t_0=d(\tau_{\max}+1)$. Therefore, focussing on component $i$ of the vector $p({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-p(t)$ and using the non-expansion property of the projection we get $$\begin{aligned}
|p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-p_i(t)|
\leq& \frac{||R||}{a_{\min}} \sum_{j=1}^N |\lambda_j(t)-\lambda_j(t-\bar\tau_{ji}(t)) |\\
\leq& \frac{||R||}{a_{\min}} \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{k=t-\bar\tau_{ji}}^{t-1} |\lambda_j(k+1)-\lambda_j(k) | \\
\leq& \frac{||R||\sqrt{N}}{a_{\min}} \sum_{k=t-t_0}^{t-1} || \lambda(k+1)-\lambda(k) || \\
\leq& \frac{ ||R||\sqrt{2 N}}{a_{\min}} \sum_{k=t-t_0}^{t-1} || {\boldsymbol\lambda}(k+1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(k) ||
\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality comes by the definitions of $p_i({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))$ and $p_i(t)$, the the triangle inequality, and the fact that $1/a_i{^{\texttt{P}}}\leq 1/a_{\min}$ for all $i$. The second inequality comes by using the triangle inequality. The third inequality comes by adding extra terms to the inner sum (every term is positive) so it runs from $k=t-t_0$ to $t$, swapping the sums, and using the equivalence of norms, i.e., $||\cdot||_1\leq \sqrt{N}||\cdot ||$. The final inequality is obtained by noting that $\lambda(k)={\underline{\lambda}}(k){-}\bar{\lambda}(k)$ so $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.3cm} || \lambda(k{+}1){-}\lambda(k) ||^2
\hspace{-0.1cm} \leq & 2( || {\underline{\lambda}}(k{+}1){-}{\underline{\lambda}}(k)||^2{+}|| \bar{\lambda}(k{+}1){-}\bar{\lambda}(k)||^2 ) \\
=& 2 ||{\boldsymbol\lambda}(k+1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(k)||^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Equation can now be obtained by using the equivalence of the $||\cdot||_{\infty}$ and $||\cdot||$ norms as in the prove of Equation .
Proof of Lemma \[Lemma:Descent\] {#APP:Lemma:Descent}
================================
Set $\Delta(k)={\boldsymbol\lambda}(k+1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(k)$. From the convexity of $-D(\cdot)$ we have [@Book_Nesterov_2004 Theorem 2.1.5] $$\begin{aligned}
-D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t{+}1)) \leq&{-} D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)){-}\langle \nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)), \Delta(t)\rangle {+} \frac{L}{2} || \Delta(t) ||^2 \\
=& - D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-\langle \nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-g(t),\Delta(t)\rangle \\
&-\langle g(t), \Delta(t) \rangle+ \frac{L}{2} || \Delta(t) ||^2\\
\leq& - D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))+|| \nabla D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t))-g(t)||~ ||\Delta(t)|| \\
& -\left(\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{L}{2}\right) ||\Delta(t)||^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we have used $ \frac{1}{\gamma} ||\Delta(t)||^2\leq \langle g(t),\Delta(t) \rangle$, which is obtained by noting that ${\boldsymbol\lambda}(t+1)= \lceil {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)+ \gamma g(t) \rceil_+$ (Equation ) and hence from the projection theorem in [@nonlinear_bertsekas Lemma 2.1.3 (b)] we have $$\begin{aligned}
0\geq& \langle {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)+ \gamma g(t)- {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t+1), {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t) - {\boldsymbol\lambda}(t+1) \rangle \\
=& -\gamma \langle g(t),\Delta(t) \rangle + ||\Delta(t)||^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Expanding further by using Lemma \[Lemma:Gradient\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
-D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t{+}1)) \leq& - D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)) -\left(\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{L}{2}\right) ||\Delta(t)||^2 \\
& +L\sqrt{N} \sum_{k=t-t_0}^{t-1} ||\Delta(k)||~ ||\Delta(t)|| \\
\leq& - D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t)) -\left(\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{L}{2}\right) ||\Delta(t)||^2 \\
& + L\sqrt{N} \sum_{\tau=t-t_0}^{t} ||\Delta(k)||^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where the final inequality is obtained by using the fact that for any $s_{t-t_0},\ldots,s_t\in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ it holds that $ \sum_{k=t-t_0}^{t-1} s_k s_t \leq \sum_{k=t-t_0}^{t} s_k^2 .$ If we sum over $t$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
-D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(t{+}1)) \leq& - D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(0)) -\left(\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{L}{2}\right) \sum_{k=0}^{t} ||\Delta(k)||^2 \\
& +L\sqrt{N} \sum_{k_1=0}^{t}\sum_{k_2=\tau_1-t_0}^{k_1} ||\Delta(k)||^2, \\
\leq& {-} D({\boldsymbol\lambda}(0)) {-} \left(\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{L}{2}-(t_0{+}1) L\sqrt{N} \right) \allowdisplaybreaks \\
&~~~\times \sum_{\tau=0}^{t} ||{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau+1)-{\boldsymbol\lambda}(\tau)||^2,
\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
[Sindri Magnússon]{} received the B.Sc. degree in Mathematics from University of Iceland, Reykjavík Iceland, in 2011, the Masters degree in Applied Mathematics (Optimization and Systems Theory) from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Sweden, in 2013, and the PhD in Electrical Engineering from the same institution, in 2017. He was a postdoctoral researcher 2018-2019 at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA and a visiting PhD student at Harvard University for 9 months in 2015 and 2016. His research interests include large scale distributed/parallel optimization, machine learning, and control, both theory and applications.
[Guannan Qu]{} received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Tsinghua University in Beijing, China in 2014, and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2019. Since 2019 he has been a postdoctoral scholar in the Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences at California Institute of Technology. His research interest lies in control, optimization, and learning particularly in network systems.
[Na Li]{} received the B.S. degree in mathematics and applied mathematics from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, in 2007 and the Ph.D. degree in control and dynamical systems from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, in 2013. She is an Associate Professor with the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University. She was a Postdoctoral Associate with the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her research interests include the design, analysis, optimization, and control of distributed network systems, with particular applications to cyber-physical network systems. She received National Science Foundation CAREER Award in 2016, AFOSR Young Investigator Award (2017), Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 2019, Donald P. Eckman Award in 2019 among others.
[^1]: \*The work was supported by NSF 1608509, NSF CAREER 1553407, and ARPA-E through the NODES program, and the Harvard Climate Change Solution Funds.
[^2]: Sindri Magnússon is with the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer science at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. This work was partly performed while Sindri Magnússon was a postdoc fellow at Harvard University. (Email: [email protected])
Guannan Qu is with the Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences at California Institute of Technology. This work was partly performed while Guannan Qu was a PhD student at Harvard University. (Email: [email protected])
Na Li is with the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science (Email: [email protected])
[^3]: The active power (and the reactive power similarly) can be decomposed into $p=p^{\text{Adj.}}+p^{\text{Con.}}$ where $p^{\text{Adj.}}$ is adjustable reactive power and $p^{\text{Con.}}$ is the fixed reactive power consumption.
[^4]: If node $i$ has no parent then set $\hat{\beta}{^{\texttt{P}}}_{i}(t)=\hat{\beta}{^{\texttt{Q}}}_{i}(t)=0$.
[^5]: We show in Section \[Sec:AI\] that ${\underline{\lambda}}_i$, $\bar{\lambda}_i$ are prices (or the dual variables) for violating the voltage constraint ${\underline{v}}\leq v(q)\leq \bar{v}$.
[^6]: See [@Farivar-2012-VVC-PES] for the network data including the line impedance, the peak MVA demand of the loads and the nameplate capacity of the shunt capacitors.
[^7]: All simulations are done using MATLAB 2018b on a HP Z640 Workstation with Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz. It should be remarked that the total time of running the simulations was 264.696 seconds. However, 259.313 seconds were spent calculating the power flow through Matpower. This computation is not part of our algorithm. It is simply the output of the physics of the power system and is obtained from measurements when our algorithm is implemented in a real power system.
[^8]: Note that from Slaters condition (Equation ) the set of optimal solutions to the dual problem is bounded, see Lemma 1 in [@nedic2009approximate].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Wavelength-scale SBS waveguides are enabling novel on-chip functionalities. The micro- and nano-scale SBS structures and the complexity of the SBS waveguides require a characterization technique to monitor the local geometry-dependent SBS responses along the waveguide. In this work, we experimentally demonstrate detection of longitudinal features down to on a silicon-chalcogenide waveguide using the Brillouin optical correlation domain analysis (BOCDA) technique. We provide extensive simulation and analysis of how multiple acoustic and optical modes and geometrical variations influence the Brillouin spectrum.'
author:
- 'Atiyeh Zarifi$^{1,2,\ast}$, Birgit Stiller$^{1,2}$, Moritz Merklein$^{1,2}$, Yang Liu$^{1,2}$, Blair Morrison$^{1,2}$, Alvaro Casas-Bedoya$^{1,2}$, Ganghui Ren$^{3}$, Thach G. Nguyen$^{3}$, Khu Vu$^{4}$, Duk-Yong Choi$^{4}$, Arnan Mitchell$^{3}$, Stephen J. Madden$^{4}$ and Benjamin J. Eggleton$^{1,2}$\'
bibliography:
- 'JOSAB\_REF.bib'
title: 'On-chip correlation-based Brillouin sensing: design, experiment and simulation'
---
Stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) is an inelastic scattering process in which a pump photon interacts with an acoustic phonon and generates a Stokes photon. The generated photon is down-shifted from the pump frequency by the acoustic resonance frequency and its linewidth is dependent upon the acoustic phonon lifetime in the medium [@Agrawal]. The hypersonic () frequency shift resulting from the SBS process provides a bridge between electronics and photonics enabling powerful applications such as pure microwave sources [@Li2013; @Merklein2016] and tunable radio frequency (RF) filters [@Marpaung2015a; @Sancho2012a]. The narrow linewidth of the SBS process makes it suitable for Brillouin-based lasers [@Kabakova2013; @Lee2012; @Loh2015a; @Otterstrom2018; @Morrison2017] and frequency comb generation [@Buttner2014; @Braje2009]. Furthermore, the difference between the light and sound velocity enables light storage applications in photonics waveguides [@Harrison2013; @Dong2015a; @Merklein2016b]. Finally, since the SBS frequency shift is an intrinsic characteristic of the medium, SBS has become an ideal sensing mechanism in optical fiber networks [@Hotate2013; @Bao1993; @Nikles1996b; @Kurashima1990; @Thevenaz1999; @Cohen2014a; @Zhang2018e; @Song2006; @Motil2016]. Since the SBS response is sensitive to environmental variables such as temperature and strain, it has been adopted as a distributed sensing mechanism in long optical fibers to monitor critical structures such as buildings and bridges [@Thevenaz1999; @Bao1993; @Song2006].
The spatial resolution required in structural health monitoring ranges from a few meters to a few depending on the application [@Thevenaz1999; @Thevenaz2010], which can be achieved using a distributed SBS measurement such as Brillouin optical time domain analysis (BOTDA). This approach employs optical pump pulses whose duration determines the spatial resolution of the SBS response [@Kurashima1990]. However, for a pulse duration shorter than the acoustic lifetime, the SBS spectrum broadens and the gain reduces significantly [@Bao1993]. Therefore, this approach is limited by the phonon lifetime in optical fibers - approximately - which translates into spatial resolution [@Fellay1997a]. Several methods were proposed to improve the spatial resolution of the time domain technique including dark pulses [@Brown2007] and Brillouin echo distributed sensing (BEDS) [@Thevenaz2010; @Foaleng2010; @Stiller2010a], which improved the spatial resolution to a few .
A more recent SBS-based sensing technique, which offers higher spatial resolution is called Brillouin optical correlation domain analysis (BOCDA). This scheme relies on the correlation between the cw pump and probe waves [@Hotate2000]. Different variations of BOCDA include broad-spectrum pump and probe sources based on frequency modulation [@Song2008a; @Hasegawa1999], random phase modulation [@Zadok2012; @Antman2013], filtered ASE source [@Cohen2014a] and chaotic laser [@Zhang2018e]. Spatial resolution of a few in optical fiber was reported using this technique [@Song2006; @Cohen2014a], which unlike the time domain technique is not limited by the phonon lifetime [@Hotate2000].
The higher spatial resolution offered by BOCDA opens up the opportunity to monitor and characterize smaller and more sensitive structures such as micro-fibers [@Chow2018] and on-chip photonic waveguides [@Zarifi2018]. SBS-response characterization becomes critical in micro- and nano-scale structures, where the geometrical non-uniformities along the waveguide result in a broadening of the SBS spectrum [@Wolff2016] and influence the applications which rely on the narrow-linewidth of the SBS process [@Kabakova2013; @Lee2012; @Loh2015a; @Otterstrom2018; @Morrison2017; @Marpaung2015a; @Sancho2012a]. In addition, the SBS response in nano-scale waveguides is more sensitive to the complex geometrical features such as tapers, bends and on-chip gratings [@Merklein2015] due to the strong effect of the waveguide boundaries in the sub-wavelength regime [@Wolff2015; @Qiu2013b]. Therefore, identifying the local SBS responses at these critical points gives some insight on the geometry-dependent acousto-optic interactions and provides a feedback for the design and fabrication step in order to improve the quality of the SBS waveguides.
![ Schematic of the test waveguides on the silicon-chalcogenide hybrid platform. The length of the test area is reduced from to . The inset at the top right shows the cross-section of the hybrid waveguide. The width of the waveguide ($w$) varies between to along the test waveguide.[]{data-label="fig:figure_1"}](figure_1){width="\linewidth"}
![BOCDA setup based on the ASE of an erbium doped fiber. BPF: band-pass filter, PBS: Polarisation beam splitter, SSB: single side-band modulator, IM: intensity modulator, EDFA: erbium doped fiber amplifier, DUT: device under test PD: photo detector, LIA: lock-in amplifier.[]{data-label="fig:figure_2"}](figure_2){width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
Previous works on the local SBS response characterization in micro-scale waveguides based on BOCDA involve mapping the uniformity of a silica planar lightwave circuit (PLC) [@Hotate2012] and a photonic crystal fiber (PCF) [@Stiller2010a] and excitation and detection of surface acoustic waves in micro-fibers [@Chow2018]. Recently, sub-mm spatial resolution was achieved by employing the BOCDA technique in a chalcogenide photonic waveguide with an improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to the optical fiber measurements [@Zarifi2018]. The chalcogenide waveguide offers a higher SBS gain due to the large opto-acoustic overlap, the higher refractive index of the core material and the smaller nonlinear opto-acoustic effective area compared to optical fibers. In addition to these advantages, the use of a phase-sensitive detection technique [@Hotate2000] further improves the spatial resolution and the SNR of the measurement. This experiment as the first demonstration of the sub-mm BOCDA measurement on a chip-scale, opened up the opportunity to study the effect of geometrical variation and design parameters on the overall SBS response of more complex and compact photonic-phononic waveguides with small feature such as on-chip gratings [@Merklein2015]. However, to monitor such small structures, the spatial resolution has to be in the order of the small waveguide features such as spiral bends, tapers and gratings, which is the focus of this work.
Following our initial reports, in this paper, we present a set of new measurements with four-fold improvement in detection capability down to and a comprehensive study of the geometry-dependent opto-acoustic interactions in those structures. This experiment is demonstrated in a controlled environment in which we tailor the on-chip sensing geometry to confirm the spatial resolution of the BOCDA technique. We designed SBS waveguides with width variations along their length in order to experimentally demonstrate the capability of our distributed SBS measurement system in identifying features which are rather small to be realized by an integrated SBS measurement. We further verified the experimental results with numerical calculations to explain the gain spectrum of the local opto-acoustic interactions along the photonic waveguide. This study opens up opportunities to investigate the local SBS response of more complex structures with very fine features and is a major step forward to a better understanding of the spatial limit of opto-acoustic interactions in sub-wavelength regimes.
Waveguide design and fabrication
================================
We designed a hybrid silicon-chalcogenide chip consisting of several waveguides, each contains a controlled width variation to characterize the local SBS responses within the waveguides and confirm the spatial resolution. A schematic of the test structures on a hybrid platform is shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_1\] (a). The length of the controlled width varies from to for different waveguides. A number of reference waveguides with constant width are also designed to characterize the opto-acoustic responses at specific waveguide cross-sections. A cross-section view of the chalcogenide waveguide used in this work is shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_1\] (b). The hybrid silicon-chalcogenide waveguide consists of SOI grating couplers to couple the light into and out of the waveguide. The grating couplers selectively couple the fundamental TE mode into the standard single mode silicon nanowire ($\SI{450}{\nm}\times\SI{220}{\nm}$). The silicon nanowires attached to the grating couplers continue for before they taper down to wide tips. A layer of thick chalcogenide ($As_{2}S_{3}$) is then deposited into the area between the two grating couplers covering the silicon tapers but leaving the grating couplers uncovered. The chalcogenide waveguides with the length of are written using the electron beam lithography (EBL) technique, followed by plasma etching and are then covered by a layer of silica cladding to protect the waveguides and provide optimum acoustic confinement.
Experiment
==========
The local SBS response achieved in this measurement is based on BOCDA using the amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) of an erbium doped fiber. This technique was first employed to measure a local hot spot in an optical fiber with spatial resolution [@Cohen2014a]. In this technique, the polarized ASE source provides a highly uncorrelated source for the pump and probe waves. The degree of the correlation between the pump and the probe is controlled by the ASE bandwidth. Increasing the ASE bandwidth reduces the correlation between the pump and the probe waves and results in a narrow correlation peak in time. The duration of the correlation peak determines the spatial resolution of the measurement, which can be approximated by: $\frac{1}{2}V_{g}\Delta{t}$ with $V_{g}$ being the group velocity and $\Delta{t}$ is inversely related to the ASE bandwidth [@Cohen2014a]. As the correlation peak becomes shorter in time, the signal from the local SBS interaction becomes weaker compared to the background noise from the spontaneous scattering at all the other points in the medium (outside the correlation peak). Therefore, the SNR decreases and sets a lower limit on the practical spatial resolution of the BOCDA measurement technique. In addition, for ASE bandwidths larger than the Brillouin frequency shift (BFS), the separation between the back-reflected pump and the amplified probe becomes challenging due to the large spectral overlap [@Zarifi2018]. In our setup, we use $As_{2}S_{3}$ strip waveguides with high SBS gain coefficient and a lock-in amplifier (LIA) to improve the SNR and obtain spatial resolutions beyond the limits achieved in the optical fiber measurement.
A schematic of the experimental setup is presented in Fig.\[fig:figure\_2\]. It consists of the ASE source whose bandwidth is controlled by a tunable band-pass filter (BPF). It then divides into the counter-propagating pump and probe arms. The probe wave goes through a single side-band modulation using a dual-parallel Mach-Zehnder modulator (DPMZM) with a carrier suppression of 20 dB and a side-band suppression of 15 dB. The pump wave is intensity-modulated with pulse lengths of and a frequency of and is synchronized with the LIA. The light is coupled in and out of the waveguide using silicon grating couplers with the measured total back-reflection of . A sharp optical filter is added before the photo detector to remove the pump back-reflection as much as possible before sending the measured signal to the LIA. The essential part of this experiment is cutting the pump back-reflection, because by filtering out the pump back-reflection, part of the SBS signal will also be removed. However, we achieved enough signal even after cutting of the response to detect a segment of of the waveguide.
{width="\linewidth"}
In order to identify the SBS response of the entire test waveguides, we first performed an integrated SBS measurement by setting the filter bandwidth to , corresponding to spatial resolution (twice the length of the waveguide). show the integrated SBS measurement of the test waveguides corresponding to the structures shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_1\] (a). The waveguide with feature size has three peaks in the Brillouin gain spectrum namely at , and . As the feature size reduces from to , the peak at lower frequency () disappears. These measurements show that there is a link between the lower frequency peak and the narrow-width feature in the middle of the test waveguides. To further confirm this measurement, we investigate the integrated SBS response of two reference waveguides with and constant width using a cw laser as the pump and the probe source. The result of these measurements are plotted in Fig.\[fig:figure\_3\] (d) and (e). As it is shown in these plots, the -wide waveguide has a BFS at and the -wide waveguide has a double peak profile at and , which is in agreement with the measurements shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_3\] (a) to (c). The slight offset between the BFS observed in the two sets of measurements (with ASE bandwidth and the cw laser) is due to the fact that the center frequency of the two sources were slightly different. In order to measure the longitudinal feature in the first test waveguide, a distributed SBS measurement was performed by setting the ASE bandwidth to , corresponding to spatial resolution in the waveguide. The delay line is set such that the optical length of the pump and the probe arms are equal and then by stepping the delay line with steps, the waveguide with feature size was scanned. The result of this measurement is shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_4\] (a), where the BFS peak at appears at position and disappears at . Outside this region, the Brillouin gain spectrum mainly shows two peaks at and which indicates that the correlation peak is scanning the wider section of the waveguide. The ASE bandwidth is then increased to , corresponding to a spatial resolution of to detect the feature in the second test waveguide with step sizes of , as presented in Fig.\[fig:figure\_4\] (b). As it is seen in this plot, the BFS peak at appears at position and disappears at position . Lastly, the waveguide with feature was measured using the same ASE bandwidth (), however the step size is now reduced to . This measurement is shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_4\] (c), where the peak appears between the positions and and has the highest amplitude at position . As it is seen in this figure, the quality of the detected local signals deteriorates in the last measurement due to the lower spatial resolution compared to the feature size and also the lower SNR. Some residual of the peak could be observed in traces away from the feature, which is due to the weak SNR and the fact that the signal level is now close to the background noise from the spontaneous Brillouin scattering which happens outside the correlation peak.
In addition, in Fig.\[fig:figure\_4\] (a) and (b), the intensity of the local SBS response at the narrow region waveguide is higher compared to the wide region. This is due to the fact that the SBS gain coefficient per unit length defined as $\frac{g_{B}}{A_{\textup{eff}}}$, with $g_{B}$ being the SBS gain coefficient, is inversely related to the waveguide’s effective opto-acoustic interaction area $A_{\textup{eff}}$. Therefore, the SBS gain in the narrower waveguide with approximately four times smaller cross-section, is expected to be stronger than in the wider waveguide. This is confirmed by the normalized Brillouin gain spectrum obtained from the experiment and shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_4\] (a) to (c), where the peak amplitudes at frequencies and are approximately less than the peak amplitude at frequency .
Simulation and analysis
=======================
The dependency of the BFS ($\nu_{B}$) on material properties and effective refractive index can be approximated by Eq.\[eq:3\].
{width="\linewidth"}
$$\nu_{B} = \frac{2n_{\textup{eff}}V_{a}}{\lambda_{p}},
\label{eq:3}$$
where $n_{\textup{eff}}$ is the effective refractive index, $V_a$ is the acoustic mode velocity and $\lambda_{p}$ is the pump wavelength. This relation is valid under the assumption that the waveguide dimensions are much larger than the acoustic wavelength ($w , h \gg \frac{2\pi V_{a}}{\Omega}$) [@Poulton2013a], where $w$ and $h$ stand for the waveguide width and thickness, respectively and $\Omega$ is the acoustic angular frequency. This assumption is correct for the optical fibers, however for the sub-wavelength and wavelength-scale waveguides the medium can no longer considered isotropic and the optical field will have components in the direction of propagation which will affect the effective refractive index term [@Poulton2013a]. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that in nanostructures other forces such as radiation pressure influence the acoustic mode excitations [@Rakich2012]. In order to include all these effects in our study, we performed a fully vectorial analysis to calculate the BFS in the chalcogenide structures following the approach presented in [@Wolff2015]. However, for our hybrid chalcogenide structures the effect of radiation pressure on the backward SBS gain turns out to be negligible, which is confirmed through numerical calculations. Different waveguide cross-sections accommodate different optical and acoustic modes and therefore the effective opto-acoustic overlap is different from one waveguide geometry to the other. The change in the waveguide cross-section, therefore, manifests in the Brillouin gain spectrum and shifts the BFS, which is what we measure in this experiment.
The chalcogenide waveguide with cross-sections shown in the inset of Fig.\[fig:figure\_1\] (b) supports multiple optical modes as well as acoustic modes. Therefore, careful design considerations are required in order to precisely excite the correct optical mode and comprehensive analysis needs to be done in order to identify the acoustic modes involved in the SBS interaction. The dispersion plot of the chalcogenide waveguide is shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_5\] (a). The single mode operation of the chalcogenide waveguide is achieved via the adiabatic silicon taper. The silicon tapers are long enough () to guarantee a smooth optical mode transition from the silicon nanowire to the chalcogenide waveguide [@Casas-Bedoya2016]. The fundamental TE mode transition through the adiabatic taper is simulated using a commercial-grade simulator based on the finite-difference time-domain method [@Lumerical:2009:Misc], presented in Fig.\[fig:figure\_5\] (b). As presented in this figure, the majority of the optical power is coupled into the fundamental TE mode of the chalcogenide waveguide and less than of the power is transmitted into the higher order TE mode. Therefore, although the waveguide could support multiple optical modes, the silicon tapers were designed to selectively excites only the fundamental TE mode.
![a) Schematic of a reference waveguide with constant width. Calculated normalized Brillouin gain spectrum for $h_{sim} = \SI{707}{\nm}$ thick waveguide with b) $w_{sim} = \SI{1.02}{\um}$ and c) $w_{sim} = \SI{1.75}{\um}$ width. []{data-label="fig:figure_6"}](figure_6){width="\linewidth"}
The opto-acoustic response is calculated using COMSOL Multiphysics software [@COMSOL:2009:Misc] after ref.[@Wolff2015]. We calculated the overlap between the fundamental optical TE mode with the acoustic modes present in the frequency span between and and reconstructed the Lorentzian Brillouin gain spectrum based on the strength of the opto-acoustic overlap within this spectrum. The simulated normalized Brillouin gain spectrum for the two reference waveguide geometries are shown in Fig. \[fig:figure\_6\]. Fabrication variations in thickness and width of were allowed in this calculation using a corner analysis [@Chrostowski2013] to find a reasonable match between the simulation and the experiment. The simulation plots shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_6\] (b) and (c) represent waveguides with the simulation thickness ($h_{sim}$) of and the simulation widths ($w_{sim}$) of and , respectively. The material properties including stiffness tensor coefficients, density and photoelastic tensor coefficients for this simulation were set after Ref. [@Smith2016]. Comparing Fig.\[fig:figure\_6\] (b)-(c) with the experimental result shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_3\] (d)-(e), we find a good agreement between the experiment and the simulation. This confirms that the shift in the peak of the Brillouin spectrum profile is an effect of the waveguide geometry and the double peak profile observed in the wider waveguide is a result of the existence of two or more higher order acoustic modes which have strong overlap with the optical fundamental TE mode in the vicinity of the BFS.
Discussion
==========
By comparing Fig.\[fig:figure\_3\] (d) and (e) with Fig.\[fig:figure\_6\] (b) and (c), a good agreement between the measured integrated SBS response and the simulation is observed. However, an additional BFS peak at is observed in the simulation but not captured in the experiment. This is most likely due to the fact that the SNR of the measurement was not high enough to detect the rather weak SBS response which is generated by some higher order acoustic modes.
When simulating the optical mode transition from the silicon nanowire to the chalcogenide waveguide, we considered up to vertical offset of the taper tip from the center of the chalcogenide waveguide as well as variations of the taper width in order to include the effect of fabrication variations. The effect of the taper misalignment and taper tip width variation on the optical mode transition were negligible and the optical mode transition profiles overlap very closely with the plot shown in Fig.\[fig:figure\_5\] (b), therefore they are not plotted here. In addition, as it is plotted in Fig.\[fig:figure\_5\] (b), approximately of the transmitted power from the silicon nanowire is coupled into the $\textup{TE}_{1}$ mode of the -wide chalcogenide waveguide, which could be considered as the origin of the second peak appeared at the lower frequency in the Brillouin gain spectrum. We examined this possibility by calculating the opto-acoustic overlap between the $\textup{TE}_{1}$ mode and the acoustic modes in the waveguide and found out that the frequency splitting between the two peaks in this case is at least , which does not match the experiment. We further studied the contribution of the $\textup{TM}_{0}$ mode in the opto-acoustic overlap to investigate the possibility of mode coupling within the waveguide. The opto-acoustic overlap between the $\textup{TM}_{0}$ mode and the acoustic modes of the waveguide resulted in a frequency splitting of , which is larger than what we observed in the experiment. Finally, as it was mentioned earlier, the limiting factor in this experiment was the wide overlap between the back-reflected pump and the amplified probe. Improving fabrication techniques such as the use of tilted grating couplers [@Li2013a] with very low back reflection can improve the SNR and allows for higher spatial resolution measurement.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we reported four-fold improvement in detection capability of BOCDA measurement compared to previous works [@Zarifi2018a]. In addition, we performed numerical simulation to explain the interaction between the optical and acoustic modes at different waveguide cross-sections. This setup provides a powerful platform to test and measure local opto-acoustic responses within the micro- and nano-wires with sub-mm feature size. Moreover, by further increasing the spatial resolution, this technique could provide valuable information regarding the spatial limits of the nonlinear opto-acoustic interaction within the medium.
Funding Information {#funding-information .unnumbered}
===================
This work was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Laureate Fellowship (FL120100029) and the Centre of Excellence program (CUDOS CE110001018).
This work was performed in part at the Melbourne Centre for Nanofabrication (MCN) and the RMIT Micro Nano Research Facility (MNRF) in the Victorian Node of the Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF).
We acknowledge the joint grant from the Max Planck Society and the Fraunhofer Society (PowerQuant).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This is a survey on recent developments on the Hausdorff dimension of projections and intersections for general subsets of Euclidean spaces, with an emphasis on estimates of the Hausdorff dimension of exceptional sets and on restricted projection families. We shall also discuss relations between projections and Hausdorff dimension of Besicovitch sets.'
author:
- Pertti Mattila
title: 'Hausdorff dimension, projections, intersections, and Besicovitch sets'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In this survey I shall discuss some recent results on integral-geometric properties of Hausdorff dimension and their relations to Kakeya type problems. More precisely, by integral-geometric properties I mean properties related to affine subspaces of Euclidean spaces and to rigid motions; orthogonal projections into planes, intersections with planes, and intersections of two sets after a generic rigid motion is applied to one of them. Such questions have been studied for more than 60 years and there have been a lot of recent activities on them. In particular, I shall discuss estimates on the Hausdorff dimension of exceptional sets of planes and rigid motions, and projections on restricted families of planes. Besicovitch sets are sets of Lebesgue measure zero containing a unit line segment in every direction. They are expected to have full Hausdorff dimension. This problem is related to many topics in modern Fourier analysis. It is also related to projection theorems, as we shall see at the end of this survey. In the last section I shall also discuss $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets, lines replaced with $k$-planes, and their relations to projections.
Other recent surveys partially overlapping with this are [@FFJ], [@Ke3], [@S] and [@M5].
Most of the background material can be found, for example, in the books [@M4] and [@M6].
This survey is partially based on the lectures I gave in the CIMPA2017 conference in Buenos Aires in August 2017. I would like to thank Ursula Molter, Carlos Cabrelli and the other organizers for that very pleasant and succesful event. I am grateful to Tuomas Orponen for many useful comments.
Hausdorff dimension, energy integrals and the Fourier transform
===============================================================
I give here a quick review of the Hausdorff dimension and its relations to energy-integrals and the Fourier transform. The details can be found in [@M4] and [@M6].
The $s$-dimensional *Hausdorff measure* $\mathcal H^s, s\geq 0$, is defined for $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ by $$\mathcal H^s(A)=\lim_{\delta\to0} \mathcal H_{\delta}^s(A),$$ where, for $0<\delta\leq\infty$, $$\mathcal H_{\delta}^s(A)=\inf\{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}d(E_j)^s:A\subset\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}E_j, d(E_j)<\delta\}.$$ Here $d(E)$ denotes the diameter of the set $E$.
Then $\mathcal H^n$ is a constant multiple of the Lebesgue measure $\mathcal L^n$ and the restriction of $\mathcal H^{n-1}$ to the unit sphere ${S^{n-1}}=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}:|x|=1\}$ is a constant multiple of the surface measure.
The *Hausdorff dimension* of $A$ is $$\dim A=\inf\{s:\mathcal H^s(A)=0\}=\sup\{s:\mathcal H^s(A)=\infty\}.$$
For $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, let $\mathcal M(A)$ be the set of Borel measures $\mu$ such that $0<\mu(A)<\infty$ and $\mu$ has compact support spt$\mu\subset A$. We denote by $B(x,r)$ the closed ball with center $x$ and radius $r$. The following is a useful tool for proving lower bounds for the Hausdorff dimension:
Let $0\leq s\leq n$. For a Borel set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n, \mathcal H^s(A)>0$ if and only there is $\mu\in\mathcal M(A)$ such that $$\label{frostman1}
\mu(B(x,r))\leq r^s\quad \text{for all}\ x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, r>0.$$ In particular, $$\dim A=\sup\{s:\text{there is}\ \mu\in\mathcal M(A)\ \text{such that (\ref{frostman1}) holds}\}.$$
Such measures $\mu$ are often called Frostman measures.
The $s$-*energy*, $s>0$, of a Borel measure $\mu$ is $$I_s(\mu)=\iint|x-y|^{-s}\,d\mu x\,d\mu y=\int k_s\ast\mu\, d\mu,$$ where $k_s$ is the *Riesz kernel*: $$k_s(x)=|x|^{-s},\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}.$$
Integration of Frostman’s lemma gives
\[energy\] For a Borel set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}},$ $$\dim A=\sup\{s:\text{there is}\ \mu\in\mathcal M(A)\ \text{such that}\ I_s(\mu)<\infty\}.$$
The *Fourier transform* of $\mu\in\mathcal M({\mathbb{R}^{n}})$ is $$\widehat{\mu}(\xi)=\int e^{-2\pi i\xi\cdot x}\,d\mu x,\quad \xi\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}.$$ The $s$-energy of $\mu\in\mathcal M({\mathbb{R}^{n}})$ can be written in terms of the Fourier transform: $$I_s(\mu)=c(n,s)\int |\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2|x|^{s-n}\,dx.$$ This comes from Plancherel’s theorem and the fact that the Fourier transform, in the distributional sense, of $k_s$ is a constant multiple of $k_{n-s}$. Thus we have $$\label{dim}\dim A=
\sup\{s<n:\exists \mu\in\mathcal M(A)\ \text{such that}\ \int |\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2|x|^{s-n}\,dx<\infty\}.$$
Notice that if $I_s(\mu) < \infty$, then $|\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2 < |x|^{-s}$ for most $x$ with large norm. However, this need not hold for all $x$ with large norm.
The upper Minkowski dimension is defined by $$\dim_MA=\inf\{s\geq 0:\lim_{\delta\to 0}\delta^{s-n}\mathcal L^n(\{x: dist(x,A)<\delta\})=0\}.$$ The packing dimension $\dim_P$ can be defined as a modification of this: $$\dim_PA=\inf\{\sup_i\dim_MA_i:A=\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_i\}.$$ Then $\dim A\leq\dim_PA\leq\dim_MA$. We have the following product inequalities: $$\label{producth}
\dim A\times B \geq \dim A + \dim B.$$ $$\label{productm}
\dim_M A\times B \leq \dim_M A + \dim_M B.$$ $$\label{productp}
\dim_P A\times B \leq \dim_P A + \dim_P B.$$
There is no Fubini theorem for Hausdorff measures, but we have the following inequality, see [@Fe], 2.10.25:
\[sectprop\] Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{m+n}$ and set $A_x=\{y\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}: (x,y)\in A\}$ for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$. Then for any non-negative numbers $s$ and $t$ ($\int^{\ast}$ is the upper integral) $$\int^{\ast}\mathcal H^t(A_x)\,d\mathcal H^sx \leq C(m,n,s,t)\mathcal H^{s+t}(A).$$ In particular, if $\dim\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^m: \dim A_x\geq t\}\geq s$, then $\dim A \geq s+t$.
The latter statement was proved by Marstrand in [@Ma2].
Hausdorff dimension and exceptional projections
===============================================
We shall now discuss the question: how do orthogonal projections affect the Hausdorff dimension? Let $0<m<n$ be integers and let $G(n,m)$ be the space of all linear $m$-dimensional subspaces of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ and let $\gamma_{n,m}$ be the Borel probability measure on it which is invariant under the orthogonal group $O(n)$ of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$. For $V\in G(n,m)$ let $P_V:{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\to V$ be the orthogonal projection.
The case $m=1$ and the lines through the origin is simpler and more concrete, and perhaps good to keep in mind. We can parametrize $G(n,1)$ and the projections onto lines by the unit sphere: $$P_e(x) = e\cdot x,\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}, e\in{S^{n-1}}.$$
Here is the basic projection theorem for the Hausdorff dimension. The first two items of it were proved by Marstrand [@Ma1] in 1954 and the third by Falconer and O’Neil [@FO] in 1999 and by Peres and Schlag [@PS] in 2000:
\[projections\]
Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a Borel set.
- If $\dim A \leq m$, then $$\dim P_V(A) = \dim A\quad \text{for}\ \gamma_{n,m}\ \text{almost all}\ V \in G(n,m).$$
- If $\dim A > m$, then $$\mathcal L^{m}(P_V(A)) > 0\quad \text{for}\ \gamma_{n,m}\ \text{almost all}\ V \in G(n,m).$$
- If $\dim A > 2m$, then $P_V(A)$ has non-empty interior for $\gamma_{n,m}$ almost all $V \in G(n,m).$
We only prove this for $m=1$, the general case can be found in [@M6]. For $\mu\in{\mathcal{M}}(A)$, let $\mu_e\in{\mathcal{M}}(P_{e}(A))$ be the push-forward of $\mu$ under $P_{e}$: $\mu_e(B)=\mu(P_{e}^{-1}(B))$.
To prove (1) let $0<s<\dim A$ and choose by Theorem \[energy\] a measure $\mu\in{\mathcal{M}}(A)$ such that $I_s(\mu)<\infty$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S^{n-1}}I_s(\mu_e)\,de&=\int_{S^{n-1}}\iint |P_e(x-y)|^{-s}\,d\mu x\,d\mu y\,de\\
&=\iiint_{S^{n-1}}|P_e(\tfrac{x-y}{|x-y|})|^{-s}\,de|x-y|^{-s}\,d\mu x\,d\mu y=c(s)I_s(\mu)<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ where for $v\in S^{n-1}$, $c(s)=\int_{S^{n-1}}|P_e(v)|^{-s}\,de<\infty$ as $s<1$. The finiteness of this integral follows from the simple inequality $$\label{projineq}
\mathcal H^{n-1}(\{e\in {S^{n-1}}: |P_e(x)|\leq\delta\})\lesssim \delta/|x|\quad \text{for}\ x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\setminus\{0\}, \delta>0.$$ Referring again to Theorem \[energy\] we see that $\dim P_{e}(A)\geq s$ for almost all $e\in S^{n-1}$. By the arbitrariness of $s, 0<s<\dim A$, we obtain $\dim P_{e}(A)\geq\dim A$ for almost all $e\in S^{n-1}$. The opposite inequality follows from the fact that the projections are Lipschitz mappings.
To prove (2) choose by (\[dim\]) a measure $\mu\in{\mathcal{M}}(A)$ such that $\int|x|^{1-n}|\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2\,dx<\infty.$ Directly from the definition of the Fourier transform we see that $\widehat{\mu_e}(t)=\widehat{\mu}(te)$ for $t\in{\mathbb{R}}, e\in S^{n-1}$. Integrating in polar coordinates we obtain $$\int_{S^{n-1}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|\widehat{\mu_e}(t)|^2\,dt\,de=2\int_{S^{n-1}}\int_0^{\infty}|\widehat{\mu}(te)|^2\,dt\,de=2\int|x|^{1-n}|\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2\,dx<\infty.$$ Thus for almost all $e\in S^{n-1}$, $\widehat{\mu_e}\in L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ which means that $\mu_e$ is absolutely continuous with $L^2$ density and hence $\mathcal L^1(p_{e}(A))>0$.
For the proof of (3) one takes $2 < s < \dim A$ and $\mu\in{\mathcal{M}}(A)$ such that $I_s(\mu)<\infty$, whence $\int|x|^{s-n}|\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2\,dx<\infty.$ Then as above and by the Schwartz inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S^{n-1}}\int_{|t|\geq 1}|\widehat{\mu_e}(t)|\,dt\,de = 2\int_{|x|\geq 1}|x|^{1-n}|\widehat{\mu}(x)|\,dx\\
\leq 2\left(\int_{|x|\geq 1}|x|^{2-s-n}\,dx\int_{|x|\geq 1}|x|^{s-n}|\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2\,dx\right)^{1/2}<\infty\end{aligned}$$ since $2-s-n < -n$. Thus for almost all $e\in S^{n-1}$, $\widehat{\mu_e}\in L^1({\mathbb{R}})$ which implies that $\mu_e$ is absolutely continuous with continuous density. Hence $P_e(A)$ has non-empty interior.
Part (2) can rather easily be proven also without the Fourier transform using again inequalities like , see the proof of Theorem 9.7 in [@M4]. Parts (1) and (2) of Theorem \[projections\] hold with $\gamma_{n,m}$ replaced with any Borel measure $\gamma$ on $G(n,m)$ which satisfies $$\gamma(\{V\in G(n,m): |P_V(x)|\leq\delta\})\lesssim (\delta/|x|)^m\quad \text{for}\ x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\setminus\{0\}, \delta>0.$$ We shall discuss this a bit more later. I don’t know any proof for (3) without the Fourier transform.
The conditions $\dim A \leq m$ and $\dim A > m$ in (1) and (2) are of course necessary. The condition $\dim A > 2m$ in (3) is necessary if $m=1$. I don’t know if it is necessary when $m>1$. In the case $m=1$ the example in the plane can be obtained with Besicovitch sets, first in the plane, showing that there is no theorem in the plane, and then taking cartesian products. More precisely, let $B\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a Borel set of measure zero which contains a line in every direction. We shall construct such sets in Section 7. Let $A={\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\cup_{q\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2}(B+q)$, where ${\mathbb{Q}}^2$ is the countable dense set with rational coordinates. Then $A$ has full Lebesgue measure and none of its projections has interior points.
In this section we shall discuss how much more one can say about the size of the sets of exceptional planes. Kaufman [@Ka] proved in 1968 the first item of the following theorem in the plane (generalized in [@M1]), Falconer [@F2] in 1982 the second and Peres and Schlag [@PS] in 2000 the third. Recall that the dimension of $G(n,m)$ is $m(n-m)$. To get a better feeling of this notice that in the case $m=1$ the three upper bounds are $n-2+\dim A, n-\dim A$ and $n+1-\dim A$.
\[excproj\]
Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a Borel set.
- If $\dim A \leq m$, then $$\dim\{V\in G(n,m): \dim P_{V}(A) < \dim A\} \leq m(n-m) - m + \dim A.$$
- If $\dim A > m$, then $$\dim\{V\in G(n,m): \mathcal L^{m}(P_{V}(A))=0\} \leq m(n-m)+m-\dim A.$$
- If $\dim A > 2m$, then $$\dim\{V\in G(n,m): \operatorname{Int}(P_{V}(A))=\emptyset\} \leq m(n-m)+2m-\dim A.$$
The proof of (1) is a rather simple modification of the proof of the corresponding part in Theorem \[projections\]; essentially one just replaces the measure $\gamma_{n.m}$ with a Frostman measure $\nu$ on the exceptional set. The key observation is that instead of we now have $$\label{projineq1}
\nu(\{V\in G(n,m): |P_V(x)|\leq\delta\})\lesssim (\delta/|x|)^{s-m(n-m-1)}$$ which easily follows from the Frostman condition $\nu(B(V,r))\leq r^s$, cf. [@M6], (5.10) and (5.12). The proofs of (2) and (3) are trickier and require the use of the Fourier transfom. They can be found in [@M6].
Theorem \[excproj\] and much more, for instance exceptional set estimates for Bernoulli convolutions, is included in the setting of generalized projections developed by Peres and Schlag in [@PS]. Later these general estimates have been improved in many special cases.
The bounds in (1) and (2) are sharp by the examples which Kaufman and I constructed in 1975 in [@KM]. I don’t know if the bound in (3) is sharp. Another, seemingly very difficult, problem is estimating the dimension of the set in (1) when $\dim A$ is replaced by some $u < \dim A$. We still have by the same proof $$\dim\{V\in G(n,m): \dim P_{V}(A) < u\} \leq m(n-m) - m + u,$$ but this probably is not sharp when $u<\dim A$. In any case it is far from sharp in the plane when $u=\dim A/2$:
\[bour\] Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a Borel set. Then $$\dim\{e\in S^1: \dim P_{e}(A) \leq \dim A/2\} = 0.$$
To get some idea where $\dim A/2$ comes from, notice that the inequality $\dim_M P_{e}(A) < \dim_M A/2$ is very easy for the upper Minkowski dimension (and also for the packing dimension), and even more is true: there can be at most one direction $e$ for which $\dim_M P_{e}(A) < \dim_M A/2$. That there cannot be two orthogonal directions follows immediately from the product inequalities and , and the general case is also easy. However for the Hausdorff dimension the exceptional set can always be uncountable, even more: Orponen constructed in [@O3], Theorem 1.5, a compact set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\mathcal H^1(A)>0$ and $\dim\{e\in S^1: \dim P_e(A) =0\}$ is a dense $G_{\delta}$ subset of $S^1$. This paper also contains many exceptional set estimates for projections and packing dimension.
Theorem \[bour\] is due to Bourgain, [@B3], [@B4]. Bourgain’s result is more general and it includes a deep discretized version. The proof uses methods of additive combinatorics. D. M. Oberlin gave a simpler Fourier-analytic proof in [@Ob2], but with $\dim P_{e}(A) \leq \dim A/2$ replaced by $\dim P_{e}(A) < \dim A/2$. Using combinatorial methods He [@H] proved analogous higher dimensional results.
More generally, it might be true, and has been conjectured by Oberlin [@Ob2], that Kaufman’s estimate
$$\label{kauf} \dim\{e\in S^1: \dim P_e(A) < u\} \leq u$$
could be extended for $\dim A/2\leq u \leq \dim A$ to $$\label{Ob} \dim\{e\in S^1: \dim P_e(A) < u\} \leq 2u -\dim A.$$
This would be sharp, as the constructions in [@KM] show. Theorem \[bour\] is the only case where this is known. However, Orponen improved in the plane Theorem in \[excproj\] in [@O6] and [@O7] for sets $A$ with $\dim A=1$ but with $\dim P_e(A)$ replaced by the packing dimension of $P_e(A)$: for $0<t<1$ there is $\epsilon(t)>0$ such that $$\label{O2}
\dim\{e\in S^1: \dim_P P_e(A) < t\} \leq t -\epsilon(t).$$
The following generalization of parts (1) and (2) of Theorem \[projections\] tells us that that a null set of projections can be found first and then the statements hold outside these exceptions for all subsets of positive measure. Statement (2) is due to Marstrand [@Ma1]. It means that the pushforward under $P_V$ of the restriction of $\mathcal H^s$ to $A$ is absolutely continuous for almost all $V\in G(n,m)$, recall the proof of Theorem \[projections\](2). Part (1) was proved by Falconer and the author in [@FM].
\[marthm\] Let $A \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be an $\mathcal H^s$-measurable set with $0<\mathcal H^s(A) < \infty$. Then there exists a Borel set $E\subset G(n,m)$ with $\gamma_{n,m}(E) = 0$ such that for all $V \in G(n,m)\setminus E$ and all $\mathcal H^s$-measurable sets $B\subset A$ with $\mathcal H ^s(B)>0$,
${\rm (1)}$ if $s\leq m$ then $\dim P_V(B) = s$,
${\rm (2)}$ if $s >m$ then $\mathcal L^m (P_V(B)) > 0$.
The sharper version in the spirit of Theorem \[excproj\] is also valid, see [@FM].
In the next section the following theorem will give us information about exceptional plane slices. It was proved by Orponen and the author in [@MO]:
\[main1\] Let $A$ and $B$ be Borel subsets of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$.
- If $\dim A > m$ and $\dim B > m$, then $$\gamma_{n,m}\left(\{V \in G(n,m): \mathcal L^{m}(P_V(A)\cap P_V(B))>0\}\right)>0.$$
- If $\dim A > 2m$ and $\dim B > 2m$, then $$\gamma_{n,m}\left(\{V \in G(n,m): \operatorname{Int}(P_V(A)\cap P_V(B))\not=\emptyset\}\right)>0.$$
- If $\dim A > m, \dim B \leq m$ and $\dim A + \dim B > 2m$, then for every $\epsilon > 0$, $$\gamma_{n,m}\left(\{V \in G(n,m): \dim(P_V(A)\cap P_V(B))>\dim B - \epsilon\}\right)>0.$$
I only prove (1) when $m=1$. Choose by (\[dim\]) $\mu\in{\mathcal{M}}(A)$ and $\nu\in{\mathcal{M}}(B)$ such that $\int|x|^{1-n}|\widehat{\mu}(x)|^2\,dx<\infty$ and $\int|x|^{1-n}|\widehat{\nu}(x)|^2\,dx<\infty.$ Let again $\mu_e\in{\mathcal{M}}(P_{e}(A))$ and $\nu_e\in{\mathcal{M}}(P_{e}(B))$ be the push-forwards of $\mu$ and $\nu$ under $P_{e}$. We know from the proof of Theorem \[projections\] that for almost all $e\in S^{n-1}$, $\mu_e$ and $\nu_e$ are absolutely continuous with $L^2$ densities. Thus as in the proof of Theorem \[projections\] and by Plancherel’s theorem, $$\begin{aligned}
\iint &\mu_e(t) \nu_e(t)\, dt\,de
= \iint \widehat{\mu_e}(t) \overline{\widehat{\nu_e}(t)}\, dt\,de
= \iint \widehat{\mu}(te) \overline{\widehat{\nu}(te)}\, dt\,de\\
&=c(n)\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{n}}} |x|^{1-n}\widehat{\mu}(x) \overline{\widehat{\nu}(x)}\, dx = c(n,m)\iint|x-y|^{-1}\,d\mu x\,d\nu x>0.\notag\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\int \mu_e(t) \nu_e(t)\, dt > 0$ for positively many $e$. As $\mu_e \nu_e$ has support in $P_e(A)\cap P_e(B)$, the claim follows.
For other recent projection results, see [@BI1], [@BI2], [@C1], [@C2] and [@BFVZ].
There are many recent results on projections of various special, for example self-similar, classes of sets and measures. I shall not discuss them here but [@FFJ] and [@S] give good overviews.
Restricted families of projections
==================================
Here we discuss the question: what kind of projection theorems can we get if the whole Grassmannian $G(n,m)$ is replaced by some lower dimensional subset $G$? A very simple example is the one where $G\subset G(3,1)$ corresponds to a circle in a two-dimensional plane in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. For example, we can consider the projections $\pi_{\theta}$ onto the lines $\{t(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,0): t\in{\mathbb{R}}\}, \theta\in [0,\pi]$. Since $\pi_{\theta}(A)=\pi_{\theta}((\pi(A))$ where $\pi(x,y,z)=(x,y)$, and $\dim A\leq\dim\pi(A)+1$, it is easy to conclude using Marstrand’s projection Theorem \[projections\] that for any Borel set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$, for almost all $\theta\in [0,\pi]$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\dim \pi_{\theta}(A)\geq \dim A-1\quad \text{if}\ \dim A\leq 2,\\
&\mathcal L^1(\pi_{\theta}(A))>0\quad \text{if}\ \dim A> 2.\end{aligned}$$ This is sharp by trivial examples; consider product sets $A=B\times\ C, B\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2, C\subset{\mathbb{R}}$. So we only have an essentially trivial result. The situation changes dramatically if we consider the projections $p_{\theta}$ onto the lines $\{t(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,1): t\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$. Then the trivial counter-examples do not work anymore and one can now improve the above estimates. The method used for the proof of Theorem \[projections\] easily gives that if $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is a Borel set with $\dim A\leq 1/2$, then $$\dim p_{\theta}(A)\geq \dim A\quad \text{for almost all}\ \theta\in [0,\pi].$$ The restriction $1/2$ comes from the fact that instead of we now have only $$\label{projineq2}
\mathcal L^{1}(\{\theta: |p_{\theta}(x)|\leq\delta\})\lesssim \sqrt{\delta/|x|}.$$
For $\dim A > 1/2$ this becomes much more difficult. Anyway we have
\[kov\] Let $p_{\theta}$ and $q_{\theta}$ be the orthogonal projections onto the line $\{t(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,1): t\in{\mathbb{R}}\}, \theta\in[0,\pi]$, and its orthogonal complement. Let $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$ be a Borel set.
- If $\dim A\leq 1$, then $\dim p_{\theta}(A)=\dim A$ for almost all $\theta\in[0,\pi]$.
- If $\dim A\leq 3/2$, then $\dim q_{\theta}(A)=\dim A$ for almost all $\theta\in[0,\pi]$.
Käenmäki, Orponen and Venieri proved (1) in [@KOV] and Orponen and Venieri (2) in [@OV]. They related this problem to circle packing problems and methods of Wolff from [@W2].
So (1) is the sharp analogue of the corresponding part of Marstrand’s projection theorem for these projections. Perhaps (2) is not sharp in the sense that it might hold with $2$ in place of $3/2$.
One reason for the possibility of such improvements over the first family of projections considered above, the $\pi_{\theta}$, is that the second family, the $p_{\theta}$, is more curved than the first one. That is, the set of the unit vectors generating the first family is the planar curve $\{(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,0): \theta\in [0,\pi]\}$ while for the second it spans the whole space ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. More precisely, the curve $\gamma(\theta)=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,1)/\sqrt{2}\in S^2, \theta\in[0,\pi]$, of the corresponding unit vectors satisfies the curvature condition that for every $\theta\in [0,\pi]$ the vectors $\gamma(\theta), \gamma'(\theta),\gamma''(\theta)$ span the whole space ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Partial results were proven earlier by Fässler and Orponen [@FOr], [@O2] and D. M. Oberlin and R. Oberlin [@OO] for general $C^2$ curves on $S^2$ satisfying this curvature condition. Fässler and Orponen conjectured that the full Marstrand theorem as in Theorem \[kov\] (with $3/2$ replaced by $2$) should hold for them.
As we have seen above, if $\rho_{e}:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to{\mathbb{R}}, e\in S^2,$ is a family of linear mappings and $\sigma$ is a Borel measure on $S^2$ satisfying $$\sigma(\{e: |\rho_{e}(x)|\leq\delta\})\lesssim \delta/|x|,$$ then the Marstrand statement $\dim\rho_{\theta}(A)=\min\{\dim A,1\}$ holds for $\sigma$ almost all $e\in S^2$. However such inequality is usually false for less than 2-dimensional measures $\sigma$. Nevertheless Chen constructed in [@C2] for all $1<s<2$ $s$-dimensional Ahlfors-David regular random measures for which it holds, and hence also the Marstrand theorem. He had also many other related results in that paper.
Next we consider projection families in higher dimensions. I state a more general result below but let us start with $$\pi_t:{\mathbb{R}}^4\to{\mathbb{R}}^2, \pi_t(x,y) = x + ty, x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2, t\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ This family is closely connected with Besicovitch sets and the Kakeya conjecture in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, as we shall later see. The following theorem is due to D. M. Oberlin [@Ob3]. It is not explicitly stated there but follows from the proof of Theorem 1.3.
\[obproj\] Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^4$ be a Borel set.
- If $\dim A \leq 3$, then $\dim\pi_t(A)\geq\dim A - 1$ for almost all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
- If $\dim A > 3$, then $\mathcal L^2(\pi_t(A))>0$ for almost all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
The bounds here are sharp when $\dim A\geq 2$. To see this let $0\leq s \leq 1, C_s\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ with $\dim C_s=s$, and $A_s = \{(x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\times{\mathbb{R}}^2:x_1\in C_s, y_1=0\}.$ Then $\dim A_s = 2+s, \pi_t(A_s) = C_s\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\dim \pi_t(A_s) = 1+s$. This shows that (1) is sharp. For (2) we can choose $C_1$ with $\mathcal L^1(C_1)=0$, then $\mathcal L^2(\pi_t(A))=0$. These bounds are not sharp for all $A$ since we have $\dim\pi_t(A)=\dim A$ for almost all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ if $\dim A\leq 1$. Restricting $t$ to some interval $[c,C], 0<c<C<\infty,$ this follows as before from the inequality $$\mathcal L^{1}(\{t\in[c,C]: |\pi_{t}(x,y)|\leq\delta\})\lesssim \delta/|(x,y)|,$$ which is easy to check. If $1\leq\dim A\leq 2$ we can only say that $\dim\pi_t(A)\geq 1$ for almost all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ since $\pi_t({\mathbb{R}}\times\{0\}\times{\mathbb{R}}\times\{0\})={\mathbb{R}}$.
I give a sketch of the proof of Theorem \[obproj\]. Let $\mu\in\mathcal M(A)$ with $$\mu(B(x,r)) \leq r^s\quad \text{for}\ x\in{\mathbb{R}}^4, r>0,$$ for some $0<s<4$. Let $\mu_t\in\mathcal M(\pi_t(A))$ be the push-forward of $\mu$ under $\pi_t$. Then for $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$, $$\widehat{\mu_t}(\xi)=\int e^{-2\pi i\xi\cdot\pi_t(x,y)}\,d\mu (x,y)=\int e^{-2\pi i(\xi,t\xi)\cdot(x,y)}\,d\mu (x,y)=
\widehat{\mu}(\xi,t\xi).$$
It is enough to consider $t$ in some fixed bounded interval $J$. Oberlin proved that for $R>0$, $$\label{obeq}
\int_J\int_{R\leq|\xi|\leq 2R}|\widehat{\mu}(\xi,t\xi)|^2\,d\xi\,dt\lesssim R^{4-s-1}.$$ This is applied to the dyadic annuli, $R=2^k, k=1,2,\dots$. The sum converges if $s>3$, and we can choose $\mu$ with such $s$ if $\dim A > 3$. This gives $\int_J\int|\widehat{\mu_t}(\xi)|^2\,d\xi\,dt<\infty$ and yields part (2). To prove part (1) let $0<u<s<\dim A$ and $\mu$ as above. Then yields $$\int_J\int|\widehat{\mu_t}(\xi)|^2|\xi|^{u-1-2}\,d\xi\,dt<\infty,$$ so $\dim\pi_t(A)\geq u - 1$ for almost all $t\in J$ and thus $\dim\pi_t(A)\geq\dim A - 1$ for almost all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ by the arbitrariness of $J$ and $u$.
Let us formulate as a more general lemma (a special case of Lemma 3.1 in [@Ob3]):
\[oblemma\] Let $k$ and $m$ be positive integers and $N=(k+1)m$ and let $Q$ be a cube in ${\mathbb{R}}^k$. Define $$T_t\xi=(t_1\xi,\dots,t_k\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{km}\quad \text{for}\ \xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^m, t\in{\mathbb{R}}^k.$$
If $\mu\in\mathcal M({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ with $\mu(B(x,r)) \leq r^s$ for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N, r>0$ for some $0<s<n$, then $$\label{obeq2}
\int_Q\int_{R\leq|\xi|\leq 2R}|\widehat{\mu}(\xi,T_t\xi)|^2\,d\xi\,dt\lesssim R^{N-s-k}.$$
We obtain from this with $k=1, m=2$.
In Lemma 3.1 of [@Ob3] there is an additional assumption (3.1). This is now trivial: it is applied with $\lambda$ equal to the Lebesgue measure on $Q$. See the proof of Theorem 1.3 in [@Ob3] for the identification of our Lemma \[oblemma\] as a special case of Lemma 3.1 of [@Ob3].
To prove Lemma \[oblemma\], choose a smooth function $g$ with compact support which equals 1 on the support of $\mu$. Then $\widehat{g\mu}=\widehat{g}\ast\widehat{\mu}$ and the integral in equals $$\int_Q\int_{R\leq|\xi|\leq 2R}|\widehat{g\mu}(\xi,T_t\xi)|^2\,d\xi\,dt
=\int_Q\int_{R\leq|\xi|\leq 2R}\left|\int\widehat{g}((\xi,T_t\xi)-y)\widehat{\mu}(y)\,dy\right|^2\,d\xi\,dt.$$ This can be estimated by standard arguments. When $|y|$ is large as compared to $R$, $|\widehat{g}((\xi,T_t\xi)-y)|$ is small by the fast decay $\widehat{g}$. For $|y|\lesssim R$ one uses $$\int_{|y|\leq CR}|\widehat{\mu}(y)|^2\,dy \lesssim R^{s-N},$$ which follows from the assumption $\mu(B(x,r)) \leq r^s$, cf. also [@M6], Section 3.8. Of course, I am skipping several technical details here, see [@Ob3].
We now formulate a more general version of the above projection theorem. Let $k$ and $m$ be positive integers and $N=(k+1)m$. Above we had $k=1, m=2$. Write $$x=(x_0^1,\dots,x_0^m,x_1^1,\dots,x_1^m,\dots,x_k^1,\dots,x_k^m)\in{\mathbb{R}}^N, t=(t_1,\dots,t_k)\in{\mathbb{R}}^k.$$ Consider the linear mappings $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_t:{\mathbb{R}}^N\to{\mathbb{R}}^m, \pi_t(x)&=(x_0^1+\sum_{j=1}^kt_jx_j^1,\dots,x_0^m+\sum_{j=1}^kt_jx_j^m)\\
&=(x_0^1+t\cdot x^1,\dots,x_0^m+t\cdot x^m)=x_0+t\cdot \tilde{x},\end{aligned}$$ where $x_0=(x_0^1,\dots,x_0^m), x^l=(x_1^l,\dots,x_k^l)$ and $t\cdot \tilde{x}=(t\cdot x^1,\dots,t\cdot x^m)\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$. Then for $\mu\in \mathcal M({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ the push-forward $\mu_t$ of $\mu$ under $\pi_t$ has the Fourier transform for $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$, $$\widehat{\mu_t}(\xi)=\int e^{-2\pi i\xi\cdot\pi_t(x)}\,d\mu x=\int e^{-2\pi i(\xi\cdot x_0+\xi\cdot(t\cdot \tilde{x}))}\,d\mu x
=\widehat{\mu}(\xi,T_t\xi),$$ where again $T_t\xi=(t_1\xi,\dots,t_k\xi)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{km}$. Lemma \[oblemma\] now yields $$\label{obeq1}
\int_Q\int_{R\leq|\xi|\leq 2R}|\widehat{\mu_t}(\xi)|^2\,d\xi\,dt\lesssim R^{N-s-k},$$ where $\mu\in\mathcal M({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ with $\mu(B(x,r)) \leq r^s$ for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N, r>0$, for some $0<s<n$. By a similar argument as for Theorem \[obproj\], this leads to
\[obproj1\] Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^N$ be a Borel set.
- If $\dim A \leq N-k$, then $\dim\pi_t(A)\geq\dim A - k(m-1)$ for almost all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}^k$.
- If $\dim A >N-k$, then $\mathcal L^m(\pi_t(A))>0$ for almost all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}^k$.
Part (2) is again sharp. To see this, let $A$ consist of the points\
$(x_0^1,\dots,x_0^m,x_1^1,\dots,x_1^m,\dots,x_k^1,\dots,x_k^m)\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$ for which $x^1_0\in C$, where $C$ has dimension 1 and measure zero, and $x^1_1=\dots=x^1_k=0$. Part (1) is sharp when $m=1$, but then $k=N-1$ and the standard Marstrand’s projection theorem also applies. It also is sharp, for example, when $m=2$ for any $k$ with a similar example as in the case $k=1, m=2$.
The study of restricted families of projections was started by E. Järvenpää, M. Järvenpää, Ledrappier and Leikas in [@JJLL]. This work was continued and generalized by the Järvenpääs and Keleti in [@JJK], where they proved sharp inequalities for general smooth non-degenerate families of orthogonal projections onto $m$-planes in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Now the trivial examples such as $\{t(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,0): t\in{\mathbb{R}}\}, \theta\in [0,\pi]$, are also included, so the bounds are necessarily weaker than in the above special cases. Restricted families appear quite naturally in Heisenberg groups, see [@BDFMT], [@BFMT] and [@FH]. Another motivation for studying them comes from the work of E. Järvenpää, M. Järvenpää and Ledrappier and their co-workers on measures invariant under geodesic flows on manifolds, see [@HJJL1] and [@HJJL2].
Plane sections and radial projections
=====================================
What can we say about the dimensions if we intersect a subset $A$ of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}, \dim A>m,$ with $(n-m)$-dimensional planes? Using Proposition \[sectprop\] we have for any $V \in G(n,n - m)$, $$\dim (A \cap (V + x)) \leq \dim A - m\quad \text{for}\ \mathcal{H}^{m}\ \text{almost all}\ x\in V^{\perp},$$ and for any $x \in {\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ (see [@M1] or [@MO]), $$\dim (A \cap (V + x)) \leq \dim A - m\quad \text{for}\ \gamma_{n,n - m}\ \text{almost all}\ V \in G(n,n - m).$$ The lower bounds are not as obvious, but we have the following result, originally proved by Marstrand in the plane in [@Ma1] and then in general dimensions in [@M1]:
\[sections\] Let $m < s \leq n$ and let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be $\mathcal H^s$ measurable with $0 < \mathcal{H}^{s}(A) < \infty$. Then
- For $\mathcal{H}^{s}$ almost all $x \in A$, $\dim (A \cap (V + x)) = s - m$ for $\gamma_{n,n - m}$ almost all $V \in G(n,n - m)$,
- for $\gamma_{n,n - m}$ almost all $V \in G(n,n - m)$, $$\mathcal H^m(\{x\in V^{\perp}: \dim (A \cap (V + x)) = s - m\})>0.$$
These statements are essentially equivalent. Clearly, this generalizes part (2) of Theorem \[projections\]. Now we give exceptional set estimates related to both statements. The first of these is due to Orponen [@O1]:
\[O\] Let $m<s\leq n$ and let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ be $\mathcal H^s$ measurable with $0<\mathcal H^s(A)<\infty$. Then there is a Borel set $E \subset G(n,n-m)$ such that $\dim E \leq m(n-m) + m - s$ and for $V\in G(n,n-m)\setminus E$, $$\mathcal H^m(\{x\in V^{\perp}: \dim (A \cap (V + x)) = s - m\})>0.$$
The bound $m(n-m) + m - s = \dim G(n,n-m) +m - s$ is the same as in Theorem \[excproj\](2). Since it is sharp there, it also is sharp here.
The second estimate is due to Orponen and the author [@MO]:
\[main2\] Let $m<s\leq n$ and let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ be $\mathcal H^s$ measurable with $0<\mathcal H^s(A)<\infty$. Then there is a Borel set $B \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ such that $\dim B \leq m$ and for $x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\setminus B$, $$\gamma_{n,n-m}(\{V\in G(n,n-m):\dim A\cap(V+x)=s-m\}) >0.$$
This probably is not sharp. I expect that the sharp bound for $\dim B$ in the case $m=n-1$ would again be $2(n-1) - s$, as for the orthogonal projections and as in Orponen’s radial projection theorem \[radial\] below. Moreover, one could hope for an exceptional set estimate including both cases, that is, estimate on the dimension of the exceptional pairs $(x,V)$.
I give a sketch of the proof of Theorem \[main2\] in the plane. Suppose that it is not true and that there is a set $B$ with $\dim B>1$ such that through the points of $B$ almost all lines meet $A$ in a set of dimension less than $s-1$. On the other hand, by Theorem \[sections\] typical lines through the points of $A$ meet $A$ in a set of dimension $s-1$. By Fubini-type arguments and using Theorem \[main1\] we can find such typical lines meeting both $A$ and $B$ leading to a contradiction.
Here we investigated the dimensions of the intersections of our set with lines through a point. But if we only want to know whether these lines meet the set, we are studying radial projections. For these more can be said. For $x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ define $$\pi_x:{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\setminus\{x\}\to S^{n-1},\quad \pi_x(y)=\frac{y-x}{|y-x|}.$$ Then by the standard proofs the statements of Marstrand’s projection theorem are valid for almost all $x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$. Orponen proved in [@O5] and [@O8] the following sharp estimate for the exceptional set of $x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$.
\[radial\] Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ be a Borel set with $\dim A>n-1$. Then there is a Borel set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ with $\dim B\leq 2(n-1)-\dim A$ such that for every $x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\setminus B,~ \mathcal H^{n-1}(\pi_x(A))>0$. Moreover, if $\mu\in\mathcal M({\mathbb{R}^{n}})$ and $I_s(\mu)<\infty$ for some $n-1<s<n$, then the push-forward of $\mu$ under $\pi_x$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mathcal H^{n-1}|{S^{n-1}}$ for $x$ outside a set of Hausdorff dimension $2(n-1)-s$.
Orponen proved in [@O8] also the following rather surprising result:
\[radial1\] Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a Borel set with $\dim A>0$. Then the set $$\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^2: \dim\pi_x(A) < \dim A/2\}$$ has Hausdorff dimension 0 or it is contained in a line.
Obviously the second alternative is needed, since if $A$ is contained in a line, the above set is the same line.
General intersections
=====================
The following theorem was proved in [@M3]:
\[genint\] Let $s$ and $t$ be positive numbers with $s+t > n$ and $t>(n+1)/2$. Let $A$ and $B$ be Borel subsets of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ with $\mathcal H^s(A)>0$ and $\mathcal H^t(B)>0$. Then for almost all $g\in O(n)$, $$\label{eq4}
\mathcal L^n(\{z\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}: \dim A\cap (g(B)+z)\geq s+t-n\})>0.$$
The condition $t>(n+1)/2$ comes from some Fourier transform estimates. Probably it is not needed.
This was preceded by the papers of Kahane [@K] and the author [@M2] in which it was shown that the above theorem is valid for any $s+t>n$ provided larger transformation groups are used. For example, it suffices to add also typical dilations $x\mapsto rx, r>0$.
Here we really need the inequality $\dim A\cap (g(B)+z)\geq s+t-n$, the opposite inequality can fail very badly: for any $0\leq s\leq n$ there exists a Borel set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ such that $\dim A\cap f(A)=s$ for all similarity maps $f$ of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$. This follows from [@F4]. The reverse inequality holds if $\dim A\times B = \dim A + \dim B$, see [@M4], Theorem 13.12. This latter condition is valid if, for example, one of the sets is Ahlfors-David regular, see [@M4], 8.12. For such reverse inequalities no rotations $g$ are needed (or, equivalently, they hold for every $g$).
The following two exceptional set estimates were proven in [@M7]:
\[genint1\] Let $s$ and $t$ be positive numbers with $s+t > n+1$. Let $A$ and $B$ be Borel subsets of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ with $\mathcal H^s(A)>0$ and $\mathcal H^t(B)>0$. Then there is a Borel set $E\subset O(n)$ such that $$\dim E\leq 2n-s-t+(n-1)(n-2)/2=n(n-1)/2-(s+t-(n+1))$$ and for $g\in O(n)\setminus E$, $$\mathcal L^n(\{z\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}: \dim A\cap (g(B)+z)\geq s+t-n\})>0.$$
Notice that $n(n-1)/2$ is the dimension of $O(n)$. The condition $s+t > n+1$ is not needed in the case where one of the sets has small dimension and in this case we have a better upper bound for $\dim E$, although we then need a slight technical reformulation:
\[genint2\] Let $A$ and $B$ be Borel subsets of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ with $\dim A=s, \dim B=t$ and suppose that $s\leq (n-1)/2$. If $0<u<s+t - n$, then there is a Borel set $E\subset O(n)$ with $$\dim E\leq n(n-1)/2-(s+t-n)$$ such that for $g\in O(n)\setminus E$, $$\label{eq18}
\mathcal L^n(\{z\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}: \dim A\cap (g(B)+z)\geq u\})>0.$$
The formulation in [@M7] is slightly weaker, but it easily implies the above. What helps here is the following sharp decay estimate for quadratic spherical averages for Fourier transforms of measures with finite energy:
$$\int_{|v|=1}|\widehat{\mu}(rv)|^2\,dv \leq C(n,s)I_s(\mu)r^{-s},\quad r>0,\ 0<s\leq (n-1)/2.$$
Such an estimate is false for $s>(n-1)/2$. There are sharp estimates in the plane by Wolff [@W3], and good, but perhaps not sharp, estimates in higher dimensions by Erdoğan [@E]. More precisely, for $s\geq n/2$ and $\epsilon>0$, $$\label{wolff-e}
\int_{|v|=1}|\widehat{\mu}(rv)|^2\,dv \leq C(n,s)I_s(\mu)r^{\epsilon-(n+2s-2)/4},\quad r>0.$$ This is very useful for distance sets, as discussed below, but gives very little for the intersections. The proof uses restriction and Kakeya methods and results. In particular, the case $n\geq 3$ relies on Tao’s bilinear restriction theorem. These are discussed in [@M6].
Let us speculate about the possible sharp estimates in the plane. In Theorem \[genint1\] we have the upper bound $4-(s+t)$ and in Theorem \[genint2\] we have $3-(s+t)$. Could the second estimate be valid whenever $s+t>2$? This would mean that the dimension is $0$ when $s+t>3$. Could the exceptional set even be countable then? I don’t think so, but I don’t have a counter-example. Anyway, it need not be empty whatever the dimensions are. That is, using only translations we cannot say much for general sets. The following example follows from [@M2], or see [@Ke1] for having $A=B$: there are compact subsets $A$ and $B$ of ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ such that $\dim A = \dim B =n$ and $A\cap (B+z)$ contains at most one point for every $z\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$.
A problem related both to projections and intersections is the distance set problem. For $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ define the distance set
$$D(A) = \{|x - y|: x,y \in A\}\subset [0,\infty).$$ The following Falconer’s conjecture seems plausible:
\[Falconer-conj\] If $n\geq 2$ and $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ is a Borel set with $\dim A>n/2$, then $\mathcal L^1(D(A))>0$, or even $\operatorname{Int}(D(A))\neq\emptyset$.
Falconer [@F5] proved in 1985 that $\dim A>(n+1)/2$ implies $\mathcal L^1(D(A))>0$, and we also have then $\operatorname{Int}(D(A))\neq\emptyset$ by Sjölin and myself [@MS]. Here appears the same bound $(n+1)/2$ as for the intersections, and for the same reason. In both cases for a measure $\mu$ with finite $s$-energy estimates for the measures of the narrow annuli, $\mu(\{y:r<|x-y|<r+\delta\})$, for $\mu$ typical centers $x$ are useful. They are rather easily derived with the help of the Fourier transform if $s\geq (n+1)/2$.
The best known result is due to Wolff [@W3] for $n=2$ and to Erdoğan [@E] for $n\geq 3$:
If $n\geq 2$ and $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ is a Borel set with $\dim A>n/2+1/3$, then $\mathcal L^1(D(A))>0$.
The proof is based on the estimate .
The relation to projections appears when we look at the pinned distance sets: $$D_x(A) = \{|x - y|: y \in A\}\subset [0,\infty),\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}.$$ Peres and Schlag proved in [@PS] that these too have positive Lebesgue measure for many $x$ provided $\dim A>(n+1)/2$. We can think of $D_x(A)$ as the image of $A$ under the projection-type mapping $y\mapsto |x-y|$.
Various partial results on distance sets have recently been proved, among others, by Iosevich and Liu [@IL1], [@IL2], Lucá and Rogers [@LR], Orponen [@O4] and Shmerkin [@S2], [@S3].
Besicovitch and Furstenberg sets
================================
We say that a set in ${\mathbb{R}}^n, n\geq2,$ is a *Besicovitch set*, or a Kakeya set, if it has zero Lebesgue measure and it contains a line segment of unit length in every direction. This means that for every $e\in S^{n-1}$ there is $b\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ such that $\{te+b:0<t<1\}\subset B$. It is not obvious that Besicovitch sets exist but they do in every ${\mathbb{R}}^n, n\geq 2$:
\[bes\] For any $n\geq 2$ there exists a Borel set $B\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\mathcal{L}^n(B)=0$ and $B$ contains a whole line in every direction. Moreover, there exist compact Besicovitch sets in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$.
It is enough to prove this in the plane, then $B\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-2}$ is fine in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$. We shall use projections and duality between points and lines. More precisely, parametrize the lines, except those parallel to the $y$-axis, by $(a,b)\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$: $$l(a,b)=\{(x,a+bx): x\in{\mathbb{R}}\}.$$ Then if $C\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is some parameter set and $B=\cup_{(a,b)\in C}l(a,b)$, one checks that $$B\cap\{(t,y):y\in{\mathbb{R}}\} = \{t\}\times\pi_t(C)$$ where $$\pi_t:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2,\quad \pi_t(a,b)=a+tb,$$ is essentially an orthogonal projection. Suppose that we can find $C$ such that $\pi(C)=[0,1]$, where $\pi(a,b)=b$, and $\mathcal L^1(\pi_t(C))=0$ for almost all $t$. Then $\mathcal L^2(B)=0$ by Fubini’s theorem and taking the union of four rotated copies of $B$ gives the desired set. It is not trivial that such sets $C$ exist but they do. For example, a suitably rotated copy of the product of a standard Cantor set with dissection ratio $1/4$ with itself is such, cf., for example, [@M6], Chapter 10. Restricting $x$ above to a compact subinterval of ${\mathbb{R}}$ yields a compact Besicovitch set.
The idea to construct Besicovitch sets using duality between lines and points is due to Besicovitch from 1964 in [@B], although he gave a geometric construction already in 1919. It was further developed by Falconer in [@F3]. We shall see more of this below.
All Besicovitch sets in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ have Hausdorff dimension $n$.
The Kakeya conjecture is open for $n\geq 3$. I shall discuss partial results later, but let us first see how it follows in the plane and how it is related to projection theorems. The following theorem was proved by Davies in [@D]:
\[davies\] For every Besicovitch set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\dim B \geq 2$. In particular, the Kakeya conjecture is true in the plane.
The proof of this is, up to some technicalities, reversing the above argument for the proof of Theorem \[bes\] and using Marstrand’s projection Theorem \[projections\](1), see the proof of Theorem \[proj-bes\] below. But let us now look more generally relations between projection theorems and lower bounds for the Hausdorff dimension of Besicovitch sets.
We can parametrize the lines in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$, except those orthogonal to the $x_1$-axis, by $(a,b)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$: $$l(a,b)=\{(x,a+bx): x\in{\mathbb{R}}\}.$$ Then again if $C\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{2(n-1)}$ is parameter set and $B=\cup_{(a,b)\in C}l(a,b)$ we have for $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $$B\cap\{(t,y):y\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\} = \{t\}\times\pi_t(C)$$ where $$\pi_t:{\mathbb{R}}^{2(n-1)}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1},\quad \pi_t(a,b)=a+tb,\quad t\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ These are projections of Section 4 with $k=1, m=n-1$. Suppose now that $\pi(C)=[0,1]^{n-1}$, where $\pi(a,b)=b$. Then in particular, $\dim C\geq n-1$. The projection theorem we would need to solve the Kakeya conjecture should tell us that $\dim\pi_t(C)=n-1$ for almost all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Then we could conclude by Proposition \[sectprop\] that $\dim B=n$. In the plane such projection theorem is true; it is just Marstrand’s projection theorem. However, in higher dimensions we don’t know of any such projection theorem since we now only have a one-dimensional family of projections. Notice that the space of all orthogonal projections from ${\mathbb{R}}^{2(n-1)}$ onto $(n-1)$-planes is $(n-1)^2$-dimensional. More precisely, we can state
\[proj-bes\] Let $0<s\leq n-1$ and $\pi(x,y)=y$ for $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$. Suppose that the following projection theorem holds: For every Borel set $C\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{2(n-1)}$ with $\mathcal H^{n-1}(\pi(C))>0$ we have $\dim\pi_t(C)\geq s$ for almost all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Then for every Besicovitch set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$, we have $\dim B\geq s+1$. In particular, if this projection theorem holds for $s=n-1$, the Kakeya conjecture is true.
We may assume that $B$ is a $G_{\delta}$-set, since any set in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ is contained in a $G_{\delta}$-set with the same dimension. For $a\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1},b\in[0,1]^{n-1}$ and $q\in{\mathbb{Q}}$ denote by $I(a,b,q)$ the line segment $\{(q+t,a+bt):0\leq t\leq 1/2\}$ of length less than $1$. Let $C_q$ be the set of $(a,b)$ such that $I(a,b,q)\subset B$. Then each $C_q$ is a $G_{\delta}$-set, because for any open set $G$ the set of $(a,b)$ such that $I(a,b,q)\subset G$ is open. Since for every $b\in[0,1]^{n-1}$ some $I(a,b,q)\subset B$, we have $\pi(\cup_{q\in{\mathbb{Q}}}C_q)=[0,1]^{n-1}$, so there is $q\in{\mathbb{Q}}$ for which $\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\pi(C_q))>0$. Then by our assumption, for almost all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, $\dim\pi_t(C_q)\geq s$. We now have for $0\leq t\leq 1/2$, $$\{q+t\}\times\pi_t(C_q)=\{(q+t,a+bt):(a,b)\in C_q\}\subset B\cap \{(x,y):x=q+t\}.$$ Hence for a positive measure set of $t$, vertical $t$-sections of $B$ have dimension at least $s$. By Proposition \[sectprop\] we obtain that $\dim B\geq s+1$.
Let us try to apply Oberlin’s projection theorem \[obproj1\] together with Theorem \[proj-bes\]. We have to apply it in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2(n-1)}$ with $k=1, m=n-1$. We have $\dim C \geq n-1$, so we get $\dim\pi_t(C)\geq n-1-(n-2)=1$, thus yielding the lower bound $2$ for the Hausdorff dimension of Besicovitch sets. But this also follows by Theorem \[davies\], and by other methods, see [@M6]. Unfortunately no known method seems to give any better projection theorem for the family $\pi_t$. From $\mathcal H^{n-1}(C)>0$ we could only hope to get $\dim\pi_t(C)\geq (n-1)/2$, at least when $n$ is odd. To see this let $p=(n-1)/2$ and $C=\{(a,b)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}:a_1=\dots=a_p=b_1=\dots =b_p=0\}$. Then $\mathcal H^{n-1}(C)=\infty$ and $\pi_t(C)=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}:x_1=\dots=x_p=0\}$, so $\dim\pi_t(C)=(n-1)/2$. Even if this estimate were true it would only give the lower bound $(n+1)/2$ for the dimension of Besicovitch sets. This has been known since the 1980s by different methods, see [@M6], Section 23.4. The only hope for better estimates via projections would seem to be that instead of only using the information $\mathcal H^{n-1}(C)>0$ we should use that $C$ has positive measure projection on the second factor of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ Often having one big projection does not help much. However Fässler and Orponen were able to make use of that in [@FO], and since we are dealing with a very special family of mappings maybe it could help here too. Moreover, in the known cases the generic dimension of the projections agrees with the largest one.
Yu proved in [@Y] that the Kakeya conjecture is equivalent to the following: for any Besicovitch set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ and for any $0<m<n$, $\dim P_V(B)$ is constant for $V\in G(n,m)$. The idea is simple but clever: lift your Besicovitch set $B$ from ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n-1}$ in the way it projects back to ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ as $B$ and it projects to some $n$-dimensional subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n-1}$ as a Besicovitch set where all the defining lines go through the origin. Then this latter projection has positive $n$-dimensional measure.
So the Kakeya conjecture is true in the plane and open in higher dimensions. The following results give the best known lower bounds for the Hausdorff dimension of Besicovitch sets.
Wolff, based on some earlier work of Bourgain, proved in [@W1]
\[wolf\] The Hausdorff dimension of every Besicovitch set in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ is at least $(n+2)/2$.
Wolff’s method is geometric. He proved the following Kakeya maximal function inequality which yields Theorem \[wolf\] rather easily.
$$\label{hairbrush}
\|\mathcal K_{\delta}f\|_{L^{\frac{n+2}{2}}({S^{n-1}})}\leq C(n,\epsilon)\delta^{\frac{2-n}{2+n}-\epsilon}\|f\|_{L^{\frac{n+2}{2}}({\mathbb{R}^{n}})}$$
for all $\delta, \epsilon>0$. Here $$\mathcal K_{\delta}f(e)=\sup_{a\in{\mathbb{R}}^n}\frac{1}{\mathcal L^n(T_e^{\delta}(a))}\int_{T_e^{\delta}(a)}|f|\,d\mathcal L^n,$$ where $T_e^{\delta}(a)$ is the tube with center $a\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$, direction $e\in {S^{n-1}}$, width $\delta$ and length $1$.
Wolff’s estimate $\dim B \geq 3$ is still the best known in ${\mathbb{R}}^4$.
Bourgain introduced in [@B2] a combinatorial method, further developed by Katz and Tao [@KT1] in [@KT2], which led to the following:
For any Besicovitch set $B$ in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$, $\dim B\geq (2-\sqrt{2})(n-4)+3$.
This is the best known lower bound for $n\geq 5$ . Quite recently Katz and Zahl [@KZ] were able to establish an epsilon improvement on Wolff’s bound $5/2$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Thus in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ the best known estimate is
For any Besicovitch set $B$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, $\dim B\geq 5/2+\epsilon$ where $\epsilon$ is a small constant.
The arguments of Katz and Zahl are very involved and complicated combining many earlier ideas. A new feature are the algebraic polynomial methods, first used by Dvir in [@Dv] to solve the Kakeya conjecture in finite fields. The polynomial methods have recently been used in many connections, an excellent treatise on these is Guth’s book [@G]. Orponen applied them to projections in [@O9].
Let us now look at some relations between unions of lines and line segments. Keleti made the following conjecture in [@Ke2]:
\[keleti1\] If $A$ is the union of a family of line segments in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $B$ is the union of the corresponding lines, then $\dim A=\dim B$.
This is true in the plane, as proved by Keleti:
\[keleti\] Conjecture \[keleti1\] is true in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
If Keleti’s conjecture is true in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ for all $n\geq 3$, it gives a lot of new information on the dimension of Besicovitch sets:
\(1) If Conjecture \[keleti1\] is true for some $n$, then, for this $n$, every Besicovitch set in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ has Hausdorff dimension at least $n-1$.
\(2) If Conjecture \[keleti1\] is true for all $n$, then every Besicovitch set in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ has upper Minkowski and packing dimension $n$ for all $n$.
Let $F$ be the projective transformation $$F(\tilde x,x_n)=\frac{1}{x_n}(\tilde x,1),\quad (\tilde x,x_n)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}, x_n\neq 0.$$ Then for $e\in{S^{n-1}}, e_n\neq 0, a\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}, F$ maps the punctured line $l(e,a)=\{te+(a,0):t\neq 0\}$ onto the punctured line $\{u(a,1)+\frac{1}{e_n}(\tilde e,0): u\neq 0\}$. If $B$ contains a line segment on $l(e,a_e), e\in{S^{n-1}}$, then $F(B)$ contains a line segment on $F(l(e,a_e)), e\in{S^{n-1}}$. The line extensions of these latter punctured lines cover $\{x:x_n=0\}$ so $\dim F(B)\geq n-1$ provided Conjecture \[keleti1\] is true. Clearly, $F$ does not change Hausdorff dimension, whence $\dim B\geq n-1$ and (1) holds.
\(2) follows by the well-known trick of taking products and by the product inequalities and . Suppose that Conjecture \[keleti1\] is true for all $n$ and there exists a Besicovitch set $B$ in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ with $\dim_PB<n$ for some $n$. Then $B^k\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{kn}$ would satisfy by $$\dim B^k \leq \dim_PB^k \leq k\dim_PB<kn-1$$ for large $k$. This contradicts part (1) since $B^k$ is a Besicovitch set in ${\mathbb{R}}^{kn}$.
Using Theorem \[marthm\] Falconer and I proved in [@FM] that in Theorem \[keleti\] line segments can be replaced by sets of positive one-dimensional measure. Later Héra, Keleti and Máthé in [@HKM] proved that sets of dimension one are enough. These methods and results extend to subsets of hyperplanes in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$, but they do not extend to lower dimensional planes. In particular they do not apply to Besicovitch sets in higher dimensions.
More generally, we can investigate the following question: suppose $E$ is a Borel family of affine $k$-planes in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$. How does the Hausdorff dimension of $E$ (with respect to a natural metric) affect the Lebesgue measure and the Hausdorff dimension of the union $L(E)$ of these planes, or of $B\cap L(E)$ if we know that $B$ intersects every $V\in E$ in a positive measure or in dimension $u$? Oberlin used in [@Ob3] the projection theorems of Section 4 to prove that $\dim E > (k+1)(n-k) - k$ implies $\mathcal L^n(L(E))>0$, and this is sharp. He also proved some lower bounds for the dimension, which are sharp when $k=n-1$ and $0<s\leq 1$, then the lower bound is $n-1+s$, but they probably are not always sharp.
Héra, Keleti and Máthé studied in [@HKM] questions of the above type and proved many interesting generalizations of the above results. For example they proved the following
Let $1\leq k<n$ be integers and $0\leq s\leq 1$. If $E$ is a non-empty family of affine $k$-planes in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ with $\dim E=s$ and $B\subset L(E)$ such that $\dim B\cap V=k$ for every $V\in E$, then $$\dim B = \dim L(E) = s+k.$$
Again, the right hand equality can fail if $s>1$; consider for example more than 1-dimensional families of lines in a plane. But the left hand inequality might hold always. However it is unknown for $s>1$.
[**Furstenberg sets**]{} are kind of fractal versions of Besicovitch sets. We consider them only in the plane. For Besicovitch sets we had a line segment in each direction. We would still have dimension 2 if we would replace line segments with sets of dimension 1. But things get much more difficult if we replace them with lower dimensional sets. We say that $F\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a Furstenberg $s$-set, $0<s\leq 1$, if for every $e\in S^1$ there is a line $L_e$ in direction $e$ such that $\dim F\cap L_e \geq s$. What can be said about the dimension of $F$? Wolff [@W4], Section 11.1, showed that $$\label{woff-fu}
\dim F\geq \max\{2s,s+1/2\}$$ and that there is such an $F$ with $\dim F = 3s/2+1/2$. He conjectured that $\dim F \geq 3s/2+1/2$ would hold for all Furstenberg $s$-sets. When $s=1/2$ Bourgain [@B3] improved the lower bound 1 to $\dim F\geq 1+c$ for some absolute constant $c>0$.
Oberlin [@Ob4] observed a connection to projections, and in particular to dimension estimates for exceptional projections and Conjecture . In this way he improved Wolff’s estimates for some particular Furstenberg sets. Let us see how this goes.
Let $E\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Borel set with $\dim E = s$ and $C\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ a parameter set for our lines such that $\pi(C)={\mathbb{R}}, \pi(x,y)=y$, whence $\dim C\geq 1$. Set $$F=\{(x,a+bx):x\in E, (a,b)\in C\}.$$ Then $F$ is (essentially) a Furstenberg $s$-set. As before for $t\in E$, $$F\cap\{(t,y):y\in{\mathbb{R}}\} = \{t\}\times\pi_t(C)$$ where $$\pi_t:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2,\quad \pi_t(a,b)=a+tb.$$ Let $0<u<(s+1)/2$. If Conjecture holds, we obtain $$\dim\{t:\pi_t(C)<u\} \leq 2u - 1 < s = \dim E.$$ Hence there is $E_1\subset E$ such that $\dim E_1=s$ and $\dim\pi_t(C)\geq u$ for $t\in E_1$. It follows by Proposition \[sectprop\] that $\dim F \geq s+u$. Letting $u\to (s+1)/2$, we get $\dim F \geq 3s/2+1/2$.
Thus the projection conjecture implies Wolff’s conjecture for these special Furstenberg sets. Even for these no better dimension estimate is known than . Oberlin proved a better estimate, but weaker than the conjectured one, in the case where $C=C_1\times C_1$ and $C_1\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ is the standard symmetric Cantor set of dimension $1/2$. He did this by improving Kaufman’s estimate $\dim\{t:\pi_t(C)<u\} \leq u$ in this case.
Orponen has proved (unpublished) that if we have the lower bound $t+(2-t)s$ for some $t\in[0,1/2]$ for the Hausdorff dimension of all Furstenberg $s$-sets $F\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$, then $$\dim\{e\in S^1: \dim_MP_e(F)\leq u\}\leq\max\left\{\frac{u-t}{1-t},0\right\}\quad \text{for}\ 0\leq u\leq 1.$$
Orponen improved in [@O7] Wolff’s bound for the packing dimension:
For $1/2<s<1$ there exists a positive constant $\epsilon(s)$ such that for any Furstenberg $s$-set $F\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ we have $\dim_PF>2s+\epsilon(s)$.
Recall Orponen’s packing dimension estimate for projections . Proofs for these two results are rather similar, and based on combinatorial arguments.
This dimension problem is related to Furstenberg’s question on sets invariant under $x\mapsto px(mod 1), x\in{\mathbb{R}}, p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. This problem was recently solved, independently and by different methods, by Shmerkin [@S1] and by Wu [@Wu].
Other recent results on Furstenberg sets are due to Molter and Rela [@MR1], [@MR3] and [@MR2], and Venieri [@V]. Rela has a survey in [@R].
One reason for the great interest in Besicovitch sets and Kakeya conjecture is that the restriction conjecture
$$\|\widehat f\|_{L^q({\mathbb{R}}^n)} \leq C(n,q)\|f\|_{L^{\infty}(S^{n-1})}\quad \text{for}\ q>2n/(n-1),$$
implies the Kakeya conjecture. For more on this, see for example [@W4] and [@M6].
$(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets
========================
We obtain other interesting Besicovitch set problems by replacing lines with higher dimensional planes.
\[be1\] A set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ is said to be an $(n,k)$ *Besicovitch set* if $\mathcal L^n(B)=0$ and there is a non-empty open set $G\subset G(n,m)$ such that for every $V\in G$ there is $a\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ such that $B(a,1)\cap(V+a)\subset B.$
We say that a set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ is a full $(n,k)$ *Besicovitch set* if $\mathcal L^n(B)=0$ and there is a non-empty open set $G\subset G(n,m)$ such that for every $V\in G$ there is $a\in{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ such that $V+a\subset B.$
We have used the open set $G$ in this definition for later convenience. Our main interest is for what pairs $(n,k)$ such sets exist and for this it is equivalent to use $G=G(n,k)$.
Extending earlier results of Marstrand [@Ma3] ($n=3, k=2$), Falconer [@F1] ($k>n/2$) and Bourgain [@B1] ($2^{k-1}+k\geq n$) R. Oberlin [@Ob] proved that there exist no $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets if $(1+\sqrt{2})^{k-1}+k > n$. For other values of $k\geq 2$ their existence is unknown. Let us now see how this relates to projections.
Mimicking the arguments from the previous section we only consider affine $k$-planes in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ which are graphs over ${\mathbb{R}}^k$ identified with the coordinate plane $x_{k+1}=\dots=x_n=0$. They can be parametrized as $$L(l,c)=\{(x,lx+c):x\in{\mathbb{R}}^k\},\quad l\in L({\mathbb{R}}^k,{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}), c\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k},$$ where $L({\mathbb{R}}^k,{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k})$ is the space of linear maps from ${\mathbb{R}}^k$ into ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}$, identified with ${\mathbb{R}}^{k(n-k)}$. Let $\pi:{\mathbb{R}}^{k(n-k)}\times{\mathbb{R}}^k\to {\mathbb{R}}^{k(n-k)}$ with $\pi(l,c)=l$. Suppose we could find a Borel set $C\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{k(n-k)}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}$ for which the interior of $\pi(C)$ is non-empty and $\mathcal L^n(B)=0$ where $$B=\bigcup_{(l,c)\in C}L(l,c).$$ Then $B$ would be a full $(n,k)$ Besicovitch set. Define $$\pi_t:L({\mathbb{R}}^k,{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k})\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}\to {\mathbb{R}}^{n-k},\quad \pi_t(l,c)=lt+c, (l,c)\in L({\mathbb{R}}^k,{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}) \times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}, t\in {\mathbb{R}}^k.$$ For $t\in{\mathbb{R}}^k$ we now have $$B\cap\{(x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^k\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}: x=t\} = \{t\}\times\pi_t(C).$$ So by Fubini’s theorem $\mathcal L^n(B)>0$ if and only if $\mathcal L^{n-k}(\pi_t(C))>0$ for $t$ in a set of positive $k$-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
Hence the question for which values of $n$ and $k$ the projection properties (P1) and (P2) below are valid is very close to the question of the existence of $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets:\
(P1) If $C\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{k(n-k)}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}$ is a Borel set for which the interior of $\pi(C)$ is non-empty, then $\mathcal L^{n-k}(\pi_t(C))>0$ for positively many $t\in {\mathbb{R}}^k$.\
(P2) If $C\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{k(n-k)}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}$ is a Borel set with $\mathcal L^{k(n-k)}(\pi(C))>0$, then $\mathcal L^{n-k}(\pi_t(C))>0$ for almost all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}^k$.\
(P3) If $C\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{k(n-k)}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}$ is a Borel set with $\mathcal H^{k(n-k)}(C)>0$, then $\mathcal L^{n-k}(\pi_t(C))>0$ for almost all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}^k$.\
Clearly, (P3) implies (P2) implies (P1). Probably (P1) and (P2) are equivalent but it may be difficult to show this without really verifying their validity. Notice that (P3) is almost the same as statement (2) in Oberlin’s theorem \[obproj1\] in the case $m=n-k, N=(k+1)(n-k)$. We shall come back to that, and we shall see that (P1) does not always imply (P3).
If $k=n-1$, then the $\pi_t$ form an $(n-1)$-dimensional family of linear maps ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$, which is essentially the same as the full family of orthogonal projections. Thus these statements are true by standard Marstrand’s projection theorem and we regain by Proposition \[Pprop\] below the nonexistence of $(n,n-1)$ Besicovitch sets. This was proved by Marstrand by a simple geometric method for $n=3$ and that proof easily generalizes. For other pairs $(n,k)$ the validity of (P1) and (P2) does not seem to have an obvious answer. But we can easily state some connections.
\[Pprop\]
- Full $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets do not exist if and only if (P1) holds.
- $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets do not exist if (P2) holds.
So if we would know that (P1) and (P2) are equivalent, we would know that the existence of full $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets and of $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets is equivalent.
Part (1) was already stated above.
\(2) can be proven with an easy modification of the argument that we gave for Theorem \[proj-bes\]. Let $B\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ be a $G_{\delta}$-set which contains a unit $k$-ball in every direction. We need to show that $\mathcal L^n(B)>0$. For $q\in {\mathbb{Q}}^k$, let $C_q$ be the set of $(l,c)$ such that $l$ belongs to the closed unit ball $B_L$ of $L({\mathbb{R}}^k,{\mathbb{R}}^{n-k})$ and $(q+t,lt+c)\in B$ for $t\in B(0,1/2)\}$. Then $|lt|\leq |t|$ for $t\in{\mathbb{R}}^k$. Again each $C_q$ is a $G_{\delta}$-set and $\pi(\cup_{q\in{\mathbb{Q}}^k}C_q)= B_L$, so there is $q\in{\mathbb{Q}}^k$ for which $\mathcal{H}^{k(n-k)}(\pi(C_q))>0$. Thus by (P2) $\mathcal L^{n-k}(\pi_t(C))>0$ for almost all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}^k$. Since for $t\in B(0,1/2)$, $$\{q+t\}\times\pi_t(C_q)=\{(q+t,lt+c):(l,c)\in C_q\}\subset B\cap \{(x,y):x=q+t\}.$$ we conclude that $\mathcal L^n(B)>0$.
Let us go back to the statement (2) in Oberlin’s theorem \[obproj1\] in the case $m=n-k$ and $N=(k+1)(n-k)$. If $C$ is as in (P2), then $\dim C\geq k(n-k)$. If $k(n-k) > (k+1)(n-k) - k$, that is $k>n/2$, then by Theorem \[obproj1\] (P2) holds and we obtain by Proposition \[Pprop\] that $(n,k)$ Besicovitch sets do not exist. This was proved by Falconer in [@F1] with a different Fourier-analytic method. As mentioned after Theorem \[obproj1\], (P3) fails if $k(n-k) < (k+1)(n-k) - k$. Suppose now that $(1+\sqrt{2})^{k-1}+k\geq n$. Then by the above mentioned results of Bourgain and Oberlin and by Proposition \[Pprop\](1) (P1) holds. In particular, we obtain in a rather indirect way a projection theorem from the results of Bourgain and Oberlin. Perhaps their methods could be used more directly to prove also other interesting projection theorems. We also see now that for pairs $(n,k)$ for which both $k< n/2$ and $(1+\sqrt{2})^{k-1}+k\geq n$, (P3) fails but (P1) holds. It would be interesting to see why this is so just using arguments with projections.
[CMM]{}
Z. M. Balogh , E. Durand–Cartagena, K. Fässler, P. Mattila, and J. T. Tyson. The effect of projections on dimension in the Heisenberg group. [*Rev. Mat. Iberoam.*]{} [**29**]{} (2013), 381–432.
Z. M. Balogh , K. Fässler, P. Mattila, and J. T. Tyson. Projection and slicing theorems in Heisenberg groups. [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**231**]{} (2012), 569–604.
Z. M. Balogh and A. Iseli. Dimension distortion by projections on Riemannian surfaces of constant curvature, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**144**]{} (2016), 2939–2951.
Z. M. Balogh and A. Iseli. Marstrand type projection theorems for normed spaces, to appear in J. Fractal Geom.
V. Beresnevich, K. J. Falconer, S. Velani and A. Zafeiropoulos. Marstrand’s Theorem Revisited: Projecting Sets of Dimension Zero, arXiv:1703.08554.
A.S. Besicovitch. On fundamental geometric properties of plane-line sets, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**39**]{} (1964), 441–448.
J. Bourgain. Besicovitch type maximal operators and applications to Fourier analysis, [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**1**]{} (1991), 147–187.
J. Bourgain. On the dimension of Kakeya sets and related maximal inequalities, [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**9**]{} (1999), 256–282.
J. Bourgain. On the Erdös–Volkmann and Katz–Tao ring conjectures, [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**13**]{} (2003), 334–365.
J. Bourgain. The discretized sum-product and projection theorems, [*J. Anal. Math.*]{} [**112**]{} (2010), 193–236.
C. Chen. Projections in vector spaces over finite fields , arXiv:1702.03648.
C. Chen. Restricted families of projections and random subspaces, arXiv:1706.03456.
R.O. Davies. Some remarks on the Kakeya problem, [*Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.*]{} [**69**]{} (1971), 417–421.
Z. Dvir. On the size of Kakeya sets in finite fields, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**22**]{} (2009), 1093–1097.
M. B. Erdoğan. A bilinear Fourier extension problem and applications to the distance set problem, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*]{} [**23**]{} (2005), 1411–1425.
K.J. Falconer. Sections of sets of zero Lebesgue measure, [*Mathematika*]{} [**27**]{} (1980), 90–96.
K.J. Falconer. Hausdorff dimension and the exceptional set of projections, [*Mathematika*]{} [**29**]{} (1982), 109–115.
K.J. Falconer. [*The Geometry of Fractal Sets*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
K.J. Falconer. Classes of sets with large intersection, [*Mathematika*]{} [**32**]{} (1985), 191–205.
K.J. Falconer. On the Hausdorff dimension of distance sets, [*Mathematika*]{} [**32**]{} (1985), 206–212.
K.J. Falconer, J. Fraser and X. Jin. Sixty years of fractal projections. Fractal geometry and stochastics V, 3–25, Progr. Probab., 70, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2015.
K.J. Falconer and P. Mattila. Strong Marstrand theorems and dimensions of sets formed by subsets of hyperplanes, [*J. Fractal Geom.*]{} [**3**]{} (2016), 319–329.
K. J. Falconer and T. O’Neil. Convolutions and the geometry of multifractal measures, [*Math. Nachr.*]{} [**204**]{} (1999), 61–82.
K. Fässler and R. Hovila. Improved Hausdorff dimension estimate for vertical projections in the Heisenberg group, [*Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5)*]{} [**15**]{} (2016), 459–483.
K. Fässler and T. Orponen. On restricted families of projections in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, [*Proc. London Math. Soc. (3)*]{} [**109**]{} (2014), 353–381.
H. Federer. [*Geometric Measure Theory*]{}, Springer Verlag, 1969.
L. Guth. [*Polynomial Methods in Combinatorics*]{}, American Mathematical Society, Provedence, RI, 2016.
W. He. Orthogonal projections of discretized sets, arXiv:1710.00759.
K. Héra, T. Keleti and A. Máthé. Hausdorff dimension of union of affine subspaces, arXiv:1701.02299.
R. Hovila, E. Järvenpää, M. Järvenpää and F. Ledrappier. Besicovitch-Federer projection theorem and geodesic flows on Riemann surfaces, [*Geom. Dedicata*]{} **161** (2012), 51–61.
R. Hovila, E. Järvenpää, M. Järvenpää and F. Ledrappier. Singularity of projections of 2-dimensional measures invariant under the geodesic flows on Riemann surfaces, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} **312** (2012), 127–136.
A. Iosevich and B. Liu. Falconer distance problem, additive energy and Cartesian products, [*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math.*]{} [**41**]{} (2016), 579–585.
A. Iosevich and B. Liu. Pinned distance problem, slicing measures and local smoothing estimates, arXiv:1706.09851.
E. Järvenpää, M. Järvenpää and T. Keleti. Hausdorff dimension and non-degenerate families of projections, [*J. Geom. Anal.*]{} (2014), **24**, 2020–2034.
E. Järvenpää, M. Järvenpää, F. Ledrappier and M. Leikas. One-dimensional families of projections, [*Nonlinearity*]{} (2008), **21(3)**, 453–463.
A. Käenmäki, T. Orponen and L. Venieri. A Marstrand-type restricted projection theorem in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, arXiv:1708.04859.
J.–P. Kahane. Sur la dimension des intersections, In Aspects of Mathematics and Applications, North-Holland Math. Library, [**34**]{}, (1986), 419–430.
N. H. Katz and T. Tao. Bounds on arithmetic projections, and applications to the Kakeya conjecture, [*Math. Res. Lett.*]{} [**6**]{} (1999), 625–630.
N. H. Katz and T. Tao. New bounds for Kakeya problems, [*J. Anal. Math.*]{} [**87**]{} (2002), 231–263.
N. H. Katz and J. Zahl. An improved bound on the Hausdorff dimension of Besicovitch sets in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, arXiv:1704.07210.
R. Kaufman. On Hausdorff dimension of projections, [*Mathematika*]{} [**15**]{} (1968), 153-155.
R. Kaufman and P. Mattila. Hausdorff dimension and exceptional sets of linear transformations, [*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A Math.*]{} [**1**]{} (1975), 387–392.
T. Keleti. A 1-dimensional subset of the reals that intersects each of its translates in at most a single point, [*Real Anal. Exchange*]{} [**24**]{} (1998/99), 843–844.
T. Keleti. Are lines much bigger than line segments?, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**144**]{} (2016), 1535–1541.
T. Keleti. Small union with large set of centers, in Recent developments in Fractals and Related Fields, ed. Julien Barral and Stéphane Seuret, Birkhäuser, 2015, arXiv:1701.02762.
R. Lucá and K. Rogers. Average decay of the Fourier transform of measures with applications, arXiv:1503.00105.
J. M. Marstrand. Some fundamental geometrical properties of plane sets of fractional dimensions, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.(3)*]{} [**4**]{} (1954), 257–302.
J. M. Marstrand. The dimension of cartesian product sets, [*Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.(3)*]{} [**50**]{} (1954), 198–202.
J. M. Marstrand. Packing planes in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, [*Mathematika*]{} [**26**]{} (1979), 180–183.
P. Mattila. Hausdorff dimension, orthogonal projections and intersections with planes, [*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A Math.*]{} [**1**]{} (1975), 227–244.
P. Mattila. Hausdorff dimension and capacities of intersections of sets in n-space, [*Acta Math.*]{} [**152**]{}, (1984), 77–105.
P. Mattila. On the Hausdorff dimension and capacities of intersections, [*Mathematika*]{} [**32**]{}, (1985), 213– 217.
P. Mattila. [*Geometry of Sets and Measures in Euclidean Spaces*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
P. Mattila. Recent progress on dimensions of projections. Geometry and analysis of fractals, 283–301, Springer Proc. Math. Stat., 88, Springer, Heidelberg, 2014.
P. Mattila. [*Fourier Analysis and Hausdorff Dimension*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015.
P. Mattila. Exeptional set estimates for the Hausdorff dimension of intersections, [*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A Math.*]{} [**42**]{} (2017), 611–620.
P. Mattila and T. Orponen. Hausdorff dimension, intersections of projections and exceptional plane sections, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**144**]{} (2016), 3419–3430.
P. Mattila and P. Sjölin. Regularity of distance measures and sets, [*Math. Nachr.*]{} [**204**]{} (1997), 157–162.
U. Molter, and E. Rela. Improving dimension estimates for Furstenberg-type sets, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**223**]{} (2010), 672–688.
U. Molter, and E. Rela. Furstenberg sets for a fractal set of directions, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**140**]{} (2012), 2753–2765.
U. Molter, and E. Rela. Small Furstenberg sets, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**400**]{} (2013), 475–486.
D. M. Oberlin. Restricted Radon transforms and projections of planar sets, [*Canad. Math. Bull.*]{} [**55**]{} (2012), 815–820.
D. M. Oberlin. Exceptional sets of projections, unions of k-planes, and associated transforms, [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**202**]{} (2014), 331–342.
D. M. Oberlin. Some toy Furstenberg sets and projections of the four-corner Cantor set, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**142**]{}, no. 4, 1209–1215.
D. M. Oberlin and R. Oberlin. Application of a Fourier restriction theorem to certain families of projections in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, [*J. Geom. Anal.*]{} [**25**]{} (2015), no. 3, 1476–1491.
R. Oberlin. Two bounds for the $X$-ray transform, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**266**]{} (2010), 623–644.
T. Orponen. Slicing sets and measures, and the dimension of exceptional parameters, [*J. Geom. Anal.*]{} [**24**]{} (2014), 47–80.
T. Orponen. Hausdorff dimension estimates for some restricted families of projections in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**275**]{} (2015), 147–183.
T. Orponen. On the packing dimension and category of exceptional sets of orthogonal projections, [*Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)*]{} [**194**]{} (2015), 843–880.
T. Orponen. Projections of planar sets in well-separated directions, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**297**]{} (2016), 1–25.
T. Orponen. On the distance sets of AD-regular sets, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**307**]{} (2017), 1029– 1045.
T. Orponen. A sharp exceptional set estimate for visibility, to appear in Bull. London. Math Soc. arXiv:1602.07629.
T. Orponen. Improving Kaufman’s exceptional set estimate for packing dimension, arXiv:1610.06745.
T. Orponen. An improved bound on the packing dimension of Furstenberg sets in the plane, arXiv:1611.09762.
T. Orponen. On the dimension and smoothness of radial projections , arXiv:1710.11053.
T. Orponen and L. Venieri. Improved bounds for restricted families of projections to planes in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, arXiv:1711.08934.
Y. Peres and W. Schlag. Smoothness of projections, Bernoulli convolutions, and the dimension of exceptions, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**102**]{} (2000), 193–251.
E. Rela. Refined size estimates for Furstenberg sets via Hausdorff measures: a survey of some recent results, arXiv:1305.3752.
P. Shmerkin. Projections of self-similar and related fractals: a survey of recent developments, arXiv:1501.00875.
P. Shmerkin. On Furstenberg’s intersection conjecture, self-similar measures, and the $L^q$ norms of convolutions, arXiv:1609.07802.
P. Shmerkin. On distance sets, box-counting and Ahlfors-regular sets, [*Discrete Anal.*]{} (2017), Paper No. 9, 22 pp.
P. Shmerkin. On the Hausdorff dimension of pinned distance sets, arXiv:1706.00131.
L. Venieri. Dimension estimates for Kakeya sets defined in an axiomatic setting, arXiv:1703.03635, Ann. Acad. Sci Fenn. Disserationes 161 (2017).
T. W. Wolff. An improved bound for Kakeya type maximal functions, [*Rev. Mat. Iberoam.*]{} [**11**]{} (1995), 651–674.
T. W. Wolff. A Kakeya-type problem for circles, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**119**]{} (1997), 985–1026.
T. W. Wolff. Decay of circular means of Fourier transforms of measures, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*]{} [**10**]{} (1999), 547–567.
T. W. Wolff. Lectures on Harmonic Analysis, Amer. Math. Soc., University Lecture Series 29, 2003.
M. Wu. A proof of Furstenberg’s conjecture on the intersections of $xp$ and $xq$ invariant sets, arXiv:1609.08053.
H. Yu. Kakeya books and projections of Kakeya sets, arXiv:1704.04488.
[Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 68, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland,]{}\
*E-mail address:* `[email protected]`
[^1]: The author was supported by the Academy of Finland through the Finnish Center of Excellence in Analysis and Dynamics Research
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is possible to obtain the gravitational field equations in a large class of theories from a thermodynamic variational principle which uses the gravitational heat density $\mathcal{S}_g$ associated with null surfaces. This heat density is related to the discreteness of spacetime at Planck scale, $L_P^2 = (G\hbar / c^3)$, which assigns $A_{\perp}/L_P^2$ degrees of freedom to any area $A_{\perp}$. On the other hand, it is also known that the surface term $K\sqrt{h}$ in the gravitational action principle correctly reproduces the heat density of the null surfaces. We provide a link between these ideas by obtaining $\mathcal{S}_g$, used in emergent gravity paradigm, from the surface term in the action in Einstein’s gravity. This is done using the notion of a nonlocal qmetric – introduced recently \[arXiv:1307.5618, 1405.4967\] – which allows us to study the effects of [*zero-point-length*]{} of spacetime at the transition scale between quantum and classical gravity. Computing $K\sqrt{h}$ for the qmetric in the appropriate limit directly reproduces the entropy density $\mathcal{S}_g$ used in the emergent gravity paradigm.'
author:
- 'Dawood Kothawala [^1]'
- 'T. Padmanabhan [^2]'
date: 'Dated: '
title: Entropy density of spacetime from the zero point length
---
The thermodynamic potentials like entropy density ($s$), the heat density ($Ts$), the free energy density $(\rho-Ts)$ etc. provide a link between the microscopic dynamics of molecules and macroscopic dynamics described in terms of standard thermodynamic variables like pressure, temperature etc. Recent work has shown that the field equations of gravity, describing the evolution of spacetime, are akin to the equations describing, say, the gas dynamics [@tpreviews; @grtp]. These field equations, for a large class of theories of gravity, can be obtained [@entropy-functional; @llreview] by extremising the total heat density $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}_g+\mathcal{S}_m$ where $\mathcal{S}_m$ is the matter heat density and $\mathcal{S}_g[n]$ the gravitational heat density. The latter depends on a vector field $n^i$ of constant norm and is given by [@grtp] $$\mathcal{S}\propto [(\nabla_in^i)^2-\nabla_i n^j \nabla_jn^i]=R_{ab} n^an^b +(\text{tot. div.})
\label{ts}$$ in the case of Einstein’s gravity. Extremising $\mathcal{S}$ with respect to all vector fields $n^i$ simultaneously, leads to a constraint on the background metric which turns out to be identical to the field equations.
If the ideas of emergent gravity paradigm are correct, we should be able to obtain this expression from a more microscopic approach. We will show how this can be done.
There are three facts which guide us in this task which we will first describe.
1. It seems inevitable that that the existence of some ‘atoms of spacetime’ is related to an effective *discreteness* at Planck scale ($L_P^2 = (G\hbar / c^3)$), which allows us to assign, $N_{\rm sur}=A_{\perp}/L_P^2$ degrees of freedom with any area $A_{\perp}$. In fact one can show that [@grtp] the time evolution of geometry in a 3-volume is driven by the difference $[N_{\rm sur}-N_{bulk}]$ where $N_{bulk}$ is the number of bulk degrees of freedom in the volume and $N_{\rm sur}$ is the number of surface degrees of freedom in the boundary. (Observers who perceive a time-independent metric will also note that spacetime exhibits holographic equipartition in the sense of $N_{\rm sur}=N_{bulk}$.) So, clearly, we need to incorporate the notion of ‘zero-point-area’ $L_P^2$ in a suitable manner if we hope to obtain $\mathcal{S}_g $ from a more microscopic description.
2. We know from standard discussion of horizon thermodynamics that the surface term $\mathcal{A}_{\rm sur}$ in the gravitational action (defined as the integral of $K\sqrt{h}$), is closely related to the entropy and heat densities. More precisely, the surface Hamiltonian $$H_{\rm sur}\equiv\frac{\partial \mathcal{A}_{\rm sur}}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left[\frac{1}{8\pi L_P^2}\int_{\mathcal{H}} K\sqrt{h}d^3x\right]$$ when evaluated on a local Rindler horizon $\mathcal{H}$ with surface gravity $\kappa$ and transverse area $A_\perp$, gives [@bibastp] the heat content(which is the same as enthalpy in this context): $$H_{\rm sur}\to \frac{\kappa A_\perp}{8\pi L_P^2}=TS$$ If we now perform the Euclidean continuation in $t$, then the natural range of integration for the Euclidean time $t_E$ is $0<t_E<(2\pi/\kappa)$. This will give the result: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{\rm sur}^E &=& \int_{\mathcal{H}} d^3x K\sqrt{h}
\nn \\
&=& \frac{2\pi}{\kappa}\times\left(\frac{\kappa A_\perp}{8\pi L_P^2} \right)=\frac{A_\perp}{4L_P^2}=S
\label{entro}
\end{aligned}$$ showing that the Euclidean surface action is the entropy. Therefore, the entropy *density* of spacetime, when evaluated around any event after Euclidean continuation, is essentially $(K\sqrt{h})$.
3. The above two facts suggest that one should be able to obtain the entropy density used in the emergent gravity paradigm, given in , from $K\sqrt{h}$ in a suitable limit. The operational difficulty in this program, of course, is the following: Quantities like $K\sqrt{h}$ are well defined on a differentiable manifold with a metric, normal vectors etc. But the entropy arising from $A_\perp/L_P^2$ degrees of freedom associated with an area $A_\perp$, requires incorporation of the zero point area into the spacetime which cannot be done without modifying the usual, local, description of spacetime. We need a suitable prescription which incorporates the quantum gravitational effects (in particular the existence of zero point area $L_P^2$), at scales reasonably bigger than $L_P^2$ but not totally classical. So we need a notion of an “effective” metric $q_{ab}$ in a spacetime (with a classical metric $g_{ab}$) such that it can incorporate the effects of the zero point area $L_P^2$. We can then compute $K\sqrt{h}$ for this effective metric. In the appropriate limit, this should give us the entropy density of the spacetime and — if our ideas are correct — the resulting entropy density should match with the one in .
Fortunately, the key last step of introducing an effective metric $q_{ab}$ with the necessary properties has already been achieved. We recently described in Ref. ([@dk-ml; @cheshire]) the notion of a qmetric which is capable of doing precisely this, which we shall briefly recall:
In a classical spacetime one can introduce a geodesic interval $\sigma^2(P,p)$ between any two events $P$ and $p$ which contains the same amount of information as the metric tensor $g_{ab}$. The key difference, of course, is that $\sigma^2(P,p)$ is a biscalar (and hence nonlocal) while the metric is local. Various geometric quantities at $P$ can be constructed by taking suitable derivatives of $\sigma^2(P,p)$ with respect to the coordinate $p$ and then taking the limit $p\to P$. (More details can be found in [@poisson-lrr; @cheshire].) At the classical level, the geometry can be characterized either by $g_{ab}$ or by $\sigma^2(P,p)$.
When we try to incorporate the effects of quantum gravity, there is an advantage in starting from a description in terms of $\sigma^2(P,p)$ rather than from the metric. This is because, while we have no universal rule to understand how quantum gravity modifies the metric, there is considerable amount of evidence (see e.g., [@zpl]) which suggests that $\sigma^2(P,p)$ is modified by $$\sigma^2 \to \sigma^2 + \lp^2; \qquad \lp^2=\mu^2 L_P^2
\label{funda}$$ where $\mu$ is a factor of order unity [@comment]. That is, one can capture the lowest order quantum gravitational effects by introducing a zero point length in spacetime along the lines suggested by . Once we accept this, we can introduce a second rank symmetric *bitensor* $q_{ab}(p,P)$, constructed such that it will lead to the geodesic interval $\sigma^2 + L_0^2$ if the original metric had the geodesic interval $\sigma^2$. This is done in [@dk-ml; @cheshire] by associating with a metric $g_{ab}$ (which has the corresponding geodesic interval $\sigma^2$) a *nonlocal* symmetric bitensor $q_{ab}(p,P)$ by the relation: $$q_{ab}(p,P; \lp^2) = Ag_{ab} - \l( A - \frac{1}{A} \r) \; n_a n_b
\label{eq:key1}$$ where $g_{ab} = g_{ab}(p)$ is the classical metric tensor, $\sigma^2 = \sigma^2 (p,P)$ is the corresponding classical geodesic interval and $$\mA = 1 + \frac{\lp^2}{\sigma^2}; \qquad n_a = \frac{\nabla_a \sigma^2}{2 \sqrt{ \sigma^2}}
\label{n1}$$ (The derivation of this form of qmetric and its properties are given in [@dk-ml; @cheshire]). Working with the qmetric we can capture some of the effects of quantum gravity — especially those arising from the existence of the zero point area — *without leaving the comforts of the standard differential geometry.*
There are several non-trivial effects arising from the nonlocal description of geometry in terms of the qmetric, discussed at length out in detail in [@cheshire], with the key point being the following: Suppose $\phi(P|g)$ is some scalar computed from the metric $g_{ab}$ and its derivatives. (The $\phi$ could, for example, be $R$, or $R_{ab}R^{ab}$ etc.). When we carry out the corresponding algebra using $q_{ab}(p,P)$ (with all differentiations carried out at the event $p$) we will end up getting a nonlocal (biscalar) $\phi(p,P; \lp^2|q)$ which depends on two events $(p,P)$ and on $\lp^2$. To obtain a local result, we now take the limit of $\sigma\to0$ (that is, $p\to P$) keeping $L_0^2$ finite. The resulting $\phi(P,P; \lp^2|q)$ will show quantum gravitational residual effects due to nonzero $L_0^2$. The key features of this approach arise from the non-commutativity of the limits: $$\lim_{L_0^2\to0}\lim_{\sigma^2\to0} \phi(p,P; \lp^2|q)\neq
\lim_{\sigma^2\to0}\lim_{L_0^2\to0}\phi(p,P; \lp^2|q)$$ The limit of the right hand side is trivial. When we take the limit of $L_0^2\to0$, keeping $\sigma^2$ finite, then $q_{ab}\to g_{ab}$ and all the derivatives of qmetric will coincide with the corresponding derivatives of the metric and $\phi(p,P; \lp^2|q)\to\phi(P|g)$. This arises because, in , only the combination $L_0^2/\sigma^2$ introduces non-trivial effects and this term and all derivatives vanish when $L_0^2\to0$. But when we take the limit of $\sigma\to0$ first keeping $L_0^2$ finite, the qmetric actually diverges. So we have no assurance that we will even get anything sensible when we take the limit; surprisingly, we do. This is how we obtain non-trivial effects. (For details, see [@cheshire].) The motivation, justification and several properties of the qmetric and the two limits were described in detail in [@cheshire] and will not be repeated here.
After this preamble, we return to our main focus, the surface term $K\sqrt{h}$ in the gravitational action. Given a fixed spacetime event $P$, the most natural [*surface*]{} $\Sigma$ on which to evaluate this term is the one formed by events $p$ at a constant geodesic interval $\sqrt{|\sigma^2(p,P)|}=\lambda$ from $P$. The intrinsic as well as extrinsic geometry of such a surface is completely determined by the geodesic structure of the background manifold, and hence is completely characterized by invariants built out of spacetime curvature. The mathematical expressions we shall need here can be found in [@cheshire], and several additional geometrical aspects of such [*equi-geodesic*]{} surfaces are discussed in [@dk-ext-geom].
We will use the qmetric and compute $K\sqrt{h}$ and demonstrate that it does lead to the entropy density $\mathcal{S}_g$ in . This is a relatively straightforward (though somewhat lengthy) computation and we shall describe the key steps. For clarity, we will work in a $D=4$ Euclidean space (the final result is same for Lorentzian signature), and use units with $L_P=1$ so that $L_0=\mu$. *In the local Rindler frame around $P$, the origin of $t_E-x$ plane will be the horizon and hence the limit of $p\to P$ corresponds to computing a quantity on the horizon.* We want to compute $K\sqrt{h}(p,P,\mu^2)$ for the qmetric and take the limit $p\to P$ (i.e., $\lambda\to0$) to obtain the quantum corrected entropy density.
The $[K\sqrt{h}]_q$ for the qmetric can be easily related to the corresponding quantity evaluated for the metric $g_{ab}$ by the relation $$\left[K\sqrt{h}\right]_q = A^2\left[K\sqrt{h}\right]_g + \frac{3}{2} \sqrt{h} \nabla_{\bm n} A
\label{zero}$$ where $\nabla_{\bm n} \equiv n^i \nabla_i$. The extrinsic curvature tensor on this surface has a series expansion in $\lambda$ given by (see [@cheshire; @dk-ext-geom]) $$K = \frac{3}{\lambda} - \frac{1}{3} \lambda\ \mathcal{S}(P) + \mathcal{O}(\lambda^2)
\label{one}$$ where $\mathcal{S}(P) = R_{ab} n^a n^b|_P$. Since by definition $K=\partial(\ln \sqrt{h})/ \partial \lambda$, this leads to the following series expansion for $\sqrt{h}$: $$\sqrt{h} = \lambda^3 \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{6} \mathcal{E}(P)\, \lambda^2 + \mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\right]
\label{two}$$ In the units we are using $\sqrt{h}$ incorporates the length dimensions and $K\sqrt{h}$ has dimensions $[\rm length]^2$. We also have $$\nabla_{\bm q} A = -\ \frac{2 \mu^2}{\lambda^3}
\label{three}$$ Substituting , and in we get the result $$\left[K\sqrt{h}\right]_q = 3A \lambda^2 - \frac{5}{6} (A\lambda^4)\ R_{ab} n^an^b \left[ 1 + \frac{2}{5} \, \frac{\mu^2}{\lambda^2}\right] + \mathcal{O}(\lambda)$$ Using $A= 1+(\mu^2/\lambda^2)$ and taking the coincidence limit $\lambda \to 0$, we get the final result $$\begin{aligned}
\lim \limits_{\lambda \to 0} \left[K\sqrt{h}\right]_q &=& 3 \mu^2 - \frac{\mu^4}{3} \ R_{ab} n^an^b
\nn \\
&=& \mathcal{S}_0 - \frac{\mu^4}{3} \mathcal{S}_g
\label{final1}
\end{aligned}$$ with all quantities on RHS now evaluated at $P$. The term $\mathcal{S}_0 = 3\mu^2$ can be thought of as the zero point entropy density of the spacetime which is a new feature. Its numerical value depends on the ratio $\mu=L_0/L_P$ which we expect to be of order unity and we will comment on it towards the end. The second term is exactly the heat density used in emergent gravity paradigm.
This result is significant in several ways which we shall now describe.
The most important feature of our result is that it reproduces correctly (except for an unimportant multiplicative constant) the entropy density $\mathcal{S}_g \propto R_{ab} n^a n^b$ used in emergent gravity paradigm. *This tells us that the entire program has a remarkable level of internal consistency.* There is no way one could have guessed this result a priori and, in fact, there is no assurance that the result should even be finite in the coincidence limit of $\sigma^2 \to 0$. The qmetric itself diverges when $\sigma^2 \to 0$ and its derivatives diverge faster. It is a nice and a non-trivial feature that the final result is free of any divergence.
Second, it is rather satisfying to obtain this result from $K\sqrt{h}$ part of the action rather than from the $R\sqrt{-g}$ part of the action. It has been shown in several previous works [@ayantp] that there is an intimate relationship between the surface and bulk parts of the gravitational action and hence we would have expected the correct entropy density $\mathcal{S}_g$ to emerge from either of them if it emerges from one of them. This expectation is correct and indeed we have shown earlier [@cheshire] that a similar analysis with the bulk part of the action does lead to the correct entropy density. There are, however, some crucial differences between these two approaches. The computation in Ref. [@cheshire] leads to an expression with a divergent term which, however, can be regularized to give the correct final result. The computation here, starting from the surface term, however does not lead to any divergences and there is no need to regularize the final result. This is a mathematically *non-trivial* fact which arises from a *delicate cancellation* of divergences[^3] between the two terms on the right hand side of . More specifically, the numerical factor and the structure of second of these terms depend on the (disformal) form of the qmetric, and an arbitrary, ad hoc deformation of geometry will *not* lead to similar cancellation of divergences (see, however, [@comment]).
Further, as we argued earlier, $K\sqrt{h}$ does have the natural interpretation of (being proportional to) the heat density on the horizon. Note that when we work in the Euclideanized local Rindler frame around an event $P$, the Rindler horizon gets mapped to the origin of the $(x, t_E)$ plane. The coincidence limit of $p\to P$ is precisely the same as taking the horizon limit in the local Rindler frame. In this limit, as is obvious from , $K\sqrt{h}/8\pi$ gives the entropy density. So if we had taken the limit $L_0\to0$ first (when $q_{ab}\to g_{ab}$ etc.) we would have recovered this standard result.
Finally, the most intriguing feature of our result is the discovery of “zero point entropy density” represented by the first term $\mathcal{S}_0 = 3\mu^2$. Since this is an entropy density, it tells us that the total zero point entropy in a sphere of Planck radius is given by $$S_0 = \frac{4\pi}{3} \times 3 \mu^2 = 4\pi\mu^2
\label{fourpi}$$ Recently, it has been shown that the cosmological constant problem can be solved within the emergent gravity paradigm if one could attribute a value $4\pi$ to the measure of degrees of freedom in the universe at Planck epoch, if the inflation took place at GUTs scale. This measure remains as a conserved quantity during the subsequent evolution and allows one to determine the numerical value of the cosmological constant (see, for details, Ref. [@hptp]). On the other hand if the inflation took place at Planck scales, we need $\mu^2\approx 1.2$ (see [@tpqg]) which is quite consistent with .
Unfortunately, the value of $\mu$ cannot be determined from the analysis of pure gravity sector for two reasons. First of all, there can be a numerical factor multiplying $K\sqrt{h}$ to give the entropy density. In the standard approach, this term is $(1/8\pi L_P^2)K\sqrt{h}$ but it is not clear whether we should use the same expression in a microscopic theory. Second, the overall coupling between gravity and matter is undetermined until we have introduced the matter sector which we have not yet done. If we assume that the total heat density, maximized to get the field equations is the sum of gravitational and matter heat densities (with the latter being $\mathcal{S}_{m}=T_{ab}n^an^b$; see e.g. [@grtp; @entropy-functional]), then one can determine the value of $\mu$. (Incidentally, the negative sign of the second term in is important for the consistency of this result; the fact that it comes out right is another consistency check for this approach.) But it is possible for a microscopic approach to modify the matter sector term to $\mathcal{S}_{m}=\lambda T_{ab}n^an^b$ where $\lambda$ is a numerical factor. So, altogether there is a possibility of yet another undetermined numerical factor in the theory. To see its effect, let us take the gravitational entropy term as just $K\sqrt{h}$ and write the matter sector term as $\mathcal{S}_{m}=\lambda T_{ab}n^an^b$ where $\lambda$ is a numerical factor. Then simple algebra shows that, to reproduce Einstein’s equations $G_{ab}=8\pi T_{ab}$ with correct coefficient, we need $(\mu^4/24\pi\lambda)=(1/8\pi)$ or $\mu^2=\sqrt{3\lambda}$. While this is in the right range to solve the cosmological constant problem, the numerical factor cannot be fixed until we have obtained the heat density of the matter sector from a similar description. But it is clear that the result in , which brings in a zero-point-entropy density, could provide a more detailed and microscopic justification for this idea. This issue is under investigation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research work of TP is partially supported by the J.C.Bose Fellowship of DST, India. DK thanks IUCAA, Pune, where part of this work was done, for hospitality. We thank Bibhas Majhi for comments on the earlier version of the paper.
[99]{} Padmanabhan, T.: [AIP Conf.Proc.]{} **1483**, 212 (2012) \[arXiv:1208.1375\]; Padmanabhan, T.: [Rept. Prog. Phys.]{}, **73**, 046901 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.5004\]; Padmanabhan, T.: [Phys.Rept.]{} **406**, 49 (2005) \[gr-qc/0311036\].
T. Padmanabhan, Gen.Rel.Grav, **46**, 1673 (2014) \[arXiv:1312.3253\].
T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**40**]{}, 2031 (2008); T. Padmanabhan, A. Paranjape, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 064004 (2007) \[gr-qc/0701003\].
T. Padmanabhan, Dawood Kothawala: [Phys.Repts.]{} **531**,115(2013) \[arXiv:1302.2151\].
B. Majhi, T. Padmanabhan, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{} 2651 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.1206\].
Dawood Kothawala, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 104029 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.5618\].
Dawood Kothawala, T. Padmanabhan (2014) \[arXiv:1405.4967\].
E. Poisson, A. Pound, I. Vega, Liv. Rev. Rel. [**14**]{}, 7 (2011).
B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}, 114 (1964); T. Padmanabhan: Gen. Rel. Grav. [**17**]{} , 215 (1985); Ann. Phys. [**165**]{}, 38 (1985). For a review, see L. Garay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**10**]{}, 145 (1995).
Dawood Kothawala (2014) \[arXiv:1406.2672\].
See, for e.g., T. Padmanabhan, *Gen.Rel.Grav.*, **38**, 1547-1552 (2006); A. Mukhopadhyay, T. Padmanabhan, *Phys.Rev.*, **D 74**, 124023 (2006) \[hep-th/0608120\]; Sanved Kolekar, T. Padmanabhan, *Phys.Rev.,* **D 82**, 024036 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.0619\].
Hamsa Padmanabhan, T. Padmanabhan, *Int.Jour.Mod.Phys,* **D22**, 1342001 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.3226\]; T. Padmanabhan, Hamsa Padmanabhan, *Int.Jour.Mod. Phys.*, **D 23**, 1430011(2014) \[arXiv:1404.2284\].
T. Padmanabhan, *The Physical Principle that determines the Value of the Cosmological Constant*, \[arXiv:1210.4174\].
[^1]: Electronic address: `[email protected]`
[^2]: Electronic address: `[email protected]`
[^3]: For example, if we attempted the same procedure with the bulk cosmological constant term in the action ($\Lambda\sqrt{-g}$) by converting it to ($\Lambda\sqrt{-q}$) and taking the $\sigma^2\to0$ limit, it will diverge unless $\Lambda=0$. This result is probably telling us that a microscopic approach cannot accommodate a nonzero cosmological constant.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'H. Beuther'
- 'S.E. Ragan'
- 'K. Johnston'
- 'Th. Henning'
- 'A. Hacar'
- 'J.T. Kainulainen'
date: Version of
title: 'Filament Fragmentation in High-Mass Star Formation[^1].'
---
[Filamentary structures in the interstellar medium are crucial ingredients in the star formation process. They fragment to form individual star-forming cores, and at the same time they may also funnel gas toward the central gas cores providing an additional gas reservoir.]{} [We want to resolve the length-scales for filament formation and fragmentation (resolution $\leq$0.1pc), in particular the Jeans length and cylinder fragmentation scale.]{} [We have observed the prototypical high-mass star-forming filament IRDC18223 with the Plateau de Bure Interferometer (PdBI) in the 3.2mm continuum and N$_2$H$^+$(1–0) line emission in a ten field mosaic at a spatial resolution of $\sim 4''$ ($\sim$14000AU).]{} [The dust continuum emission resolves the filament into a chain of at least 12 relatively regularly spaced cores. The mean separation between cores is $\sim$0.40$(\pm 0.18)$pc. While this is approximately consistent with the fragmentation of an infinite, isothermal, gravitationally bound gas cylinder, a high mass-to-length ratio of $M/l\approx
1000$M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$ requires additional turbulent and/or magnetic support against radial collapse of the filament. The N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ data reveal a velocity gradient perpendicular to the main filament. Although rotation of the filament cannot be excluded, the data are also consistent with the main filament being comprised of several velocity-coherent sub-filaments. Furthermore, this velocity gradient perpendicular to the filament resembles recent results toward Serpens south that are interpreted as signatures of filament formation within magnetized and turbulent sheet-like structures. Lower-density gas tracers (\[CI\] and C$^{18}$O) reveal a similar red/blueshifted velocity structure on scales around $60''$ east and west of the IRDC18223 filament. This may tentatively be interpreted as a signature of the large-scale cloud and the smaller-scale filament being kinematically coupled. We do not identify a velocity gradient along the axis of the filament. This may either be due to no significant gas flows along the filamentary axis, but it may partly also be caused by a low inclination angle of the filament with respect to the plane of the sky that could minimize such signature.]{} [The IRDC18223 3.2mm continuum data are consistent with thermal fragmentation of a gravitationally bound and compressible gas cylinder. However, the large mass-to-length ratio requires additional support – likely turbulence and/or magnetic fields – against collapse. The N$_2$H$^+$ spectral line data indicate a kinematic origin of the filament, but we cannot conclusively differentiate whether it has formed out of (pre-existing) velocity-coherent sub-filaments and/or whether magnetized converging gas flows, a larger-scale collapsing cloud or even rotation played a significant role during filament formation.]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
{width="99.00000%"}
The existence of filaments in the interstellar medium has been known for a long time. Especially the arrival of the Herschel observatory has strongly increased the interest in filamentary structures, in particular as filaments are a main evolutionary stage during the formation of dense cores and stars [@andre2010; @henning2010; @menshchikov2010; @arzoumanian2011; @andre2014]. During star formation, filaments can fragment and form the seeds of the star-forming cores. Furthermore, gas can be funneled along the filaments and feed the star-forming regions (e.g., @schneider2010 [@kirk2013; @myers2013b; @tackenberg2014]). This is especially important for high-mass star formation because massive stars are likely fed from the larger-scale environment (e.g., @smith2009b). Several filament studies have revealed filament parameters like their density structure, stability criteria, fragmentation length, characteristic width or kinematic properties (e.g.,@johnstone2003b [@jackson2010; @schneider2010; @henning2010; @beuther2011b; @hacar2013; @hill2012; @kainulainen2013; @henshaw2014; @kainulainen2015]). While large-scale low-mass star-forming regions have recently studied at high spatial resolution with CARMA (e.g., @fernandez2014 [@lee2014]), many previous studies in the high-mass regime discussed spatial structures (on the order of 0.2pc) based largely on single-dish measurements. Prominent exceptions are the infrared dark cloud investigated by @battersby2014, the hierarchical accretion study by @galvan2010 or the recent ALMA studies by, e.g., @peretto2013 or @zhang2015. The obvious goal is to investigate such filamentary structures at small spatial scales to study the physical properties of filaments on the scales of core and star formation on the order of 10000AU. One recent high-resolution study of a massive filament has been performed by @henshaw2014 who do not find large velocity gradients across the filament but rather resolve it into velocity-coherent sub-structures, similar to the results of @hacar2013 for a low-mass filament in Taurus[^2].
With the ultimate goal to understand high-mass star formation in filaments forming out of the larger-scale cloud, here we study the $\sim$4pc long infrared-dark filament associated with the High-Mass Protostellar Object (HMPO) IRAS18223-1243 [@sridha; @beuther2002a]. This region is part of a very long ($>$50pc) filament previously investigated on larger scales by @kainulainen2011, @tackenberg2013, @ragan2014, and @zucker2015. The region is a well studied high-mass star formation complex at a distance of $\sim$3.5kpc encompassing various evolutionary stages from very young protostars embedded in an infrared dark cloud (IRDC) to forming HMPOs (e.g., @sridha [@garay2004; @beuther2002a; @beuther2005d; @beuther2007a; @beuther2010b; @fallscheer2009]). Based on Spitzer, Herschel and mm single-dish data, the mass and luminosity distribution of the filament is known in detail (e.g., @beuther2010b [@ragan2012b]), and we now aim to shift the focus to the smaller scale dust and gas kinematic properties to set these into context with the larger-scale dust and gas filament.
For the region of this study, we have an extensive set of complementary data comprising – among others – the full Herschel far-infrared continuum data from 70 to 500$\mu$m and additional ground based longer wavelength data [@beuther2010b; @ragan2012b], high-density N$_2$H$^+$(1–0) data from the Nobeyama 45m telescope [@tackenberg2014], as well as \[CII\], \[CI\] and CO observations from SOFIA, APEX and the IRAM30m telescope [@beuther2014]. Figure \[18223\] presents a compilation of different continuum and spectral line data of this region. However, while all these observations address the large-scale structure of the gas on scales of $\sim$0.3pc, no data existed so far that can investigate the fragmentation properties and kinematics of the region on scales comparable to the Jeans length. For example, average densities of high-mass star-forming regions around $10^5$cm$^{-3}$ at low temperatures of 15K result in typical Jeans fragmentation scales of around 10000AU. These latter scales are now resolved with our new Plateau de Bure Interferometer 3mm line and continuum data.
The main scientific questions to be addressed are: What is the relevant fragmentation scale of the filament itself? Is it consistent with Jeans fragmentation, isothermal gaseous cylinders or even more complex structures? What are the kinematic properties of the gas? Does it show velocity gradients along the filament indicative of global collapse (e.g., @tackenberg2014) or rather velocity coherent sub-filamentary structures (e.g., @hacar2013 [@henshaw2014])? What are the virial parameters of the gas cores? What is the mass-per-unit length of the filament?
Observations {#obs}
============
The IRDC18223 filament was observed during a series of 8 tracks between June 2013 and April 2014 in the D- (with 5 antennas) and C-array (with 6 antennas) configurations of the Plateau de Bure Interferometer (PdBI). The projected baselines ranged between 15 and 175m. While the absolute reference position was R.A. (J2000.0) 18h25m09.533s and Dec. (J2000.0) $-$12$^o$43$'$55.90$''$, ten mosaic pointings were required to cover the length of the filament (Fig. \[18223\]). The adopted velocity of rest $v_{\rm{lsr}}$ of the system is 45.3kms$^{-1}$. Bandpass calibration was conducted with either of 3C279, 2200+420, 1633+382 or 3C345. The absolute flux calibration was performed with MWC349 and is estimated to be correct to within $\sim$15%. Phase and amplitude calibration was conducted with regular observations of the quasars 1730-130 and 1741-038. The spectral coverage of the wide-band receiver and correlator unit ranged from 91.53 to 95.14GHz. Almost the whole bandpass was used to extract the 3.2mm continuum emission (a small band around the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ was excluded). The narrow-band correlator units focused mainly on the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ and $^{13}$CS(2–1) lines. The nominal channel separation was 0.039MHz, and we smoothed the data to 0.2kms$^{-1}$ spectral resolution for our final data-cubes. While the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ emission was easily detected throughout the whole filament and will be discussed in detail in this paper, $^{13}$CS(2–1) was only detected toward the strong northern IRAS source and will not be discussed any further. During the imaging process, we experimented with different weighting schemes between natural and uniform weighting to optimize the spatial resolution as well as signal-to-noise ratio. For the continuum emission we present both data with resulting synthesized beams of $5.6''\times 3.27''$ (PA $-6^o$) and $4.37''\times 2.84''$ (PA $+187^o$), respectively. For the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ data, we discuss the results based on the naturally weighted data with a synthesized beam of $5.77''\times
3.39''$ (PA $-6^o$). The $1\sigma$ rms values are 0.13mJybeam$^{-1}$ for the continuum and 9mJybeam$^{-1}$ measured in a line-free channel of the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ emission.
Although Fig. \[18223\] presents single-dish N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ data from the Nobeyama 45m telescope, neither the spectral resolution nor the sensitivity of these data is sufficient for merging with the new interferometer data. Therefore, we refrain from doing that.
Results
=======
The IRDC18223 represents a beautiful example of an infrared dark filament within a larger-scale filamentary structure covering more than 50pc in linear extent [@kainulainen2011; @tackenberg2013; @ragan2014]. In the following we will analyze in detail the dense gas and dust properties of this filament from a fragmentation and a kinematic point of view.
![3.2mm continuum images of the IRDC18223 filament. The left panel is imaged with natural weighting and a resulting synthesized beam of $5.6''\times 3.27''$ with a position angle of $-6^o$ whereas the right image is conduced with uniform weight and a synthesized beam of $4.37''\times 2.84''$ with a position angle of 187$^o$. The contour levels in both images start at the $3\sigma$ level of 0.39mJybeam$^{-1}$, continuing in $3\sigma$ steps until 1.56mJybeam$^{-1}$ (the same are shown as dotted lines for negative features). Then they continue from 2.34mJybeam$^{-1}$ in 1.56mJybeam$^{-1}$ steps. The red markers and line in the left panel outline the main continuum peak positions and guide the eye for the filament structure. The synthesized beams and scale bars are shown in both panels at the top-right.[]{data-label="continuum"}](continuum.png){width="49.00000%"}
The filament in the 3.2mm continuum emission {#cont}
--------------------------------------------
Figure \[continuum\] presents the 3.2mm continuum data imaged with natural and uniform weighting. While the uniform weighting reveals more small-scale detail, the naturally-weighted imaged recovers more of the extended filamentary structure. Considering our spatial resolution limit of $4.37''\times 2.84''$ that corresponds at the given distance of 3.5kpc to a linear resolution element of $\sim$13000AU, we cover scales of the filament between several pc down to $\sim$0.063pc. With only a small large-scale velocity gradient along the filament (Sec. \[kinematics\]), IRDC18223 may either have barely any gas motions along the filament or have only a small inclination angle with respect to the plane of the sky. With an extent of $\geq$4pc and an approximate width of on average less than 0.2pc, its length-over-width ratio exceeds $\sim$20.
{width="99.00000%"}
Fits to the spectral energy distributions of Spitzer and Herschel data toward individual cores in that region resulted in temperatures usually between 15 and 20K for the cold component in this filament [@beuther2007a; @beuther2010b; @ragan2012b]. For the following estimates we assume 15K throughout the whole studied region. Assuming optically thin dust continuum emission at this temperature with a dust opacity $\kappa_{1.07{\rm mm}}\sim 0.8$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ at densities of $10^5$cm$^{-3}$ [@ossenkopf1994] and a gas-to-dust mass ratio of 150 [@draine2011], the MAMBO 1.2mm single-dish continuum data from @beuther2002a give an estimate of $\sim$4000M$_{\odot}$ total mass within the filament outlined in Figure \[18223\][^3]. Since bolometer arrays like MAMBO also filter large-scale emission, we can use the Herschel 500$\mu$m data from @beuther2010b[^4] to estimate the upper mass limit for the region. Integrating the Herschel 500$\mu$m flux over the whole area shown in Fig. \[continuum\], we get a total flux of 187Jy. With the same assumptions as above ($\kappa_{500\mu{\rm
m}}\sim 3.9$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ at densities of $10^5$cm$^{-3}$, @ossenkopf1994), this results in a total gas mass in this area of $\sim$7673M$_{\odot}$, close to twice as much as measured by the MAMBO 1.2mm data. Hence, the derived masses between 4000 and 7673M$_{\odot}$ bracket the overall mass of this star-forming large-scale filament. For comparison, the total 3.2mm flux of the filament shown in the naturally-weighted image of Fig. \[continuum\] is $\sim$149mJy which corresponds with the same assumptions ($\kappa_{3.2{\rm mm}}\sim 0.17$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$) to a total mass of $\sim$2200M$_{\odot}$. Hence, in this case even naturally-weighted interferometer data recover between 29% to 55% of the single-dish flux and hence resemble the overall structure very well.
------- ------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------- ---------------
\# R.A. Dec. $S_{\rm{peak}^a}$ $S_{\rm{int}^a}$ $N_{\rm{H_2}}$ $M_{\rm{peak}}^e$ $M$ $L^c$
(J2000.0) (J2000.0) $\left(\frac{\rm{mJy}}{\rm{beam}}\right)$ (mJy) ($\frac{10^{23}}{\rm{cm^2}}$) (M$_{\odot}$) (M$_{\odot}$) (L$_{\odot}$)
1$^b$ 18:25:11.11 -12:41:52.8 1.5 8.3 2.3 22 123 157
2 18:25:10.61 -12:42:25.0 10.3 57.0 16.0 150 843 1979
2$^d$ 7.2 77 377
3 18:25:09.99 -12:42:56.1 1.4 3.1 2.2 20 46
4 18:25:09.91 -12:43:14.0 1.5 4.1 2.3 22 61 135
5 18:25:10.21 -12:43:24.2 2.0 5.1 3.1 29 75
6 18:25:10.04 -12:43:43.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 9 13
7 18:25:09.69 -12:44:12.1 1.8 12.0 2.8 26 177 201
8 18:25:09.31 -12:44:26.4 1.6 6.3 2.5 23 93
9 18:25:09.23 -12:44:37.6 1.0 2.4 1.6 15 36
10 18:25:09.09 -12:44:52.0 1.7 6.9 2.6 25 102
11 18:25:08.49 -12:45:22.0 6.7 26.0 10.4 97 385 324
12 18:25:06.94 -12:45:56.7 1.3 2.4 2.0 19 36 79
------- ------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------- ---------------
[ \
$^a$ Peak and integrated fluxes are extracted from the naturally-weighted 3.2mm continuum image within the $3\sigma$ contours.\
$^b$ This is the approximate mid-point between the three sub-peaks there.\
$^c$ From @ragan2012b.\
$^d$ Calculated also at 31K following @beuther2010b.\
$^e$ Peak masses $M_{\rm{peak}}$ are calculated from the peak column densities $N_{\rm{H_2}}$ for a more accurate comparison with virial masses measured toward the peak positions (Table \[fits\]).]{} \[masses\]
{width="99.00000%"}
We extracted also the peak $S_{\rm{peak}}$ and integrated fluxes $S_{\rm{int}}$ of the 12 substructures identified in Fig. \[continuum\] (left panel), which are listed in Table \[masses\]. These 12 regions were identified by eye with the goal to encompass major structures along the filament. For source identification and flux extraction we used mainly the naturally weighted image (Fig. \[continuum\] left panel). We restricted ourselves to structures that are detected above a $4\sigma$ level also in the uniformly-weighted image in Fig. \[continuum\] (right panel). Obviously, some of these regions can fragment at smaller scales which is already visible for the northernmost peak 1, or also for peak 7 in the uniformly-weighted image. Also extended structures in Fig. \[continuum\] (left panel), e.g., between peaks 6 and 7 may be separate fragments (see Fig. \[continuum\] right panel), however, they cannot be resolved as individual peaks in the naturally weighted image and are hence not separately extracted. Emission was integrated above the 3$\sigma$ level of the naturally-weighted image (Fig. \[continuum\] left panel), the separation between sources were estimated by eye, usually in emission troughs approximately in the middle between adjacent cores. While the peak positions and hence peak column densities are well defined (Table \[masses\]), defining exact boundaries between cores is less straightforward (e.g., @kainulainen2009b [@pineda2009]). Nevertheless, in this rather linear structure of the IRDC18223 filament, small shifts of boundaries between cores only marginally affect the integrated fluxes and hence estimated masses. Assuming optically thin dust continuum emission at 15K temperature, the masses $M$ and column densities $N_{\rm{H_2}}$ corresponding to $S_{\rm{int}}$ and $S_{\rm{peak}}$ are also compiled in Table \[masses\]. Furthermore, for a better comparison with the virial masses below we calculate the peak masses $M_{\rm{peak}}$ from the peak column densities $N_{\rm{H_2}}$ over the size of the beam (Table \[fits\]). For region 2, we also calculate the masses and column densities at a higher temperature of 31K as derived in @beuther2010b. The fragment masses span a broad range between 13 and 843M$_{\odot}$, and the column densities range between $9\times 10^{23}$ and $1.6\times 10^{24}$cm$^{-2}$, corresponding to visual extinctions between approximately 100 and 1000mag, well within the regime of the precursors of high-mass stars (e.g., @kauffmann2010). Table \[masses\] also gives the luminosities derived for individual cores based on Herschel data by @ragan2012b. These luminosities range from starless cores without any far-infrared detections and hence no measurable luminosities, via low-luminosity sources around 100$L_{\odot}$ up to almost 2000L$_{\odot}$ from the high-mass protostellar object source 2. One should keep in mind that the measured luminosities are bolometric luminosities and do not necessarily stem from hydrogen burning but are likely still dominated by accretion luminosity. The corresponding mass and column density sensitivities estimated from our $3\sigma$ flux level of 0.39mJybeam$^{-1}$ are $\sim$5.8M$_{\odot}$ and $\sim$6.1$\times 10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$, respectively. Two of the regions are well-studied star-forming objects: core 2 corresponds to IRAS18223-1243 [@sridha] and core 10 is the younger high mass protostellar object IRDC18223-3 [@beuther2007a; @fallscheer2009].
Assuming spherical symmetry within our beam size, the above estimated $3\sigma$ column density sensitivity of $\geq$6.1$\times
10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$ results in an approximate density sensitivity of $\geq$2.6$\times 10^5$cm$^{-3}$. Combining this density sensitivity with the missing flux ratio, we can estimate a dense gas mass fraction above that density threshold between $\sim$29% and 55%. Assuming for the dense gas a star formation efficiency of $\sim$30% (e.g., @alves2007 [@andre2014]), this results in an approximate overall star formation efficiency of the whole filamentary cloud of 8.7% to 16.5%. These latter values depend strongly on the star formation efficiency which may vary between 20% and 40% [@andre2014].
------------ ------------------
peak pairs peak separations
pc
1-2 0.56
2-3 0.55
3-4 0.30
4-5 0.19
5–6 0.33
6–7 0.49
7–8 0.26
8–9 0.19
9–10 0.24
10–11 0.53
11–12 0.70
------------ ------------------
: Peak separations between mm continuum peaks
\[sep\]
Another important parameter for the fragmentation processes is the separation between the fragments along the filament. While individual gas cores along the filament may fragment on even smaller scales beyond our spatial resolution and mass sensitivity limits, here we focus on the fragmentation of the filament itself. Table \[sep\] shows the projected separations between the 12 cores identified in Fig. \[continuum\] and Table \[masses\]. These values result in a mean projected separation between the fragments of $\sim$0.40pc with a standard deviation of 0.18pc. This mean separation should be considered as an upper limit because more fragments along the filament may exist that were not identified within the spatial resolution and mass sensitivity of our data. For comparison, we can estimate the Jeans length for mean densities of the large-scale filament between $10^4$ and $10^5$cm$^{-3}$ at 15K to a range between $\sim$0.23 and $\sim$0.07pc. These Jeans scales are considerably smaller than the observed mean fragment separation. Although the measured fragment separations are projected upper limits, a difference of more than a factor of 2 between measurements and Jeans lengths appears significant. We will discuss this result in the context of filament fragmentation in section \[fragmentation\].
Furthermore, the mass-to-length ratio $M/l$ can be compared to the critical mass per length $M/l_{\rm{crit}}$ in an equilibrium situation (e.g., @ostriker1964 [@fiege2000a; @fiege2000b]). Deviations from this $M/l_{\rm{crit}}$ indicate non-equilibrium modes. While filaments with line masses below $M/l_{\rm{crit}}$ expand if not supported by external pressure, filaments with line masses strongly exceeding $M/l_{\rm{crit}}$ can collapse radially perpendicular to the main long axis of the filament. Such radial collapse would be on very short time-scales and hence prohibit further fragmentation along the main axis of the filament (e.g., @inutsuka1992). If turbulent pressure dominates over thermal pressure, using $\sim$2.5kms$^{-1}$ as an approximate line width from the single-dish data for the dense gas of the IRDC18223 filament (Fig. \[18223\], third panel 2nd moment map), one can estimate a critical mass to length ratio $(M/l)_{\rm{crit-turb}}\approx 84\times
(\delta v)^2\approx 525$M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$ (e.g., @jackson2010), more than 20 times higher than the $(M/l)_{\rm{crit-therm}}\approx 25$M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$ for an undisturbed filament using the thermal sound speed at 15K of 0.23kms$^{-1}$ [@ostriker1964].
For comparison, we can estimate the $M/l$ of the IRDC18223 filament by dividing the total filament mass estimated from the 1.2mm MAMBO data of $\sim$4000M$_{\odot}$ by the projected length of the total filament of $\sim$4pc. This results in a very high $M/l$ of 1000M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$. Although larger than the estimated $(M/l)_{\rm{crit-turb}}$, the difference of about a factor 2 is within the uncertainties considering that the linewidth is squared in the equation above. Hence, turbulent motions may help stabilizing the filament against fast radial collapse. One should keep in mind that turbulence can also create shocks and by that density enhancements and filaments. In addition to this, magnetic fields may help to stabilize the filament as well. For example, recent magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) simulations by @kirk2015 showed that in their MHD case the $M/l_{\rm{crit-B}}$ increased by a factor of $\sim$3 compared to the pure hydro case. Although radial collapse cannot be entirely excluded, the fact of the existence of this filament with such a regular fragment separation as well as the large $(M/l)_{\rm{crit-turb}}$ make radial collapse a less likely scenario.
The gas kinematics of the filament {#kinematics}
----------------------------------
Figure \[n2h+\] presents a compilation of the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ emission in comparison to the 3.2mm cold dust continuum as well as the 24$\mu$m mid-infrared warm dust emission/absorption. The dense gas tracer N$_2$H$^+$ follows the filamentary structure very well with the integrated emission peaks showing close resemblance to the peak positions in the 3.2mm continuum (Fig. \[n2h+\], 1st and 2nd panel). The line emission seems even to trace the larger-scale structure slightly better than the continuum observations.
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}\
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}\
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
The third panel in Fig. \[n2h+\] presents a first moment map (intensity-weighted peak velocities) of the whole filament (conducted with the isolated hyperfine structure component shifted by 8kms$^{-1}$ to the $v_{\rm{lsr}}$). While the combined optical depth of all hyperfine components together often exceeds 1 toward the main core peak positions (e.g., Fig. \[spec\]), the moment maps are done with the isolated hyperfine component 8kms$^{-1}$ apart from the main component at a relative intensity of $\sim$11%, hence at optical depth $\ll 1$. Therefore, the peak velocities in Fig. \[n2h+\] should not be affected by optical depth effects. The northern part of the region between peak 1 and 5 does shows some variation between red- and blue-shifted gas without any clear signature along or across the filament. In particular, one can identify a clear velocity gradient across core 2 in the north. However, since that is a well-known high-mass protostellar object likely driving a molecular outflow [@sridha], this velocity structure is likely strongly influenced by the dynamics of the already more evolved internal source. The situation is different from peak 6 southward. In this southern part, the first moment map is indicative of a velocity gradient across the filament from red-shifted gas in the east to blue-shifted gas in the west. Conducting a cut perpendicular to the filament through continuum source 8 in Fig. \[n2h+\], we measure peak velocities between 44.8 and 47.0kms$^{-1}$ over an angular size of $\sim$15$''$, corresponding to $\sim$0.26pc at the given distance, corresponding to a velocity gradient of $\sim$25.6kms$^{-1}$pc$^{-1}$. The velocity gradient can also be seen by inspecting the channel map of the gas (Fig. \[channel\]). The almost vertical line in the channel map is drawn to guide the eye along the filamentary structure seen in the channel at 47.2kms$^{-1}$. This channel map also shows that at redshifted velocities the gas in the south is located further to the east than at blue-shifted velocities. An exception is the emission of peak 10 (also known as IRDC18223-3) which covers almost the entire velocity range. This peak is clearly more evolved than the other fragments and also drives an energetic outflow [@fallscheer2009]. Fig. \[n2h+\] also presents a second moment map (intensity-weighted line width) which shows a line width increase toward the ridge of the filament often closely related to the mm continuum emission. While some of this increased line width is clearly associated with star formation activity (e.g., peaks 2 and 10 also known as IRAS18223-1243 and IRDC18223-3), in other cases, this second moment increase can also be caused by multiple velocity components (see below).
One can now ask whether this more than 2pc long southern part of the filament is either a velocity-coherent structure with only a small velocity-gradient from east to west, or whether it may consist of several sub-filaments that may form the large structure (e.g., @hacar2013 [@smith2014]). To analyze this in more detail, Fig. \[spec\] presents the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ spectra extracted toward the 12 mm peak positions. For all spectra we fitted the full hyperfine structure with either one or two spectral velocity components. The decision to fit either single or multiple components was mainly based on the shape of the isolated most-blueshifted hyperfine structure line component. The fit results are shown in Table \[fits\] and in Figure \[spec\]. More than 50% of the spectra clearly need two velocity components to adequately fit the data (e.g., mm2 and mm7, even the spectrum toward peak 10 is likely an overlap of multiple components potentially caused by the internal outflow-driving source). It is interesting to note that most of the single component fits as well as often one of the two components exhibit relatively narrow line width below 1kms$^{-1}$. Nevertheless, although comparably narrow, even these components have significant non-thermal contributions since the thermal line width of N$_2$H$^+$ at 15K is $\sim$0.15kms$^{-1}$. The second component usually is slightly broader between 1.3 and 2.7kms$^{-1}$. These broader components may also be comprised out of multiple components along the line of sight.
The peak velocities extracted from the spectra do not exhibit a clear velocity gradient along the filament. Therefore, in contrast to the velocity-gradient seen in the moment map from east to west, there is no obvious velocity gradient from north to south along the filament. As already mentioned for the whole filament, this missing gradient along the filament may either be due to missing significant streaming motions along, or it may also be introduced due to a possible orientation almost in the plane of the sky.
The measured line width toward the individual peak positions can also be used to get a rough estimate of the virial mass of the individual fragments. Following @maclaren1988, we estimate the virial mass according to $M_{\rm{vir}} = k_2 \times R \times \Delta v^2$, where we use $k_2=126$ for a $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ density distribution, $R=16000$AU$\sim 0.078$pc the size of the region corresponding to the beam size of the N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ data, and the measured full width half maximum $\Delta v$. The resulting virial masses $M_{\rm{vir}}$ are shown in Table \[fits\]. A direct correlation with the masses derived from the dust emission in Table \[masses\] is not possible because some sources have more than one N$_2$H$^+$ component and thus several virial mass estimates, whereas the gas masses from the continuum emission are always single values. Nevertheless, in most cases of multiple velocity components, one dominates. Table \[fits\] also shows the ratio of the virial masses divided by the peak masses $M_{\rm{peak}}$ derived from the peak column densities $N_{\rm{H}_2}$ in Table \[masses\]. While in a majority of cases this $M_{\rm{vir}}/M_{\rm{peak}}$ ratio is considerably smaller than 1, there are also several cases where the ratio is close to unity or even higher. Interestingly, the three highest $M_{\rm{vir}}/M_{\rm{peak}}$ sources 4, 5, and 6 show very different internal luminosity characteristics. While source 4 has a clear associated internal heating source, \#5 is at the edge of that, and \#6 exhibits no detectable 24$\mu$m emission (Fig. \[n2h+\]). From a virial balance point of view, this comparison is an indicator that many of the individual cores are prone to collapse or already collapsing (see also recent filament work by @battersby2014). The latter is also evident by embedded sources within many of the dust continuum peaks (e.g., Fig. \[18223\] left and right, mid- to far-infrared panels). However, there are exceptions which may still be stable against gravitational collapse (e.g., source 6).
---- ----------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------------------------------
\# $v_{\rm{peak}}$ $\Delta v$ $M_{\rm{vir}}$ $\frac{M_{\rm{vir}}}{M_{\rm{peak}}}^b$
(kms$^{-1}$) (kms$^{-1}$) (M$_{\odot}$)
1 45.4 0.7 4.8 0.22
2 45.2 0.8 6.3 $-^c$
45.9 2.7 71.3 0.92
3 44.9 0.9 7.9 0.36
4 45.7 0.6 3.5 $-^c$
46.1 1.9 35.3 1.60
5 45.9 2.3 51.7 1.78
46.4 0.4 1.6 $-^c$
6 45.9 1.0 9.8 1.09
7 43.6 0.8 6.3 0.24
45.2 1.3 16.5 0.63
8 44.8 1.5 22.0 0.96
45.9 1.4 19.2 0.82
9 45.1 0.9 8.0 0.53
46.3 0.7 6.3 0.42
10 45.9 0.8 6.3 0.25
46.4 1.4 19.2 0.77
11 45.6 2.0 39.1 0.40
12 43.9 1.2 14.1 0.74
---- ----------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------------------------------
: N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ hyperfine structure line fits
\[fits\] [ \
$^a$Peak velocities and FWHM values from fits to full hyperfine structure\
$^b$ $M_{\rm{peak}}$ are taken from the continuum data in Table \[masses\].\
$^c$ The line widths and virial masses of these secondary velocity components are negligible compared to the main components.]{}
A different way to look at the velocity structure is a position-velocity cut along the southern filament. Figure \[pv\] presents such a position-velocity (pv) diagram going from south to north between peaks 11 and 6 as outlined in Figure \[n2h+\]. While this pv cut exhibits very broad emission in the south toward peak 11 (or IRDC18223-3) which is also visible in Figs. \[channel\] & \[spec\], the rest of the cut does show a variety of features: while some peaks exhibit single emission peaks redshifted with respect to the $v_{\rm{lsr}}$ (e.g., peak 10 or 6), others show multiple peaks on both sides of the $v_{\rm{lsr}}$ (e.g., peaks 7 to 9). Again, no clear velocity gradient across the structure can be identified. However, the position-velocity cut shows that internal structure is found within this filament. As outlined in section \[cont\], our identified fragments within the filament (Table \[masses\]) represent likely only a lower limit to the actual structures, and more fragments may exist. For example, in Fig. \[pv\] we can identify structures between peaks 6 and 7. Comparing these to the continuum maps in Fig. \[continuum\], they are spatially close to the extended structures in Fig. \[continuum\] (left panel) and the $4\sigma$ peaks in Fig. \[continuum\] (right panel).
![Position-velocity cut through the southern half of the filament in the isolated N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ line (shifted to the $v_{\rm{lsr}}$) from south to north along the axis shown as black line in panel 3 of Fig. \[n2h+\]. The mm peak names are marked at the bottom.[]{data-label="pv"}](pv_n2h+.png){width="49.00000%"}
A natural question is whether similar kinematic features can be found in the less dense surrounding of the gas on larger spatial scales. In a recent \[CII\]/\[CI\]/C$^{18}$O emission line study toward four IRDCs, @beuther2014 identified several velocity components between 42 and 56kms$^{-1}$ in comparably localized emission structures in the atomic and molecular carbon emission east of the IRDC18223 filament. To investigate this in more detail, we used the atomic \[CI\] and molecular C$^{18}$O(2–1) data of the region [@beuther2014]. Figure \[other\] shows the first moment maps of these tracers toward our target region. In these moment maps, for both tracers no obvious large-scale velocity gradients across the filament can be identified. The only mentionable feature in Fig. \[other\] is that the dense filament seem in C$^{18}$O and \[CI\] appears to be slightly blue-shifted compared to the larger scale molecular cloud. This effect is more pronounced in the C$^{18}$O(2–1) than the \[CI\] emission. For comparison, we extracted the C$^{18}$O(2–1) spectra toward five positions across the filament at the declination of mm continuum source 8 (Fig. \[spec\_c18o\]). Toward the central positions, these spectra show that the two N$_2$H$^+$ velocity components are approximately recovered in the C$^{18}$O emission as well. This indicates that, if the region were observed at higher angular resolution also in C$^{18}$O, one would likely identify similar velocity structures as in N$_2$H$^+$. Moving outward to the east, the emission becomes more redshifted whereas to the west the emission is more blueshifted. This is particularly prominent in the spectra at $+60''$ and $-60''$ (corresponding to $\sim\pm$1pc, Fig. \[spec\_c18o\]), respectively. Interestingly, this velocity shift found in the individual spectra is hard to identify in the moment maps because several components overlap diminishing the signatures this way. It should be noted that the velocity gradient found this way on large scales for the cloud is considerably smaller than the 25.6kms$^{-1}$pc$^{-1}$ found above for the dense filament in the interferometric N$_2$H$^+$ data. While it appears in general plausible that the velocities increase when going to higher densities, recent molecular cloud and filament formation simulations tend to find similar signatures (e.g., @moeckel2015 [@smith2015]). This trend needs to be investigated more in the future from an observational as well as theoretical point of view. Nevertheless, the general trend of redshifted gas in the east and blueshifted gas in the west is found on the large scales traced by the C$^{18}$O single-dish emission as well as on the small scales studied with the new PdBI N$_2$H$^+$ data. Hence, we find tentative evidence that the large-scale cloud and the smaller-scale filament are kinematically coupled.
![The two panels show for comparison the first moment maps in molecular C$^{18}$O(2–1) and atomic carbon \[CI\] obtained from the IRAM30m and APEX data presented in @beuther2014. The contours are the 3.2mm continuum emission with natural weighting and the same levels as in Fig. \[continuum\]. The numbers of the mm cores are given in the left panel.[]{data-label="other"}](overlays_other_v2.png){width="49.00000%"}
{width="99.00000%"}
Discussion
==========
Filament fragmentation {#fragmentation}
----------------------
As outlined in Section \[cont\], the separations between the main identified fragments along the filament exceed the Jeans length at the given densities and temperatures. Although our measured projected separations are upper limits because of potential unresolved fragmentation and/or fragments below our sensitivity limit, the difference between Jeans length and projected fragment separation by more than a factor two appears significant. As a next step, we analyze the region in the framework of isothermal, gravitationally bound gaseous cylinders. Based on early work of @chandrasekhar1953 [@nagasawa1987] and @inutsuka1992 as well as more recent adaptions like @jackson2010, @beuther2011b or @kainulainen2013, we study the conditions of an infinite isothermal gas cylinder. Although IRDC18223 is obviously not of infinite length, the filament is part of a much larger structure extending more than 50pc projected on the sky. Hence, in this context, the approximation of IRDC18223 being part of a much longer, almost infinite structure seems justifiable. Furthermore, since star formation has already started at different locations in the filament, it is not the perfect starless filament anymore. However, the infrared dark nature of IRDC18223 clearly shows the youth of the whole structure. Hence, it is still an excellent target region that represents conditions in the relatively early phase of filament fragmentation.
This characteristic isothermal scale-height $H$ of such a gas cylinder is given by $H = c_s(4\pi G\rho)^{-1/2}$ with $c_s$ the sound speed, $G$ the gravitational constant and $\rho$ the gas mass density at the center of the filament (e.g., @nagasawa1987). With a thermal sound speed of the gas at 15K of $c_s \sim 0.23$kms$^{−1}$ and using an approximate density $\rho \sim 10^5$cm$^{-3}$ (e.g., @beuther2002a), the characteristic scale-height is $H\sim
0.02$pc. In that case, the characteristic fragmentation scale corresponding to the fastest growing unstable mode of the fluid instability is $\lambda_{\rm{frag}} = 22H$ (e.g., @nagasawa1987 [@inutsuka1992; @jackson2010]) which results with the above used parameters for the sound speed and the temperature in an approximate fragmentation scale $\lambda_{\rm{frag}} \approx
0.44$pc. One should keep in mind that there are uncertainties associated with the assumed density and sound speed, which introduce an uncertainty in the estimated core separation. In particular, instead of the thermal sound speed of the gas, other works have used the Gaussian turbulent velocity dispersion in this estimate, which would increase the estimated value for $\lambda_{\rm{frag}}$ according to the ratio of the turbulent velocity dispersion over the thermal sound speed (e.g., @wang2014). Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that using the thermal sound speed at 15K and an approximate central density of $10^5$cm$^{-3}$ results in $\lambda_{\rm{frag}}$ which is close to the mean core separation of the filament of $\sim$0.40pc discussed in section \[cont\]. Although our observed mean separation is likely only an upper limit (Section \[cont\]), an isothermal, gravitationally bound and compressible gas cylinder allows us to reproduce the general fragmentation structure of IRDC18223 well.
The high mass-to-length ratio estimated from the dense gas bolometer single-dish data of $M/l$ of $\sim$1000M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$ exceeds by far the critical mass to length ratios for thermal filaments, but it is approximately consistent with a scenario where also turbulent support of the filament against radial collapse is considered (Section \[cont\]). Additional effects, e.g., the presence of magnetic fields may add further support to the stability of the filament. The recent MHD simulations by @kirk2015 revealed an increase of the critical mass-to-length ratio by a factor of $\sim$3 compared to their pure hydrodynamical simulations. One should keep in mind that only if the filament does not collapse radially perpendicular to the filament, perturbations along the filament can grow and result in fragmentation as discussed above (e.g., @inutsuka1992). Quantitatively speaking, it is one of the largest $M/l$ values found so far, where Nessie is reported with $\sim$110M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$, Orion with 385M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$ [@bally1987; @jackson2010], a sub-filament in the G35.39 region with 115M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$ [@henshaw2014], and the G11.11 IRDC with a value of 600M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-1}$ [@kainulainen2013].
Kinematics of the filament
--------------------------
The kinematic properties of filaments have recently been discussed in a different context. Signatures of gas flows along the filaments have been identified (e.g., @hacar2011 [@kirk2013; @tackenberg2014; @zhang2015]), and velocity coherent sub-structures have been identified that may originate from the filament formation process (e.g., @hacar2013 [@smith2014; @henshaw2014]). Furthermore, recently velocity gradients perpendicular to filaments were discussed that may also be signatures of filament formation [@fernandez2014].
Potential signatures for gas flows along the filament are blue-red-shifted velocity structures on the two opposite sites of mm peak positions, indicating that the gravitational well of the gas peaks attracts the gas from the filament. While we cannot exclude such a possibility, the moment maps and position-velocity diagrams (Figs. \[n2h+\] & \[pv\]) at least show no obvious signatures of this. The fact that we do not see any strong gradient from north to south could be due either to barely any streaming motions along the filament, or it can also indicate that the filament may be oriented relatively close to the plane of the sky. Such a low inclination angle would make any identification of gas flows along the filament very difficult.
Another signature of gas flows along the filament could be regular oscillatory-like velocity changes along such a filament as discussed in @hacar2011 or @zhang2015. While the pv-cut in Figure \[pv\] shows velocity fluctuations around the $v_{\rm{lsr}}$, it is hard to identify such a sea-saw pattern. Therefore, this signature is also not evident in our data.
In a recent study of the filaments in Serpens south, @fernandez2014 find velocity gradients perpendicular to filaments as well, very similar to our findings here. Although they also find velocity-gradients along the filaments, they stress that the velocity-gradients perpendicular to the filaments are about an order of magnitude larger than those along the filaments. The quantitative gradients they derive perpendicular and parallel to the filament are 11.9kms$^{-1}$pc$^{-1}$ versus 0.9kms$^{-1}$pc$^{-1}$, respectively. This is suggestive for the kinematics perpendicular to the filaments being dynamically much more important than those along the filaments. The gradient we find in IRDC18223 is even larger with $\sim$25.6kms$^{-1}$pc$^{-1}$. Although @fernandez2014 postpone a more detailed comparison with simulations to a future paper (Mundy et al. in prep.), the main thrust of their interpretation is that such velocity-gradients perpendicular to filaments may stem from motions associated with the formation and growing of the filaments (see also @heitsch2013a [@heitsch2013b]). Hence they may be direct signatures of the filament formation processes. Similar results are also indicated by recent three-dimensional simulations of turbulence compressed regions in strongly-magnetized sheet-like layers [@chen2015]. Within these layers, dense filaments and embedded self-gravitating cores form via gathering or compression of the material along the magnetic field lines. As a result of the mass collection along preferred directions, velocity gradients perpendicular to the filament major axis are a common feature seen in their simulations [@chen2015].
Regarding velocity-coherent sub-filaments, the velocity shifts of the southern part of the filament, particularly prominent in the channel map (Fig. \[channel\]), allows us to speculate whether we have also in this region similar structures. While in principle rotation of the filament is a possible explanation for the observed spectral signatures, @kirk2013 showed that for an accreting filament, infall motions would quickly dominate the kinematics, even if the filament were initially rotating. In Fig. \[pv\], one can tentatively identify several contiguous regions in space/velocity between offsets $\sim 40''$ and $\sim 80''$ (peaks 9 and 8) and a velocity of $\sim 46$kms$^{-1}$, as well as between $\sim 70''$ and $\sim 120''$ (midway between peaks 8/9 and midway between peaks 6/7) and a velocity of $\sim 45$kms$^{-1}$. While @hacar2013 find a large number of bundles of filaments within the Taurus region, @henshaw2014 identify three sub-filaments within their studied G35.39 dark filament. This latter high-mass infrared dark cloud compares more closely to our IRDC18223 filament in physical properties (e.g., mass, size, velocity dispersion) . In principle, a series of velocity-coherent sub-filaments could mimic also a velocity gradient across the structure. However, since the observations presented here are interferometer-only data without the missing short-spacing information, an automized search for velocity-coherent fibers in a manner analogous to the studies by @hacar2013 or @henshaw2014 is not possible. As mentioned before, the rms and spectral resolution of our currently available Nobeyama 45m single-dish data is not sufficient for a reasonable merging with the interferometer data. However, we plan to obtain high-quality short-spacing data in the future and revisit the analysis.
Alternative interpretations have recently been invoked to explain observed trends in filament velocity structure. Recently, @tafalla2015 discussed the possibility that the filament in Taurus which they observed may have formed from the supersonic collision of sub-filaments, and that in the next step, this filament will fragment due to gravitational instabilities. Similarly, @smith2014 recently discussed filament formation by pre-existing structures based on hydrodynamic collapse simulations.
![Sketch of the approximate structure of IRDC18223.[]{data-label="sketch"}](Filament_cum_clumps_v2.png){width="49.00000%"}
An additionally interesting aspect in the presented results is that the velocity gradient found on small scales in the interferometer data perpendicular to the filament is also found on larger scales by the single-dish C$^{18}$O(2–1) data (Fig. \[spec\_c18o\]). This indicates that larger-scale diffuse gas is kinematically coupled to the dense inner filament. The fact that we find a significant steeper velocity gradient in the dense inner filament compared to the larger-scale cloud can also be identified in recent cloud and filament formation simulations (e.g., @moeckel2015 [@smith2015]).
To summarize, on the spatial scales traced by our interferometer data, the identified velocity-gradient perpendicular to the filament as well as tentatively velocity-coherent sub-structures may both stem from (magnetized) turbulent flows in sheet-like or filamentary structures. Such turbulent and sheet-like substructures could have formed out of the larger-scale self-gravitating and collapsing cloud. Figure \[sketch\] sketches the approximate structure of the region highlighting the main features.
Conclusions {#conclusion}
===========
The PdBI 3.2 mm line and continuum emission resolves this more than 4pc long filament into its substructures at about 15000AU scale. We identify a linear structure with $\sim$12 cores at approximately similar spacing with a mean projected separation of $\sim$0.40($\pm$0.18)pc. This separation is much larger than the typical Jeans length. Although the observed core separation is an upper limit because of limited spatial resolution and sensitivity, the data are approximately consistent with the fragmentation properties of an isothermal, gravitationally bound and compressible gas cylinder. However, the mass-to-length ratio is also very high implying additional turbulent and/or magnetic support of the filament if it is supported against radial collapse.
We do not find any significant velocity gradient along the 4pc filamentary structure, but the PdBI N$_2$H$^+(1-0)$ data reveal a transverse velocity gradient across the southern half of the filament. While it is possible that this southern filament may be composed of at least two velocity-coherent sub-filaments, rotation of the filament cannot be excluded either, although the latter appears less likely. The missing signatures of gas flows along the filament may indicate small streaming motions along the filament but they could also be caused by a low inclination angle of the filament with respect to the plane of the sky.
The velocity gradient perpendicular to the filament may also stem from the filament formation process within magnetized and turbulent sheet-like structures. On scales of $\pm 60''$ ($\sim\pm$1pc) east and west of the filament we find similar red/blueshifted signatures as on the smaller filament scales. This may be tentative evidence that the lower-density cloud and higher-density filament indeed may be kinematically coupled.
In summary, these combined line and continuum data reveal an excellent example of a massive gas filament. While the continuum data are roughly consistent with thermal fragmentation of a cylinder, the high mass-to-length ratio requires additional support against radial collapse, most likely due to turbulence and/or magnetic fields. Furthermore, the observed velocity structure of the gas indicates a dynamic origin of the filament. However, we cannot resolve yet whether it is comprised of individual velocity-coherent sub-filaments or whether other processes like magnetized converging gas flows, a larger-scale collapsing cloud or even cloud rotation play a significant role in the formation process. Future observations combining single-dish and interferometer data will help to better constrain these different scenarios.
We like to thank Axel Quetz for helping to produce the sketch in Fig. \[sketch\]. Furthermore, thanks a lot to Hendrik Linz from the EPOS Key-Project team for providing us a newly reduced version of the Herschel 500$\mu$m data. S.E.R. acknowledges support from VIALACTEA, a Collaborative Project under Framework Programme 7 of the European Union, funded under Contract \# 607380.
[^1]: Based on observations carried out with the IRAM Plateau de Bure Interferometer. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany) and IGN (Spain). The data are available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/
[^2]: While @hacar2013 required filaments to be connected within sonic velocity separation, @henshaw2014 were less restrictive and allowed connected filaments based on the measured FWHM.
[^3]: Typical errors are dominated by the dust model and temperature uncertainties and range within a factor $\sim$2 (e.g., @ossenkopf1994 [@beuther2002a].
[^4]: For this new estimate we used a newly reduced data product provided by the EPOS (Early Phase Of Star Formation) Key-Project team.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**[Measures of noncompactness in some new lacunary difference sequence spaces]{}**]{}
0.5 cm
Ekrem Sava$\c{s}$
Istanbul Commerce University, 34840 Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail : [email protected] 0.5 cm
Stuti Borgohain $^*$[[^1]]{}
Department of Mathematics
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Powai:400076, Mumbai, Maharashtra; INDIA. 0.5 cm
E-mail:stutiborgohain$@$yahoo.com 1 cm
In this research article, we establish some identities and estimates for the operator norms and the Hausdorff measures of noncompactness of certain operators on some lacunary difference sequence spaces defined by Orlicz function. Moreover, we apply our results to characterize some classes of compact operators on those spaces by using the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness.\
[**[Key Words:]{}**]{} BK-space; Matrix transformation; Compact operator; Hausdorff measure of noncompactness; lacunary operator, Orlicz function; Difference operator.
0.3 cm
[**[AMS Classification No:]{} 40A05; 40A25; 40A30; 46B15; 46B45; 46B50. 40C05.**]{}
1 cm
Introduction
============
Measures of noncompactness were first introduced and later on applied in fixed point theory by Kuratowski \[11\] and Darbo \[8\]. Hausdorff measure of noncompactness was introduced by Goldenstein et. al and later on it was studied in broad sense by Eberhard Malkowsky et al. \[5\], Feyzi Basar et al. \[7\], Eberhard Malkowsky and Ekrem Savas \[6\], Mohammed Mursaleen et al. \[12,13\] and many others. Some identities or estimations for the operator norms and the Hausdorff measures of noncompactness of certain matrix operators on some sequence spaces were studied and estalished.\
An important application of the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness of bounded linear operators between Banach spaces is the characterization of compact matrix transformations between $BK$ spaces. W.L.C. Sargent proved that the characterizations of compact matrix operators between the classical sequence spaces in almost all cases.\
Let $S$ and $M$ be subsets of a metric space $(X,d)$ and if for $\varepsilon > 0$ and for every $x \in M$ there exists $s \in S$ such that $d(x,s)<\varepsilon$, then $S$ is called an $\varepsilon$-net of $M$ in $X$.\
Let $\mathscr{M}_X$ be a collection of all bounded subsets of a metric space $(X,d)$. The Hausdorff measure of non compactness of the set $Q$, denoted by $\chi(Q)$, is defined by, $\chi(Q)={\mbox{inf}}\{\varepsilon > 0: Q \mbox{~ has a finite ~} \varepsilon-\mbox{net in ~} X \}, \mbox{~where~} Q \in \mathscr{M}_X. $ The function $\chi: \mathscr{M}_X \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ is called the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness.\
If $Q,Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are bounded subsets of a metric space $(X,d)$, then \[see Malkowsky \[5\]), $$\chi(Q)=0 \mbox{~if and only if~} Q \mbox{~is totally bounded~},$$ $$Q_1 \subset Q_2 \mbox{~implies ~} \chi(Q_1) \leq \chi(Q_2).$$
Further, the function $\chi$ has some additional properties connected with the linear structure, e.g. $$\chi(Q_1+Q_2) \leq \chi(Q_1)+\chi(Q_2),$$ $$\chi(\alpha Q)= \vert \alpha \vert \chi(Q),\mbox{~for all ~} \alpha \in C.$$
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces and $L \in B(X,Y)$. Then, the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness of $L$, denoted by $\Vert L \Vert_\chi$, can be defined by, $$\Vert L\Vert_\chi = \chi(L(S_X))= \chi(L(\overline B_X))$$
and we have,
$$L \mbox{~is compact if and only if~} \Vert L\Vert_\chi=0.$$
Some preliminary concepts
=========================
By a lacunary sequence, we mean an increasing integer sequence $\theta = (k_r)$ such that $k_0=0$ and $h_r=k_r-k_{r-1} \rightarrow \infty$ as $r \rightarrow \infty$, where the intervals determined by $\theta$ will be denoted by $J_r=(k_{r-1}, k_r]$ and the ratio $\frac{k_r}{k_{r-1}}$ is defined by $\phi_r$.\
For any lacunary sequence $\theta= (k_r)$, the space $N_\theta$ is defined as, (Freedman et al. \[2\]) $$N_\theta=\left\{(x_k): \displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} h_r^{-1} \displaystyle\sum_{k \in J_r} \vert x_k -L \vert =0, \mbox{~for some~} L \right\}.$$
The space $N_\theta$ is a $BK$ space with the norm, $$\Vert (x_k) \Vert_\theta= \displaystyle\sup_r h_r^{-1} \displaystyle\sum_{k \in J_r} \vert x_k \vert.$$
An Orlicz function is defined as a function $M: [0,\infty )\rightarrow [0,\infty )$, which is continuous, non-decreasing and convex with $M(0) = 0, M(x)>0$, for $x>0$ and $M(x)\rightarrow \infty$, as $x \rightarrow \infty$.\
The idea of Orlicz function was used to construct the sequence space, \[see Lindenstrauss and Tzafriri \[10\] $$\ell_M=\left\{ (x_k) \in w: \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^\infty M \left(\frac{\vert x_k \vert}{\rho}\right) < \infty, \mbox{~for some~} \rho>0 \right\}$$
which is a Banach space with the norm, called as Orlicz sequence space, $$\Vert x \Vert = \mbox{inf}\left\{ \rho>0: \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^\infty M \left(\frac{\vert x_k \vert}{\rho}\right) \leq 1 \right\}.$$
The difference sequence spaces $\ell_\infty(\Delta), c(\Delta)$ and $c_0(\Delta)$ of crisp sets are defined as $Z(\Delta) = \{x = (x_k): (\Delta x_k) \in Z\},$ for $Z = \ell_\infty, c$ and $c_0$, where $\Delta x = (\Delta x_k) = (x_k-x_{k+1})$, for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$, which can be a Banach space with $\Vert x \Vert_{\Delta}=\vert x_1 \vert + \displaystyle \sup_k \vert \Delta x_k \vert.$\
The generalized difference sequence spaces are defined as, for $m \geq 1$ and $n \geq 1$,
$$Z(\Delta_m^n) = \{x = (x_k): (\Delta_m^n x_k) \in Z\},\mbox{~for~} Z = \ell_\infty , c \mbox{~and~} c_0.$$
Let $X$ is any subset of $w$, then a matrix domain of an infinite matrix $A$ in $X$ is defined by, $X_A=\{x \in w: Ax \in X \}.$ If $x \supset \phi$ is a $BK$-space and $a=(a_k)\in w$, then we define,
$$\Vert a \Vert_X^\ast=\displaystyle \sup_{x \in S_X} \left \vert \displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k x_k \right \vert.$$
The difference sequence spaces $c_0^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$, $c^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$ and $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$
==================================================================================================================================================
Consider $\lambda=(\lambda_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ to be a strictly increasing sequence of positive reals such that $\lambda_k \rightarrow \infty$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$. We define the infinite matrix $\overline \Lambda =(\overline \lambda_{nk})_{n,k=0}^\infty$ by,
$$\overline \lambda_{nk}= \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\frac{(\lambda_k-\lambda_{k-1})-(\lambda_{k+1}-\lambda_k)}{\lambda_n}; ~~(k<n),\\
\frac{\lambda_n-\lambda_{n-1}}{\lambda_n};~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(k=n),\\
0;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(k>n),
\end{array} \right.$$
where, we shall use the convention that any term with a negative subscript is equal to zero. Mursaleen and Noman \[13\] introduced the difference sequence spaces $c_0^\lambda(\Delta)$ and $\ell_\infty^\lambda(\Delta)$ as the matrix domains of the triangle $\overline\Lambda$ in the spaces $c_0$ and $\ell_\infty$ respectively.\
In this paper, we study the sequence spaces $c_0^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$, $c^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$ and $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$ and try to estimate for the operator norms and the Hausdorff measures of noncompactness of certain operators on these spaces. The spaces $c_0^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$, $c^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$ and $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$ are BK-spaces with the norm given by,
$$\Vert x \Vert_{\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta, s, \theta)}=\Vert \overline \Lambda (x) \Vert_{\ell_\infty(M, s, \theta)}=\mbox{inf}\left\{\rho>0:\displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left(M \left(\frac{\vert \overline \Lambda_k(x) \vert}{\rho}\right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1 \right\}.$$
The $\beta-$duals of a subset $X$ of $w$ are respectively defined by, $$X^\beta=\{a=(a_k) \in w: ax=(a_k x_k) \in cs,\mbox{~for all~} x=(x_k) \in X \}$$
[**[Lemma 3.1.]{}**]{} Let $X$ denote any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s , \theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta, s, \theta)$. Then, we have,
$$\Vert a \Vert_X^\ast = \Vert \overline a \Vert_{\ell_1} = \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \vert \overline a_k \vert< \infty$$
for all $a = (a_k) \in X^\beta$, where,
$$\overline a_k=\lambda_k \left[\frac{a_k}{\lambda_k - \lambda_{k-1}} + \left(\frac{1}{\lambda_k- \lambda_{k-1}}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{k+1} -\lambda_k} \right) \displaystyle\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty a_j \right]; (k \in N)$$
[**[Proof:]{}**]{} Let $Y$ be the respective one of the spaces $c_0$ or $\ell_\infty$ .\
Assume $a=(a_k) \in X^\beta$ and $y=\overline \Lambda (x)$ be the associated sequence defined by,
$$y_k=\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^k \left(\frac{\lambda_j - \lambda_{j-1}}{\lambda_k} \right) (x_j -x_{j-1}); (k \in N).$$
Taking $y=\overline \Lambda (x)$ as the associated sequence, we have $\overline a = (\overline a_k) \in \ell_1$ such that for every $x=(x_k) \in X$,
$$\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k x_k = \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \overline a_k y_k,$$
Since $x \in S_X$ if and only if $y \in S_Y$, (followed by (7)), we can derive that, (by (1) and (9))\
$\Vert a \Vert_X^\ast = \mbox{inf} \left \{\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( M \left(\frac{\vert a_k x_k \vert }{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1, x \in S_X \right\}$\
$=\mbox{inf} \left\{ \rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(M \left( \frac{\vert \overline a_k y_k \vert }{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1, y \in S_Y \right\}$\
$=\Vert \overline a \Vert_Y^\ast$\
It is known that $\Vert . \Vert _X^\ast = \Vert . \Vert _{X^\beta}$ on $X^\beta$, where $\Vert . \Vert_{X^\beta}$ denotes the natural norm on the dual space $X^\beta$ and $X= c_0, c,\ell_\infty$ or $\ell_p(1 \leq p<\infty)$.\
So if $\overline a \in \ell_1$, we obtain that $\Vert a \Vert_X^\ast = \Vert \overline a \Vert_Y^\ast = \Vert\overline a \Vert_{\ell_1}< \infty$, which concludes the proof.\
Let $A=(a_{nk})$ be an infinite matrix and $\overline A =(\overline a_{nk})$ is the associated matrix defined by,
$$\overline a_{nk} = \lambda_k \left[ \frac{a_{nk}}{\lambda_k - \lambda_{k-1}}+\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_k - \lambda_{k-1}}- \frac{1}{\lambda_{k+1} -\lambda_k}\right) \displaystyle\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty a_{nj} \right]; (n,k \in N)$$
\
[**[Lemma 3.2.]{}**]{} Let $X$ be any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta)$and $Z$ be a sequence space.. If $A \in (X,Z)$, then $\overline A \in (Y,Z)$ such that $Ax =\overline A y$ for all sequences $x \in X$ and $y \in Y$, here $Y$ is the respective one of the spaces $c_0$ or $\ell_\infty$.\
[**[Proof.]{}**]{} Suppose that $A \in (X,Z)$.\
For any sequence $x=(x_k) \in w$ and the associated sequence $y=\overline \Lambda(x)$ defined in (8), we have,
$$x_k=\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^k \left(\frac{\lambda_j y_j - \lambda_{j-1} y_{j-1}}{\lambda_j - \lambda_{j-1}} \right) ; (k \in N).$$
Then, $A_n \in X^\beta$ for all $n \in N$. Also, $\overline A_n \in \ell_1=Y^\beta$ for all $n \in N$ and the equality $Ax=\overline A y$, followed by equations (8), (9) and (10). Hence, $\overline A y \in Z$. Further, by (11), we get that every $y \in Y$ is the associated sequence of some $x \in X$. Thus, it can be deduced that $\overline A \in (Y,Z)$, which completes the proof.\
[**[Lemma 3.3.]{}**]{} Let $X$ be any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M, \Delta, s, \theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta, s, \theta)$, $A=(a_{nk})$ an infinite matrix and $\overline A=(\overline a_{nk})$ the associated marix. If $A$ is in any of the classes $(X,c_0),(X,c)$ or $(X,\ell_\infty)$, then,
$$\Vert L_A \Vert=\Vert A \Vert_{(X,\ell_\infty)}=\displaystyle\sup_n\left\{\mbox{inf}\left(\rho>0:\displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty\left( M\left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{nk} \vert }{\rho}\right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1 \right)\right\}< \infty$$
Compact operators on the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M, \Delta, s, \theta)$ and $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$
==================================================================================================================
In this section, we are trying to establish some identities or estimates for the Hausdorff measures of noncompactness of certain matrix operators on the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M, \Delta,s, \theta)$ and $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M, \Delta,s,\theta)$. Also, the results obtained by examining these sequence spaces are applied to characterize some classes of compact operators on those spaces.\
[**[Remark: 4.1.]{}**]{} Let $X$ denote any of the spaces $c_0$ or $\ell_\infty$. If $A \in (X,c)$, then we have,
- $\alpha_k=\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow\infty} a_{nk}~\mbox{exists for every~} k \in N,$
- $\alpha=(\alpha_k) \in \ell_1,$
- $\displaystyle\sup_n \left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \vert a_{nk}-\alpha_k \vert \right) < \infty,$
- $\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} A_n(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k x_k \mbox{~for all~} x=(x_k)\in X.$
[**[Theorem 4.2.]{}**]{} Assume $A=(a_{nk})$ be an infinite matrix and $\overline A = (\overline a_{nk})$ the associated matrix defined by (10). Then, we have the following results on the Hausdorff measures of noncompactness on the sequence spaces $X=c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),c^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$.\
(a) If $A \in (X,c_0)$, then,
$$\Vert L_A \Vert_\chi = \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sup \left(\mbox{inf}\left\{\rho>0:\displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k =0}^\infty \left(M\left(\frac{\vert\overline a_{nk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1 \right\}\right).$$
\(b) If $A \in (X,c)$, then,\
$\frac{1}{2} \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sup \left(\mbox{inf}\left\{\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{nk}-\overline \alpha_k \vert}{\rho}\right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1 \right\}\right)$
$$\leq \Vert L_A \Vert_\chi \leq \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sup \left( \mbox{inf}\left\{\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{nk}-\overline \alpha_k \vert}{\rho}\right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1 \right\}\right),$$
where $\overline \alpha_k = \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \overline a_{nk}$ for all $k \in N$.\
(c) If $A \in (X,\ell_\infty)$, then,
$$0 \leq \Vert L_A \Vert_\chi \leq \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sup \left(\mbox{inf} \left\{\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(M\left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{nk}\vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \leq 1 \right\} \right).$$
[**[Proof:]{}**]{} Following Lemma 3.3, it can be easily proved that the expressions in (12) and (13) exist.\
Similarly, following Remark 4.1. and Lemma 3.2, we can deduce that the expression in (15) also exists.\
Let $X \supset \phi$ and $Y$ be $BK$-spaces. Then, we have, $(X,Y) \subset B(X,Y)$, that is, every matrix $A \in (X,Y)$ defines an operator $L_A \in B(X,Y)$ by $L_A(x)=Ax$ for all $x \in X$.\
So, $$\Vert L_A \Vert_\chi = \chi(AS), \mbox{~where $S=S_X$}, \mbox{~ by(1)}$$
Let $P_r:c_0 \rightarrow c_0 ~(r \in N)$ be the operator defined by $P_r(x)=(x_0,x_1,...x_r,0,0,..)$ for all $x=(x_k) \in c_0$. Then, we have, for $Q \in \mathscr{M}_{c_0}$,
$$\chi(Q)=\displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty}(\displaystyle\sup_{x \in Q} \Vert(I-P_r)(x) \Vert_{\ell_\infty}).$$
where $I$ is the identity operator on $c_0$.
Further, every $z=(z_n) \in c$ has a unique representation as $z=\overline z e + \displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^\infty (z_n-\overline z) e^{(n)}$, where $\overline z = \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} z_n$. The projectors $P_r:c \rightarrow c~(r \in N)$ are obtained by, $$P_r(z)=\overline z e +\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^r (z_n-\overline z) e^{(n)}; ~(r \in N)$$
for all $z=(z_n) \in c$ with $\overline z= \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} z_n$.\
Let $AS \in \mathscr{M}_{c_0}$. Then, $$\chi(AS)=\displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} (\sup_{x \in S} \Vert (I-P_r)(A_x) \Vert_{\ell_\infty}),$$
where $P_r:c_0 \rightarrow c_0 (r \in N)$.\
This implies that,
$$\Vert (I-P_r)(Ax) \Vert_{\ell_\infty} = \displaystyle\sup_{n > r} \vert A_n(x) \vert, \mbox{~ for all~}x \in X \mbox{~and every~} r \in N.$$
For an infinite matrix $A=(a_{nk})_{n,k=0}^\infty$, we have the $A$-transform of $x$ as the sequence $Ax=(A_n(x))_{n=0}^\infty$, where $A_n(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_{nk} x_k$, for $x \in w$ and $n \in N$ .\
Thus, we get, (by (3) and Lemma 3.1)
$$\displaystyle\sup_{x \in S} \Vert (I-P_r)(Ax) \Vert_{\ell_\infty}=\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \Vert A_n \Vert_{(\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta))}^\ast = \displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \Vert \overline A_n \Vert_{\ell_1}, {\mbox{~ for every~}} r \in N.$$
Which implies that, (using above with(17))
$$\chi(AS)=\displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty}(\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \Vert \overline A_n \Vert_{\ell_1} ) = \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sup \Vert \overline A_n \Vert_{\ell_1}.$$
This concludes the proof of (a).\
To prove (b), let us take $Q \in \mathscr{M}_c$ and $P_r:c \rightarrow c ~(r \in N)$ be the projector onto the linear span of $\{e,e^{(0)},e^{(1)},...e^{(r)}\}$. Then, we have
$$\frac{1}{2}. \displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \left(\displaystyle\sup_{x \in Q} \Vert (I-P_r)(x) \Vert_{\ell_\infty} \right) \leq \chi(Q) \leq \displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \left(\displaystyle\sup_{x \in Q} \Vert (I-P_r)(x) \Vert_{\ell_\infty} \right),$$
where $I$ is the identity operator on $c$.\
Since we have $AS \in \mathscr{M}_c$. We can get an estimate for the value of $\chi(AS)$ in (15). For this, let $P_r: c \rightarrow c(r \in N)$ be the projectors defined by (16).\
Then, we have for every $r \in N$ that,
$$(I-P_r)(z)=\displaystyle\sum_{n=r+1}^\infty(z_n-\overline z)e^{(n)}$$
and hence,
$$\Vert (I-P_r)(z)\Vert_{\ell_\infty} = \displaystyle\sup_{n > r} \vert z_n -\overline z \vert$$
for all $z=(z_n) \in c$ and every $r \in N$, where $\overline z = \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} z_n$ and $I$ is the identity operator on $c$.\
By using (15), we obtain,
$$\frac{1}{2} \displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} (\displaystyle\sup_{x \in S} \Vert (I-P_r)(Ax) \Vert_{\ell_\infty}) \leq \Vert L_A \Vert_\chi \leq \displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} (\displaystyle\sup_{x \in S} \Vert (I-P_r)(Ax) \Vert_{\ell_\infty})$$
On the other hand, it is given that $X=c_0^\lambda(M, \Delta,s,\theta)$ or $X=\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$, and let $Y$ be the respective one of the spaces $c_0$ or $\ell_\infty$. Also, let $y \in Y$ be the associated sequence defined by (8). Since $A \in (X,c)$, we have from Lemma 3.2 that $\overline A \in (Y,c)$ and $Ax=\overline A y$. Further, we have the limits $\overline \alpha_k=\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \overline a_{nk}$ exist for all $k, \overline \alpha = (\overline \alpha_k) \in \ell_1=Y^\beta$ and $\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \overline A_n(y)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \overline \alpha_k y_k$. (Remark 4.1)\
Consequently,\
$\Vert (I-P_r)(Ax) \Vert_{\ell_\infty} = \Vert (I-P_r)(\overline A y) \Vert_{\ell_\infty}$\
$~~~~=\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \vert \overline A_n(y)-\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \overline \alpha_k y_k \vert$\
$~~~~=\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \vert \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty (\overline a_{nk}-\overline \alpha_k)y_k \vert$, for all $r \in N$ (by (21)).\
Moreover, since $x \in S=S_X$ if and only if $y \in S_Y$, we get,\
$\displaystyle\sup_{x \in S} \Vert (I-P_r)(Ax) \Vert_{\ell_\infty}=\displaystyle\sup_{n>r}\left(\displaystyle\sup_{y \in S_Y} \vert \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty (\overline a_{nk}-\overline \alpha_k)y_k \vert\right)$\
$~~~~=\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \Vert \overline A_n \overline \alpha \Vert_Y^\ast$\
$~~~~=\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \Vert \overline A_n \overline \alpha \Vert_{\ell_1}$\
for all $r \in N$.\
This concludes the proof.
Finally, to prove (c), let us define the operators $P_r:\ell_\infty \rightarrow \ell_\infty (r \in N)$ as in the proof of part (a) for all $x=(x_k) \in \ell_\infty$. Then, we have,
$$AS \subset P_r(AS) + (I-P_r)(AS); (r \in N).$$
Thus, following the elementary properties of the function $\chi$, we have,\
$0 \leq \chi(AS) \leq \chi(P_r(AS)) + \chi((I-P_r)(AS))$\
$~~~=\chi((I-P_r)(AS))$\
$~~~\leq \displaystyle\sup_{x \in S} \Vert (I-P_r)(Ax) \Vert_{\ell_\infty}$\
$=\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \Vert \overline A_n \Vert_{\ell_1}$, for all $r \in N$.\
Hence,\
$0 \leq \chi(AS) \leq \displaystyle\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty}(\displaystyle\sup_{n>r} \Vert \overline A_n \Vert_{\ell_1})$\
$=\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \displaystyle\sup \Vert \overline A_n \Vert_{\ell_1}$.\
Combining this together with (15), imply (14) ,which completes the proof.\
[**[Corollary 4.3.]{}**]{} Let $X$ denote any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$. Then, we have,\
(a) If $A \in (X,c_0)$, then,\
$L_A$ is compact iff $\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left(\mbox{inf} \left\{\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty M\left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{nk} \vert}{\rho}\right)^{s_k}\leq 1\right\}\right) =0$.\
(b) If $A \in (X,c)$, then,\
$L_A$ is compact iff $\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left(\mbox{inf}\left\{\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{nk}-\overline \alpha_k \vert}{\rho}\right)\right)^{s_k}\leq 1 \right\}\right) =0$ where
$\overline \alpha_k = \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \overline a_{nk}$ for all $k \in N$.\
(c) If $A \in (X,\ell_\infty)$, then,\
$L_A$ is compact if $\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left(\mbox{inf}\left\{\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r}\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(M\left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{nk} \vert}{\rho}\right)\right)^{s_k}\leq 1 \right\}\right) =0$.
Some applications
=================
By applying the previous results, in this section, we are trying to establish some identities or estimates for the operator norms and the Hausdorff measure of non-compactness of certain matrix operators that map any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda (M,\Delta,s,\theta), c^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ and $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ into the matrix domains of triangles in the spaces $c_0,c $ and $\ell_\infty$. Further, we deduce the necessary and sufficient conditions for such operators to be compact.\
[**[Lemma 5.1.]{}**]{} Let $T$ be a triangle. Then, we have,
- For arbitrary subsets $X$ and $Y$ of $w$, $A \in (X,Y_T)$ if and only if $B=TA \in (X,Y)$.
- Further, if $X$ and $Y$ are $BK$ spaces and $A \in (X,Y_T)$, then $\Vert L_A \Vert=\Vert L_B \Vert$.
Throughout, we assume that $A=(a_{nk})$ is an infinite matrix and $T=(t_{nk})$ is a triangle, and we define the matrix $B=(b_{nk})$ by $b_{nk}=\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n t_{nm} a_{mk}; (n,k \in N)$, that is $B=TA$ and hence,
$$B_n=\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n t_{nm}A_m = \left(\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n t_{nm} a_{mk}\right)_{k=0}^\infty; (n \in N).$$
Consider $\overline A=(\overline a_{nk})$ and $\overline B=(\overline b_{nk})$ be the associated matrices of $A$ and $B$, respectively. Then it can easily be seen that,
$$\overline b_{nk}=\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n t_{nm} \overline a_{mk};(n,k\in N).$$
Hence, $\overline B_n=\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n t_{nm} \overline A_m =\left(\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n t_{nm} \overline a_{mk}\right)_{k=0}^\infty; (n \in N)$.\
Moreover, we define the sequence $\overline a=(\overline a_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ by,
$$\overline a_k=\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left(\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n t_{nm} \overline a_{mk} \right); (k \in N)$$
provided the above limits exist for all $k \in N$ which is the case whenever $A \in (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c_T)$ or $A\in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),c_T)$ by lemmas 5.1, 3.2 and Remark 4.1.\
Now using the above results, we have the following results:\
[**[Theorem 5.2.]{}**]{} Let $X$ be any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$, $T$ a traingle and $A$ an infinite matrix. If $A$ is in any of the classes $(X,(c_0)_T),(X,c_T)$ or $(X,(\ell_\infty)_T)$, then\
$\Vert L_A \Vert =\Vert A \Vert_{(X,(\ell_\infty)_T)}=\displaystyle\sup_n \left\{ \mbox{inf}\left( \rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle \sum_{m=0}^n \left (M \left( \frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho}\right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert \leq 1 \right)\right\} <\infty.$\
[**[Theorem 5.3.]{}**]{} Let $T$ be a triangle. If either $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s \theta),(c_0)_T)$ or $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c_T)$ then $L_A$ is compact.\
[**[Theorem 5.4.]{}**]{} Let $T$ be a triangle. Then, we have,
1. If $A \in (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),(c_0)_T)$, then,\
$\Vert L_A \Vert_\chi = \lim \displaystyle\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left \vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left( \frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right) ^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}.$\
and $L_A$ is compact if and only if
$$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert \leq 1 \right)\right\} =0.$$
2. If $A \in (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c_T)$, then
$\frac{1}{2}. \displaystyle\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left \vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk}-\overline a_k \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}$\
$ \leq \Vert L_A \Vert_\chi \leq \displaystyle\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left \vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk}-\overline a_k \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}$
and $L_A$ is compact if and only if $$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left \vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk} - \overline a_k \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}=0.$$
3. If either $A \in (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),(\ell_\infty)_T)$ or $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),(\ell_\infty)_T)$, then $$0 \leq \Vert L_A \Vert_\chi \leq \displaystyle\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left \vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}$$
and $L_A$ is compact if
$$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left \vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert t_{nm} \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert \leq 1 \right)\right\} =0.$$
0.5 cm
Particular cases: Let $\lambda'=(\lambda'_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ be a strictly increasing sequence of positive reals tending to infinity and $\Lambda'=(\lambda'_{nk})$ be the triangle defined by (4), with the sequence $\lambda'$ instead of $\lambda$. Also, let $c_0^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ and $\ell_\infty^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ be the matrix domains of the triangle $\Lambda'$ in the spaces $c_0,c$ and $\ell_\infty$ respectively.\
[**[Particular Case 5.5.]{}**]{} Let $X$ be any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ and $A$ an infinite matrix. If $A$ is in any of the classes $(X,c_0^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta)), (X,c^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta))$ or $(X, \ell_\infty^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta))$, then
$$\Vert L_A \Vert = \Vert A \Vert_{(X,\ell_\infty^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta))}=\displaystyle\sup_n \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \lambda'_{nm} \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\} .$$
[**[Particular Case 5.6.]{}**]{} If either $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c_0^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta))$ or $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta))$, then $L_A$ is compact.\
Similarly, we get some identities or estimates for the Hausdorff measures of noncompactness of operators given by matrices in the classes $(c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c_0^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta)), (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), c^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta)), (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),\ell_\infty^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta))$ and $(\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),\ell_\infty^{\lambda'}(M,\Delta,s,\theta))$,and deduce the necessary and suffucient (or only sufficient ) conditions for such operators to be compact.\
Let $bs, cs$ and $cs_0$ be the spaces of all sequences associated with bounded, convergent and null series,respectively. Then, we have the following results associated with the these sequence spaces,\
[**[Corollary 5.7.]{}**]{} Let $X$ be any of the spaces $c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ or $\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta)$ and $A$ an infinite matrix. If $A$ is in any of the classes $(X, cs_0), (X, cs)$ or $(X, bs)$, then,
$$\Vert L_A \Vert = \Vert A \Vert_{(X, bs)}=\displaystyle\sup_n \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\} < \infty$$.\
[**[Corollary 5.8.]{}**]{} If either $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), cs_0)$ or $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), cs)$,then $L_A$ is compact.\
[**[Corollary 5.9.]{}**]{} We have
1. If $A \in (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), cs_0)$, then
$$\Vert L_A \Vert_\chi = \displaystyle\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left \vert\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right \vert\leq 1 \right)\right\}$$
and $L_A$ is compact if and only if
$$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert\leq 1 \right)\right\} =0.$$
2. If $A \in (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), cs)$, then
$\frac{1}{2}.\displaystyle\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} - \overline a_k \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}$\
$\leq \Vert L_A \Vert_\chi \leq \displaystyle\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} - \overline a_k \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}$\
and $L_A$ is compact if and only if
$$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} - \overline a_k \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\} =0,$$
where $\overline a_k = \displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (\displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \overline a_{mk})$ for all $k\in N.$
3. If either $A \in (c_0^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta), bs)$ or $A \in (\ell_\infty^\lambda(M,\Delta,s,\theta),bs)$, then
$$0 \leq \Vert L_A \Vert_\chi \leq \displaystyle\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}$$
and $L_A$ is compact if
$$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \mbox{inf} \left(\rho>0: \displaystyle\lim_r \frac{1}{h_r} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\vert \displaystyle\sum_{m=0}^n \left( M \left(\frac{\vert \overline a_{mk} \vert}{\rho} \right)\right)^{s_k} \right\vert \leq 1 \right)\right\}=0.$$
0.5 cm
[50]{}
A. Alotaibi, B. Hazarika and S. A. Mohiuddine (2014). On lacunary statistical convergence of double sequences in locally solid Riesz spaces. [*[J. Comput. Anal. Appl.]{}*]{} 17 (1) : 156–165.
A.R. Freedman, J.J. Sember and M. Raphael (1978). Some Ces$\grave{a}$aro type summability space. [*[Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society]{}*]{}. 37(3):508–520.
A. Gökhan, M. Et and M. Mursaleen (2009). Almost lacunary statistical and strongly almost lacunary convergence of sequences of fuzzy numbers. [*[Mathematical and Computer Modelling]{}*]{}.49:548-555.
B. Hazarika, S.A. Mohiuddine and M. Mursaleen (2014). Some inclusion results for lacunary statistical convergence in locally solid Riesz spaces. [*[Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. A Sci.]{}*]{}. 38(1):61–68.
E. Malkowsky (2010). Compact matrix operators between some BK spaces, in: M. Mursaleen (Ed.). [*[Modern Methods of Analysis and Its Applications, Anamaya Publ., New Delhi]{}*]{}. 86-120.
E. Malkowsky and E. Savas (2004). Matrix transformations between sequence spaces of generalized weighted means. [*[Applied Mathematics and Computations]{}*]{}. 147:333-345.
F. Basar and E. Malkowsky (2011). The characterization of compact operators on spaces of strongly summable and bounded sequences. [*[ Applied Mathematics and Computation]{}*]{}. 217:5199-5207.
G. Darbo (1955). Punti uniti in transformazioni a condominio non compatto. [*[Rend. Sem. Math. Univ. Padova]{}*]{}. 24:84-92.
H. Kizmaz (1981). On certain sequence spaces. [*[Canadian Mathematical Bulletin]{}*]{}. 24(2):169-176.
J. Lindenstrauss and L. Tzafriri (1971). On Orlicz sequence spaces. [*[Israel Journal of Mathematics]{}*]{}. 10:379-390.
K. Kuratowski (1930). Sur les espaces complets. [*[ Fund. Math.]{}*]{}. 15:301-309.
M. Mursaleen and A.K. Noman (2010). Compactness by the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness. [*[ Nonlinear Analysis]{}*]{}. 73:2541-2557.
M. Mursaleen and A.K. Noman (2010). On some new difference sequence spaces of non-absolute type. [*[Math. Comput. Modelling]{}*]{}. 52(3-4): 603-617.
[^1]: The work of the authors was carried under the Post Doctoral Fellow under National Board of Higher Mathematics, DAE, project No. NBHM/PDF.50/2011/64
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Observations with the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array at 46 GHz ($\lambda\approx$7 mm) have been used to measure the size and shape of the radio photospheres of four long-period variable stars: R Leonis (R Leo), IRC+10216 (CW Leo), $\chi$ Cygni ($\chi$ Cyg), and W Hydrae (W Hya). The shapes of the stars range from nearly round to ellipticities of $\sim$0.15. Comparisons with observations taken several years earlier show that the photospheric parameters (mean diameter, shape, and/or flux density) of each of the stars have changed over time. Evidence for brightness asymmetries and non-uniformities across the radio surfaces are also seen in the visibility domain and in images obtained using a sparse modeling image reconstruction technique. These trends may be explained as manifestations of large-scale irregular convective flows on the stellar surface, although effects from non-radial pulsations cannot be excluded. Our data also allow a new evaluation of the proper motion of IRC+10216. Our measurement is in agreement with previous values obtained from radio wavelength measurements, and we find no evidence of statistically significant astrometric perturbations from a binary companion.'
author:
- 'L. D. Matthews, M. J. Reid, K. M. Menten, K. Akiyama,'
title: 'The Evolving Radio Photospheres of Long-Period Variable Stars'
---
Introduction\[Intro\]
=====================
Stars on the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) emit continuum radiation at centimeter and (sub)millimeter wavelength from a “radio photosphere” with a radius approximately twice that of the classical photospheric radius $R_{\star}$, defined by the line-free regions of the optical-infrared spectrum (Reid & Menten 1997; hereafter RM97). For Mira-type variables, $R_{\star}$ is typically $\sim$1–2 AU. Just outside of this radius, at $r\sim$1–$2R_{\star}$, there exists a molecular layer (sometimes referred to as the “MOLsphere”; Tsuji 2000, 2001) that may be nearly opaque in the visible and infrared (Reid & Goldston 2002; Perrin et al. 2004; Tsuji 2008). The radio photosphere lies near the outskirts of this molecular layer, at $\sim2~R_{\star}$.
The radio photosphere exists within a critical juncture between the stellar “surface” and the atmospheric regions several AU further out, where the stellar wind is launched. AGB star winds are generally assumed to be dust-driven. This requires the transport of gas from the warmer, dust-free regions of the photosphere to heights cool enough for dust grain formation and survival. The gas transport is believed to involve pulsations, convection, and/or shocks (e.g., Höfner 2008). Studying the characteristics of the radio photosphere and its temporal changes can therefore provide valuable diagnostic information on the relative importance of these different processes. In cases where radio photospheres can be spatially resolved, such observations can also be used to help test the increasingly sophisticated two- and three-dimensional (3D) models of AGB star atmospheres that are becoming available (Woitke 2006; Freytag & Höfner 2008; Freytag, Liljegren, & Höfner 2017).
Spatially resolved imaging observations are possible for AGB stars within $d{~\rlap{$<$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}$200 pc using the most extended configurations of the Very Large Array (VLA) and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). Reid & Menten (2007; hereafter RM07) published the first resolved 7 mm images of the radio photospheres of three oxygen-rich AGB stars \[R Leo, Mira ($o$ Ceti), and W Hya\] obtained with the VLA, and Menten et al. (2012; hereafter M12) published similar observations for the carbon star IRC+10216 (CW Leo). These observations revealed an intriguing result: two of the four stars observed (R Leo and W Hya) exhibited statistically significant deviations from sphericity, while Mira and IRC+10216 appeared approximately spherical. However, in 2014 observations from the VLA and ALMA, Matthews et al. (2015) found that Mira too appeared “squashed” (see also Vlemmings et al. 2015; Wong et al. 2016). These results further hinted that Mira’s shape has evolved with time.
Deviations from sphericity in AGB stars could have several possible causes, either intrinsic or extrinsic. These include rotational flattening (e.g., if the star were spun up by mass accretion or an in-spiraling companion; e.g., Livio 1994), tidal forces from a companion (e.g., Huggins et al. 1990), magnetic effects (e.g., Szymczak et al. 1998), non-radial pulsations (e.g., Tuthill et al. 1994; Stello et al. 2014; Wood 2015), or manifestations of irregular convective flows resulting from the interactions between large-scale convective cells and the stellar pulsation (Freytag et al. 2017). Crucial to distinguishing between these possibilities is determining whether the observed shapes are static or variable.
To explore this topic further, we present here new 7 mm imaging observations of four nearby AGB stars, including the three stars previously imaged by MR07 and M12. Our study includes the first resolved imaging of the radio photosphere of an S-type star to allow comparison of its properties with M- and C-type stars and to provide a benchmark for future studies.
Sample Selection
================
The targets for the current investigation include two M-type (oxygen-rich) stars previously observed by RM07 (R Leo and W Hya), the carbon star IRC+10216 (previously imaged by M12), and the S-type[^1] star $\chi$ Cyg. The centimeter-wavelength emission of $\chi$ Cyg was studied at 8.4 GHz, 14.9 GHz, and 22.4 GHz by RM97, but its radio photosphere has never been resolved. Table 1 summarizes some key properties of the sample. R Leo, $\chi$ Cyg, and IRC+10216 are all Mira-type (long-period) variables. W Hya is often classified as a semi-regular variable, although it has just a single dominant pulsation period and its properties are generally similar to those of a Mira.[^2]
[llllccccl]{}\
R Leo & 09 47 33.4879 & 11 25 43.665 & $-1.0$ & 95 & M6e-9e& 303.5 & Yes&23-Feb-2014\
W Hya & 13 49 01.9981 & $-$28 22 03.488 & +42.0 & 110 & M7.5e-9e & 414.7 & Yes& 24-Feb-2014\
\
$\chi$ Cyg & 19 50 33.9244 & 32 54 50.610 & +8.9 & 135 & S6.2e-10.4e& 409.3 &Yes & 13-Mar-2014\
\
IRC+10216 & 09 47 57.4443(7) & 13 16 43.815(10) & $-25.5$ & 130 & C9.5e & 630.0 &No & 22-Feb-2014
Observations\[observations\]
============================
Continuum observations of the four target stars (Table 1) were conducted at a central frequency of 46 GHz ($\lambda\sim7$ mm) using the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA)[^3] in its most extended (A) configuration (0.68 km to 36.4 km baselines). Observations of each star were obtained during a single 3-hour session. Data were recorded with 2-second integration times. Antenna pointing corrections were evaluated hourly using observations of a strong point source at X-band (8 GHz). 3C286 was observed once per session to serve as a bandpass calibrator and to allow absolute calibration of the flux density scale.
Two different observing strategies were employed, depending on whether or not the target star has known SiO maser emission. For the stars with SiO masers (see Table 1), emission from the strong SiO $v$=1, $J$=1-0 line at 43.1 GHz was used to calibrate the atmospheric phase variations, as was done previously by Reid & Menten (1990) using H$_{2}$O masers and by RM97 using SiO masers. A 3-bit observing mode with dual circular polarizations was used, and the WIDAR correlator was configured in a standard “continuum” mode, with 4 baseband pairs tuned to contiguously cover an 8-GHz frequency window centered near 46 GHz. Each baseband pair contained 16 subbands, each with a bandwidth of 128 MHz and 128 spectral channels. This frequency range included the SiO $v$=1 and $v$=2, $J$=1-0 maser transitions as well as several other weaker SiO lines. Each star was observed during two blocks of roughly 0.75 to 1 hour duration each, bracketed by observations of a neighboring complex gain calibrator (see Table 3).
For IRC+10216, which is not an SiO maser emitter, the same 3-bit correlator set-up was used as described above, with a center frequency of $\sim$44 GHz. However, to allow calibration of the atmospheric phases, rapid switching was performed performed between the target and a nearby gain calibrator (see Table 2) with a duty cycle of approximately 95 seconds (55 seconds on target, 40 seconds on a calibrator). The gain calibrator scans alternated between J1002+1216 and J0943+1702 (lying 3.78 deg and 3.92 deg, respectively, from IRC+10216). Weather conditions during our observations were clear and dry, with wind speeds of $\sim$2.8 m s$^{-1}$. Carilli & Holdaway (1997) have shown that this combination of duty cycle, calibrator separation, and stable weather conditions is generally sufficient to result in near diffraction-limited seeing at 7 mm in the VLA A configuration (see also below).
Data Reduction\[reduction\]
===========================
Data processing was performed using the Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS; Greisen 2003). The data were loaded directly into AIPS from archival science data model files via the Obit software package (Cotton 2008). The default calibration (‘CL’) table was subsequently regenerated to update the gain and opacity information, and antenna positions were updated to the best available values.
After flagging visibly corrupted data, a requantizer gain correction was applied using the AIPS program . A fringe fit was then performed using a 1-minute segment of data on 3C286 to correct the instrumental delays. Delay solutions were determined separately for the four independent basebands. Bandpass calibration was performed in the standard manner, and the absolute flux density scale was calculated by adopting the latest time-dependent flux density values for 3C286 from Perley & Butler (2013), giving a flux density as a function of frequency of the form: ${\rm log}(S_{\nu}) = 1.2515 - 0.4605({\rm
log}(\nu)) - 0.1715({\rm log}(\nu))^{2} +0.0336({\rm log}(\nu))^3$, where $\nu$ is the frequency expressed in GHz and $S_{\nu}$ is in Jy.
Following this step, different calibration procedures were followed depending on whether or not observations of SiO maser emission were obtained. These two cases are described in turn in the following subsections.
[lrrccl]{}
J0935+0915$^{a}$ & 09 35 13.6411 & 09 15 07.813 & 0.128$\pm$0.003 &41.9395 &23 February 2014\
... & ... & ... & 0.117$\pm$0.003 & 49.8595 & ...\
J0943+1702$^{b}$ & 09 43 17.2243 & 17 02 18.969 & 0.135$\pm$0.003 &40.0400 &22 February 2014\
... & ... & ... & 0.115$\pm$0.003&47.9600 &...\
J1002+1216$^{b}$ & 10 02 52.8452 & 12 16 14.587 & 0.100$\pm$0.003 &40.0400 & 22 February 2014\
... & ... & ... & 0.096$\pm$0.002 &47.9600&...\
J1339-2620$^{c}$ & 13 39 19.8907 & $-$26 20 30.496 & 0.379$\pm$0.006& 40.0395 & 24 February 2014\
... & ... & ... & 0.362$\pm$0.009& 47.9595 & ...\
J2010+3322$^{d}$ &20 10 49.7063 & 33 22 13.627&0.188$\pm$0.002 &41.9395& 13 March 2014\
... & ... & ... &0.154$\pm$0.002 &49.8595& ...
Calibration of Stars with Maser Emission\[masercal\]
----------------------------------------------------
For target stars where SiO maser emission was observed within the band, the calibration approach of Reid & Menten (1990; see also RM97) was adapted for use with the new wide bandwidth VLA correlator (see Matthews et al. 2015). In these cases, self-calibration on the bright maser emission allows improvement of the calibration of the atmospheric phases, effectively allowing achievement of nearly perfect “seeing” in the stellar continuum measurements.
Following bandpass calibration and calculation of the absolute flux density scale as described above, calibration of the frequency-independent portion of the complex gains was performed for the observed calibrator sources following the standard approach for high-frequency data and their flux densities were computed (see Table 3). Amplitude and phase corrections computed from the phase calibration source(s) were then applied to the data from the target star, allowing the removal of any slow (hour timescale), instrumental gain drifts. Additionally, corrections to the positions of the stars to account for their proper motions were applied based on the values from van Leeuwen (2007). This ensured that the stellar emission was located close to the phase center of subsequent images.
After these initial calibration steps, the spectral channel containing the strongest SiO $v$=1, $J$=1-0 maser emission from the target star was split from the main data set, and several iterations of phase-only self-calibration were performed until convergence was reached. Based on these solutions, phase corrections appropriate for each of the 64 subbands across the full 8-GHz continuum band were derived using the AIPS task .
Following application of the above corrections, a second round of self-calibration was performed on the reference channel, solving for both amplitudes and phases. To prevent drift in the amplitude scale, the gains were normalized during this step. After these corrections were applied to the full data set, the data were averaged in time to 10-second records and spectral channels 1-3 and 125-128 at the edges of each subband were flagged because of their significantly higher noise levels. Spectral channels known to contain line emission or radio frequency interference were also flagged. Next, the data were Hanning-smoothed in frequency to suppress Gibbs ringing artifacts caused by the narrow SiO maser lines. At this stage, the AIPS task was used to compute optimized weights for the visibility data, and lastly, the data were further averaged in frequency to produce 8 spectral channels per subband.
Calibration of Data without Maser Emission\[nomasercal\]
--------------------------------------------------------
For the IRC+10216 data set, calibration of the frequency-independent portion of the complex gains was performed in the standard manner using observations of the calibrators J0943+1702 and J1002+1216. First, phase-only corrections were solved for and applied, followed by amplitude and phase corrections. The typical residual rms scatter in the phase solutions was ${~\rlap{$<$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}$6 deg for all antennas.
Subsequent steps were the same as for the sources with SiO lines, with the exception that flagging of line emission was unnecessary, as no significant line emission was found within the observing band (39.98-48.02 GHz). Prior to imaging (Section \[imaging\]), a positional offset was applied to compensate for proper motion and place the star at the phase center.
The self-calibration procedure used for the stars with SiO maser emission (Section \[masercal\]) destroys absolute position information. However, the calibration technique used for IRC+10216 preserves the positional accuracy and allowed us to measure the absolute position of the star and improve the characterization of its proper motion. This analysis is described in the Appendix.
Imaging the Data\[imaging\]
---------------------------
Initial imaging and deconvolution of the visibility data were performed using the deconvolution algorithm as implemented in the AIPS program (but see Section \[sparse\]). For the images presented here, we used a Briggs robustness parameter of ${\cal R}$=0, a cell size of 5 mas, and a circular restoring beam (see Table 3). Corrections were applied during imaging for the frequency dependence of the primary beam and the expected spectral index of the sources ($\alpha$=1.86; RM97). Imaging was also attempted using a multi-scale algorithm, but differences in the resulting images were insignificant.
[lccrcc]{}
R Leo & 42 & 34 & $-27.8$ & 38 & 16.4\
W Hya & 82 & 34 & $-9.7$ & 70 & 21.1\
$\chi$ Cyg & 42 & 37 & $-72.0$ & 39& 13.6\
IRC+10216 & 41 & 36 & $-23.6$ &38 & 15.7
[lllllllll]{}
\
\
\
R Leo & 0.23 & 54$\pm$3 (0.4)& 45$\pm$2 (0.5) & 109$\pm$5 (1.1) & 0.17$\pm$0.06 & 5.8$\pm$0.9 (0.02) & 4.7$\pm$0.2 & 2016$\pm$340\
W Hya & 0.61 & 71$\pm$4 (1.0) & 65$\pm$3 (0.4) & 0$\pm$5 (1.8) & 0.09$\pm$0.07 & 9.0$\pm$1.4 (0.03) & 7.5$\pm$0.3 & 1645$\pm$280\
$\chi$ Cyg & 0.75 &39$\pm$2 (1.3) & 36$\pm$2 (1.1) & 133$\pm$11 (9.5) & 0.07$\pm0.08$ & 2.2$\pm$0.3 (0.02) & 5.1$\pm$0.2 & 1327$\pm$210\
IRC+10216 & 0.41$^{a}$ & 88$\pm$4 (1.2) & 75$\pm$4 (1.1) &70$\pm$5 (0.43) & 0.15$\pm$0.06 & 11.4$\pm$1.7 (0.01) & 10.6$\pm$0.4 & 1580$\pm$260\
\
\
\
R Leo & 0.23 & 34$\pm$2 (0.2) & 29$\pm$1 (0.2) & 101$\pm$6 (3) & 0.15$\pm$0.06 & 6.0$\pm$0.9 (0.04) & ...& ...\
W Hya & 0.61 & 42$\pm$2 (0.2) & 39$\pm$2 (0.2) & 14$\pm$9 (8) & 0.07$\pm$0.06 & 9.2$\pm$1.4 (0.04) & ...& ...\
$\chi$ Cyg & 0.75 & 22$\pm$1 (0.4) & 22$\pm$1 (0.4) & 171$\pm$56 (56) & 0.0$\pm$0.09 & 2.2$\pm$0.3 (0.03) & ...& ...\
IRC+10216 & 0.41$^{a}$ & 61$\pm$4 (0.3) & 52$\pm$4 (0.2) & 74$\pm$5 (1) & 0.15$\pm0.06$ & 12.0$\pm$1.8 (0.06) & ... & ...\
\
\
\
R Leo & 0.55 & 61$\pm$10 & 39$\pm$6 & $160\pm$12& 0.36$\pm$0.14 & 4.1$\pm$0.2 & 4.6$\pm$0.5 & 1630$\pm$410\
W Hya & 0.25 & 69$\pm$10 & 46$\pm$7 & 83$\pm$18 &0.33$\pm$0.14 & 8.0$\pm$0.4 & 6.2$\pm$0.6 & 2380$\pm$550\
$\chi$ Cyg & 0.09 & ... & ... & ... & ... & $\sim$4.5$^{c}$ & ... & ...\
IRC+10216 & 0.79$^{a}$ & 87$\pm$2 & 80$\pm$ 1 & 22$\pm$5 & 0.08$\pm$0.02 & 12.2$\pm$0.1 & 10.9$\pm$0.1 & 1660
[lclccl]{}
R Leo & 4868 & $-7\pm10$ & $+6\pm6$ & ${\bf -51\pm13}$ & ${\bf +1.7\pm0.9}$\
W Hya & 4862 & $+2\pm11$ & ${\bf +19\pm8}$ & ${\bf -83\pm19}$ & $+1.0\pm1.5$\
$\chi$ Cyg & 8811 & ... & ... & ... & ${\bf -2.3\pm0.9}$\
IRC+10216 & 2918 & $+1\pm4$ & ${\bf -5\pm4}$ & ${\bf +48\pm7}$ & $-0.8\pm1.7$
Results
=======
Measured Radio Photosphere Parameters for the Target Stars\[measurements\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Evidence for Deviations from Circular Symmetry\[visfits\]
To measure the size, shape, and flux densities of the radio photospheres of the four stars in our sample, we have fitted two-dimensional (2D) uniform elliptical disk models to the visibility data using the AIPS task . The results are presented in Table 4. The quoted uncertainties include contributions from the formal fitting uncertainties (Condon 1997), as well as from calibration and systematic errors (see Appendix of Matthews et al. 2015 for details). The dominant source of uncertainty in the derived flux densities is the absolute calibration uncertainty, which we assume to be 15% at 7 mm.[^4] As a consistency check, we also determined the stellar parameters of the sample based on elliptical Gaussian fits to the images (Section \[imaging\]) using the AIPS task . In all cases the parameters derived from the two fitting methods agree to within uncertainties. (For resolved sources, the FWHM sizes derived from Gaussian fits are expected to be a factor of $\approx$0.625 times smaller than those from a uniform disk fit).
Based on the fit results in Table 4, the shapes of three of the stars in the current sample show deviations from circular symmetry. To further illustrate this effect, in Figure \[fig:uvcuts\] we plot radial brightness cuts along the major and minor axis of each star in the visibility domain. To produce these profiles, the visibility data were rotated to place the major and minor axis, respectively, of each stellar disk along the rotated $u$-axis of the visibility plane. The data used to form each plotted point along the $u$-direction were then constrained to a narrow strip along the $v$-axis ($|v|<0.5$M$\lambda$).
Both R Leo and IRC+10216 exhibit statistically significant differences between their major and minor axis brightness profiles, indicative of a non-zero ellipticity. On the other hand, $\chi$ Cyg shows no statistically significant deviation from circular symmetry. These results are all consistent with the 2D uniform elliptical disk fits presented in Table 4. In the case of W Hya, the ability to compare the major and minor axis brightness profiles in Figure \[fig:uvcuts\] is limited by the relatively low spatial resolution along the major axis of the dirty beam (see Table 3).
### Evidence for Secular Shape Changes\[secular\]
In Figure \[fig:kntrmaps\] we present contour images of each of the four observed stars (top row), with the results of the uniform elliptical disk fits to the visibility data (Table 4) overplotted as red ellipses. Along the bottom row of this figure we show comparable plots for the three previously observed stars based on the data from RM07 and M12. For each individual star, the data from the two epochs are contoured identically.
An examination of Figure \[fig:kntrmaps\], as well as the fit results in Tables 4 and 5, show that there appear to be statistically significant changes in the size, shape, and/or orientation of the radio photospheres of all three of the stars that have been imaged previously (R Leo, W Hya, and IRC+10216). In addition, both R Leo and $\chi$ Cyg appear to have undergone changes in flux density compared with earlier measurements. While $\chi$ Cyg was not previously observed at 7 mm, an extrapolation of its flux density from longer wavelength measurements taken in January 1990, assuming a spectral index of 1.86 (RM97), predicts a 7 mm flux density a factor of two larger than we measure from our recent observations. In the subsection that follows, we present additional discussion of the results for each individual star.
Results for Individual Stars
----------------------------
### R Leo
R Leo is one of two stars for which RM07 measured a significant deviation from sphericity, with an ellipticity of 0.64$\pm$0.14. Our new radio observations find a somewhat rounder, though still elongated shape, with a different orientation compared with the earlier data (Table 5). An ellipticity $\sim$0.11 has also been reported previously for the optical photosphere of R Leo at variability phase $\phi$=0.71 by Lattanzi et al. (1997), and a comparison with the earlier measurements by Tuthill et al. (1994) suggests that the elongation of the optical photosphere also changes orientation over time.
Our new measurement of the 46-GHz flux density of R Leo is $\sim$50% higher than the previous measurement of RM07. Based on 8.4-GHz measurements, RM97 found that radio photosphere fluxes tend to vary by ${~\rlap{$<$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}$15% over the course of a pulsation cycle. However, at 46 GHz, flux density changes of order 50% over multi-year timescales have also been seen in measurements of Mira (Matthews & Karovska 2006; Matthews et al. 2015), suggesting that either the stars are more variable at higher frequencies, or that intra-cycle changes of larger amplitude are occurring, possibly due to changes in radio opacity (e.g., O’Gorman et al. 2015).
Despite the significant change in the radio flux density of R Leo between epochs, the observed shape change of the star, and the fact that the observations were conducted at different pulsation phases, the inferred mean diameter of R Leo is comparable during the two epochs. In contrast, at optical wavelengths, Burns et al. (1998) found that the size of R Leo changes by as much as 50% over the course of the stellar pulsation cycle. At these shorter wavelengths, the large changes are most likely primarily due to opacity changes and/or changes in the temperature structure of the outer atmosphere than physical motions of the surface.
Several authors have also previously published measurements of the size of R Leo based on observations in the near-infrared. For example, at 2.16$\mu$m, Perrin et al. (1999) found a diameter of 28.18$\pm$0.05 mas at a phase $\phi$=0.24, consistent with Wittkowski et al. (2016), who measured 29.6$\pm$1.3 mas at $\phi$=0.6. Several other near-infrared diameter measurements in the literature are in general agreement with these values (e.g., Mennesson et al. 2002; Monnier et al. 2004; Fedele et al. 2005). A comparison with these various measurements suggests that the radio photosphere of R Leo is $\sim$1.7 times the extent of photosphere as measured at 2 $\mu$m. Using mid-infrared data, Paladini et al. (2017) also recently reported evidence of a non-zero differential phase in R Leo that they attribute to variable asymmetries.
### W Hya
RM07 previously measured a significant ellipticity of the radio photosphere of W Hya ($\sim$0.33). In contrast, our new data reveal a nearly spherical shape, with only a slight hint of elongation along the north-south direction. The mean diameter that we measure for W Hya from our latest measurements is $\sim$20% larger than that found by RM07. The pulsation phase of our new measurement ($\phi$=0.61) corresponds to the phase where measurements at optical wavelengths have previously shown other AGB stars to exhibit their maximum diameters (Burns et al. 1998; Young et al. 2000). However, in the visible band, this effect is likely the result of opacity changes rather than bulk motions of the atmosphere (Young et al.). Long-term monitoring at radio and/or mm wavelengths will be needed to determine whether discernible size changes are linked with the pulsation cycle, or instead occur on unrelated timescales and reflect other types of secular changes in the atmosphere (e.g., non-radial distortions or large-scale changes in the surface brightness).
Studies at other wavelengths have found evidence for fluctuating degrees of spherical symmetry in the atmosphere of W Hya. For example, for the optical photosphere, Lattanzi et al. (1997) reported that the major axis exceeded the minor axis by $\sim$20%, although no such effect was seen by Ireland et al. (2004). The mid-infrared measurements by Zhao-Geisler et al. (2015) suggest a minor-to-major axis ratio of 0.4-0.6 (see also Zhao-Geisler et al. 2011 and references therein), and Monnier et al. (2004) also reported deviations from a uniform (circular) disk at a wavelength of 2.2$\mu$m.
The position angle of the (slight) elongation of W Hya measured from our VLA observations is nearly north-south, which agrees to within uncertainties with the magnetic field axis determined by Szymczak et al. (1998) from OH maser observations and with the axis along which Vlemmings et al. (2011) measured a velocity gradient in the SO line at 215 GHz. However, the earlier measurements of RM07 found the radio photosphere to be elongated almost east-west, suggesting that its shape and orientation are variable and not linked to any preferred axis or to the magnetic field.
Recently Vlemmings et al. (2017) measured the radio photosphere of W Hya in the submillimeter range (0.7 mm) using ALMA and reported a size of $(56.5\pm0.1)\times(51.0\pm0.1)$ mas along a PA of 65.7$\pm$0.3 deg. While it is expected that the size of the radio photosphere should be smaller at shorter wavelengths because of opacity effects, the position angle and degree of flattening are also significantly different from our 7 mm JVLA measurements. The ALMA data were obtained at a pulsation phase of $\phi\sim$0.3 in 2015 December, approximately 22 months after our JVLA observation. This suggests that the photospheric shape and/or brightness pattern may have changed on these timescales, but future contemporaneous observations at different frequencies would be useful for ruling out opacity-dependent effects and/or changes linked with the stellar pulsation cycle.
### $\chi$ Cyg\[chisize\]
The S-type star $\chi$ Cyg has not been previously resolved at radio wavelengths, so we cannot compare its radio size and shape to previous epochs. However, the 46-GHz flux density we measure for this star is roughly a factor of two smaller than predicted by the radio photosphere model of RM97 (their equation 7), and it lies below the extrapolation of the longer wavelength measurements of RM97 to $\lambda\sim$7 mm. Our current observations were obtained at an optical phase of 0.75, close to the phase where the bolometric flux is predicted to be at a minimum (Lacour et al. 2009), compared with RM97, at the time of whose observations the phase was $\approx$0.09.
The mean shape of $\chi$ Cyg in our new observations is found to be nearly spherical (but see also Section \[sparse\]), with a mean diameter intermediate between the range of values observed for other M-type Miras (Table 5; MR07; Matthews et al. 2015). Thus from this single data point we find no evidence of a significant difference between the radio sizes of S-type versus M-type Miras. (In contrast, the carbon star IRC+10216 is nearly twice as large as the M-type Miras; see Section \[IRCsize\]).
Previous measurements of the size of $\chi$ Cyg at 1.6$\mu$m and a pulsation phase of $\phi$=0.79 were made by Lacour et al. (2009), who derived a photospheric diameter of 21.49$\pm$0.11 mas and a size for the molecular layer of 27.35$\pm$0.13 mas. These authors inferred a temperature of 2032$\pm$32 K for the molecular layer, notably warmer than the brightness temperature of 1327$\pm$210 K that we derive from our radio data (Table 5). On the other hand, at 2.2$\mu$m, Perrin et al. (2004) derived a diameter and temperature for the molecular layer of 30.78$\pm$0.10 and 1737$\pm$53 K, respectively, at $\phi$=0.76. Part of the apparent discrepancy likely stems from the fact that the results of Lacour et al. were derived taking into account limb darkening, whereas Perrin et al. argued that limb-darkened models do not provide a satisfactory fit to AGB star data.
### IRC+10216\[IRCsize\]
For the carbon star IRC+10216, we find no statistically significant changes in the mean diameter, degree of flattening, or in the 7 mm flux density compared to previous radio observations (see Tables 4 and 5 and M12). However, our new measurements do suggest a change in the position angle of the flattening.
The radio diameter of IRC+10216 (10.6 AU) is significantly larger than the three M- and S-type three stars in the sample (which range from 4.7-7.5 AU; see Table 4). Indeed, its 7 mm radio size is intermediate between that of M-type AGB stars measured to date and the red supergiant Betelgeuse ($\sim$17.5 AU, assuming $d$=200 pc; Lim et al. 1998; O’Gorman et al. 2015). However, the measured radio brightness temperature of IRC+10216, $T_{\rm eff}=1580\pm260$ K, is significantly cooler than that of Betelgeuse at this wavelength, where $T_{\rm eff}\approx$3450$\pm$850 K (Lim et al.).
It is presently unclear whether the large radio size of IRC+10216 compared with the M-type sample is a general property of carbon stars or is instead related to its cool temperature and high luminosity (see also Section \[visan\]) and/or to its advanced evolutionary state. Radio opacity is tightly linked with the ionization of Na and K (RM97), and the physical radius of carbon stars as measured in the radio may on average be rather different from oxygen-rich AGB stars owing to the different physical conditions in their atmospheres. On the other hand, IRC+10216 is also a highly evolved AGB star that is thought to be close to transitioning into a protoplanetary nebula (e.g., Skinner et al. 1998; Osterbart et al. 2000), and this too may impact its radio size. Additional resolved imaging observations of carbon stars at millimeter wavelengths are needed to address the question of whether IRC+10216 is typical of its class.
Because of its optically thick and constantly evolving dust envelope, IRC+10216 does not have a well-defined photosphere at optical and infrared wavelengths (Stewart et al. 2016). Therefore, in contrast to the M- and S-type AGB stars that have been resolved, we cannot readily compare its radio size with a photospheric size measured at other wavelengths. However, based on the radio diameter $D$ and brightness temperature $T_{B}$, one may derive a bolometric luminosity for the star based on the Stefan-Boltzmann relation: $L_{b}=\pi D^{2}\sigma_{B}T^{4}_{B}$ where $\sigma_{B}$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. We find $L_{b}\approx7200\pm1300~L_{\odot}$, where we assume the solar luminosity to be 3.83$\times10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Adopting the stellar effective temperature of 2200 K from Cohen (1979), we then find a predicted stellar diameter of $\sim$5.5 AU. This implies that that radio photosphere of IRC+10216 is roughly twice the size of its “classical” photospheric diameter, the same ratio as seen in M-type AGB stars.
Both the brightness temperature and the bolometric luminosity that we derive for IRC+10216 agree with the values derived by M12 to within uncertainties. The uncertainty in $L_{b}$ is, however, quite large and is dominated by calibration uncertainties in the absolute flux density.
Discussion: the Possible Origins of Secular Shape Changes of Radio Photospheres
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our new data provide the first compelling evidence that the shapes of the radio photospheres of AGB stars may not only be non-spherical, but may evolve over time. Previously, Mira was shown to have a non-spherical shape, with tentative evidence that it had evolved over 14 years (Matthews et al. 2015). Our new data suggest this phenonemon is likely to be common, at least for M-type AGB stars. Furthermore, these results allow us to exclude several possible explanations for the origin of the non-spherical shapes of radio photospheres (see Section \[Intro\]), including stellar rotation, tidal effects, and magnetic fields. In each of these cases, any induced ellipsoidal shape and/or its axis of elongation would be expected to be stable over timescales of many decades and therefore cannot readily explain the shape changes observed in a span of $\sim$8-14 years.
Because we have just two epochs of observations separated by several years (Table 5), we presently have very limited information on how rapidly the shapes and sizes of radio photosphere may change. Furthermore, although in all cases the observations in the two epochs were obtained at different phases of the stellar pulsation cycle, we do not yet have sufficient information to determine whether changes in parameters including shape, radius, or temperature of the radio photosphere are discernible over the course of a single cycle. To date, our best insight into this question comes from the case of Mira, where Matthews et al. (2015) found that the ellipticity and position angle of the photosphere appeared to be stable on timescales of at least 8 months—a significant fraction of the stellar pulsation period.
Recent 3D hydrodynamic simulations of AGB star atmospheres by Freytag et al. (2017; see also Freytag & Höfner 2008) make predictions that provide a possible framework for the interpretation of our data. In these models, the dynamics of the atmosphere is governed by the interaction between long-lived giant convective cells (Schwarzchild 1975) with shorter-lived granules and strong radial pulsations. Such cells may be responsible for the elevation of material in different parts of the atmosphere and lead to temperature changes within the radio photosphere. Associated shock waves may also lead to temperature fluctuations within the radio photosphere. Interestingly, even though the aforementioned models adopt spherically symmetric flows with purely radial, fundamental mode pulsations, the resulting stars clearly manifest non-spherical shapes and non-radial structures, with discernible changes in the shape and surface brightness of the star occurring over time. Specifically, these models predict that the large-scale convective cells, which are expected to play such an important role in governing the atmospheric dynamics, should be stable on timescales of order one year, comparable to the timescale over which the shape of Mira’s radio photosphere appeared to be relatively stable. Future monitoring observations with a cadence of a few weeks or less will be important for testing whether this trend is seen in other stars and/or is reproduced during additional Mira observing epochs. Meanwhile, further evidence for the role in giant convective cells in the radio properties of our sample is discussed below (Section \[nonuniform\]).
Non-radial pulsations are another potential explanation for the non-spherical shapes of radio photospheres, although their occurrence in AGB stars is not well-established. For example, Stello et al. (2014) have suggested that while non-radial pulsations may be present in semi-regular variables, they appear to be absent from Miras (but cf. Tuthill et al. 1994). On the other hand, Freytag & Höfner (2008) have noted that the distinction between radial and non-radial pulsations may become blurred, since the type of pulsations present in their hydrodynamic models combine changes in volume with changes in the shape of the star—despite initial starting conditions with spherical symmetry and fundamental mode pulsations.
Evidence for Non-Uniform Brightness of the Radio Surfaces\[nonuniform\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
### Visibility Plane Analysis\[visan\]
Figure \[fig:uvplots\] presents another representation of the $u$-$v$ data, this time showing the azimuthally averaged real and imaginary parts of the visibility amplitude versus projected baseline length for each of the four stars in the present sample. The overplotted red lines show the best-fitting uniform elliptical disk model, based on the parameters from Table 4. These plots are helpful for highlighting not only ellipticity, but also deviations in the stellar surface brightness from a uniform circular or elliptical disk. Based on Figure \[fig:uvplots\] all four stars show at least some hints of deviations from this simple model, suggesting asymmetries in shape and/or the presence of brightness non-uniformities across the stellar surface. For W Hya and R Leo, this is most evident in the imaginary part of the visibilities. Similar effects have been seen previously on the radio surface of Mira (Matthews et al. 2015; Vlemmings et al. 2015; Wong et al. 2016) and in recent ALMA 0.7 mm observations of W Hya (Vlemmings et al. 2017).
Based on the visibility plots in Figure \[fig:uvplots\], the most pronounced deviations from a uniform brightness elliptical disk are seen in the case of IRC+10216, which is also the star in our sample with the largest angular extent. To explore its properties further, we present in Figure \[fig:IRCresid\] a image of the star made after subtraction of the best-fitting uniform elliptical disk model from the observed visibilities. The residual image reveals an oversubtraction across the nominal stellar disk (deisgnated by a red ellipse), leaving a clumpy, ring-like distribution of negative residuals ($\sim$10–12$\sigma$) visible around the periphery of the star. Outside of this there is a ring of positive residual emission that extends well beyond the disk radius defined by the uniform elliptical disk model. These positive residuals include three bright clumps (with significance 9–17$\sigma$). The individual clumps are only 1-2% of the peak brightness, and the possibility that they are spurious artifacts cannot yet be excluded. However, the overall evidence for the presence of extended emission appears to be significant and cannot readily be explained by calibration or imaging artifacts.
To provide a better representation of the brightness distribution of IRC+10216, we have attempted fits using a variety of more complex models to the data. In addition to a uniform elliptical disk, each of these new models included one or more additional brightness components, including a thin elliptical ring, up to three circular or elliptical Gaussians, and/or up to three point sources.
[lllllll]{}
Uniform elliptical disk & $-0.18\pm$0.09 & 0.18$\pm$0.08 & 84.4$\pm$0.3 & 71.3$\pm$0.3 & 72.0$\pm$0.4 & 10.62$\pm$0.04\
Thin elliptical ring & $-$5.33$\pm$0.83 & 5.90$\pm$0.79 & 146.3$\pm$2.0 & 105.1$\pm$2.1 & 94.3$\pm$1.1 & 1.28$\pm$0.04
We find that a significant improvement in the quality of the fit is achieved by a model that includes just one additional brightness component, namely a geometrically thin elliptical ring. Parameters of this model are summarized in Table 6. A residual map, made after subtraction of the model from Table 6 from the IRC+10216 visibility data, is shown in Figure \[fig:IRCringmodel\]. The residuals in the map are significantly reduced relative to Figure \[fig:IRCresid\], although some residual clumps visible across the disk of the star suggest that the radio surface may be intrinsically non-uniform. Despite this, we find that the addition of one or more components (point sources or Gaussians) to the elliptical disk+ring model provides only marginal improvement in the residuals while increasing the number of free parameters. We conclude that the star likely has a mottled surface, but based on the present data we cannot uniquely model it with a small number of brightness components.
For the simple two-component model presented in Table 6, all parameters were allowed to vary freely. Despite this, we find that all of the parameters of the uniform elliptical disk in this revised model (with the exception of the flux density) agree to within uncertainties with the original disk-only model fit presented in Table 5. (As we are interested in relative quantities, we ignore here the contribution of absolute flux calibration uncertainty and various systematic effects to the error budget).
The two-component model that we find to well represent the brightness distribution of IRC+10216 is qualitatively similar to the one recently derived for the red supergiant Betelgeuse by O’Gorman et al. (2017) using 338 GHz observations from ALMA, although for Betelgeuse, one circular and one elliptical Gaussian component were also included in the published model. For both stars the “ring” comprises $\sim$10% of the total combined flux of the disk+ring, although in the case of IRC+10216, the ratio of the major axis diameter of the elliptical ring to the disk is larger than the Betelgeuse case ($\sim$1.7 compared to $\sim$1.2). The latter difference may be a consequence of the different wavelength bands used for the respective measurements, but may also reflect an intrinsic difference between the structure and temperature profile of the radio-emitting atmospheres of the two stars.
We exclude contamination from line emission as a likely explanation for the “ring” component to the IRC+10216 atmosphere. While IRC+10216 is known to exhibit weak, thermally excited (i.e., non-masing) line emission from various molecules within our observing band, including HC$_{3}$N (Chau et al. 2012), the HC$_{3}$N emission is expected to arise predominately from the circumstellar envelope at distances of hundreds of AU from the star (Claussen et al. 2011), and we find no evidence for any line emission detected in our VLA data set. Furthermore, we have confirmed that evidence for the “ring” persists across our entire 8 GHz observing band. Additional resolved imaging of ultra-high-luminosity red giants is needed to test whether this property is common among such stars.
O’Gorman et al. (2017) argued that in the case of Betelgeuse, the presence of the ring cannot be attributed to limb-brightening because it is not located near the limb of the main disk. A similar argument applies to IRC+10216. One possible alternative is that the ring comprises gas elevated beyond the nominal radio photosphere by giant convective cells (e.g., Lim et al. 1998). We also note the models of Freytag et al. (2017) predict that the coolest and most luminous AGB stars should have increasingly ill-defined “surfaces” (cf. their Figure 8), and the amorphous and extended appearance of IRC+10216’s photosphere at 7 mm wavelengths qualitatively resembles their model predictions for a star with $L\sim10^{3}~L_{\odot}$.
### Results of Sparse Model Imaging\[sparse\]
The model fits to the visibility data for our sample stars reveal indications of departures from uniform brightness models (Section \[visan\]). However, because the stars are only marginally resolved by the VLA at 7 mm wavelengths, it is difficult to quantitatively characterize these deviations in the $u$-$v$ plane, and more complex models are generally not well-constrained (with the exception of IRC+10216; see above). Furthermore, it is challenging to identify signatures of possible non-uniformities in the image plane. This stems from a combination of the relatively low contrast of these expected features ($\sim$10-20% contrast relative to the background; e.g., Freytag et al. 2017; Paladini et al. 2018) and the need to distinguish real features from artifacts caused by the limited $u$-$v$ sampling or other limitations inherent to the imaging algorithm (see, e.g., Cornwell, Braun, & Briggs 1999; Akiyama et al. 2017a,b).
The deconvolved image data presented in Figure \[fig:kntrmaps\], produced using Briggs weighting with robustness ${\cal R}$=0, are adequate for displaying the overall shapes of the stellar isophotes and their degree of ellipticity, but these images do not readily enable identification of possible stellar surface features (e.g., spots or cool regions) or brightness asymmetries. A deconvolution using uniform weighting (essentially equivalent to Briggs weighting with ${\cal R}=-5$) can produce images with a slightly improved (${~\rlap{$<$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}$20%) angular resolution, but at the cost of higher image noise, reduced surface brightness sensitivity, and a more complex dirty beam pattern (Briggs, Schwab, & Sramek 1999), all of which degrade the overall image fidelity.
One alternative strategy is to impose a modest degree of “super-resolution”, through the use of a restoring beam whose FWHM is smaller than the FWHM of the dirty beam. Following Fish et al. (2016) we define super-resolution as $\lambda/(B\alpha_{r})$, where $B$ is the maximum baseline length of the interferometer and $\alpha_{r}{~\rlap{$>$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}1$. However, higher levels of super-resolution in ($\alpha_{r}>$1) may produce spurious clumps and undesirable image artifacts (e.g., Akiyama et al. 2017a,b), particularly in cases where the dirty beam is highly elliptical (e.g., as is the case for W Hya) or has significant sidelobes (Fish et al.).
To circumvent these issues, we employ a new imaging technique known as [*sparse modeling*]{} (Honma et al. 2014), in which images are computed directly by solving the observing equation with convex regularization functions (see Honma et al. 2014 and Akiyama et al. 2017a for details). In typical radio interferometric data sets, the sampling of the $u$-$v$ plane is often highly incomplete, making image reconstruction an under-determined problem (Honma et al.). Standard radio interferometric imaging techniques, such as , compensate by using “zero padding” to replace unsampled grid points in the $u$-$v$ plane and to infer the solution using the inverse Fourier transformed image (the so-called “dirty residual map”). However, this results in degradation of the shape of the beam and an increase in sidelobe levels. The sparse modeling approach instead can derive a unique solution from an infinite number of possible images by utilizing a convex sparse regularization function. The latest algorithm utilizes two convex regularization function of the brightness distribution, its $\ell_1$-norm and Total Variation (TV) \[or the improved variant Total Squared Variation (TSV)\]. These regularizers penalize sparsity in the brightness distribution and its gradient, respectively (Akiyama et al. 2017a,b; Kuramochi et al. 2018). This technique can be used to achieve resolutions as high as $\sim$30% of the diffraction limit while maintaining image fidelity.
Using the latest sparse modeling code implementation of Kuramochi et al. (2018), we reconstructed images using $\ell_1$+TSV regularization (Kuramochi et al.) and the MFISTA algorithm described in Akiyama et al. (2017a). We computed a grid of 16 images for each of our sample stars, spanning a range of four values for the regularization parameters ${\bar\eta}_{l}$=\[10, 1, 0.1, 0.01\] for $\ell_1$-norm and ${\bar\eta}_{t}$=\[1e6, 1e5, 1e4, 1e3\] for TSV, respectively (see Kuramochi et al. for a definition of these parameters). We adopted a field-of-view of 260 mas with a 100$\times$100 pixel gridding. For each star, we also created additional grids of images from model $u$-$v$ data representing the best-fitting uniform elliptical disk model to the visibility data (see Table 4), both with and without the addition of realistic Gaussian noise. These model data were generated using the AIPS tasks and .
To determine the best image, we use a combination of the “leave-one-out” cross-validation errors (LOOE; Obuchi & Kabashima 2016; Obuchi et al. 2017) and a visual comparison between the sparse model stellar images and the corresponding sparse model elliptical disk images for each value of ${\bar\eta}_{l}$ and ${\bar\eta}_{t}$. When LOOE is large, the data and the elliptical disk models are virtually indistinguishable (i.e., the images are not significantly super-resolved). On the other hand, attempting to over-resolve the data can lead to spurious image artifacts despite small LOOE values. However, because these artifacts tend to appear nearly identical in both the real images and the uniform elliptical disk images, such images can be readily rejected as providing a poor representation of the true source brightness distribution.
Based on the application of the above criteria, we present in Figure \[fig:sparse\] our best sparse model images for each of the four program stars. In each case, we also show the corresponding uniform elliptical disk model image, with and without noise. For R Leo, our images appear to reveal a clear asymmetry in the radio photosphere. W Hya and $\chi$ Cyg also exhibit subtle deviations from a purely symmetric shape, and for $\chi$ Cyg we see that the uniform elliptical disk fit over-predicts the intensity near the center of the star (see also Figure \[fig:uvcuts\]). For IRC+10216, a uniform elliptical disk model predicts a flatter intensity gradient across the star than observed, consistent with the negative residual seen in the IRC+10216 image shown in Figure \[fig:IRCresid\] and with the radial intensity cuts shown in Figure \[fig:uvcuts\]).
The degree of super-resolution that we are able to achieve for each star varies depending on the SNR as well as the $u$-$v$ coverage and other factors that will be explored in future work. For IRC+10216, we obtain only a marginal improvement in resolution over ($\sim$97% of the diffraction limit), but results are significantly better for R Leo, W Hya, and $\chi$ Cyg, where we achieve images with $\sim$75%, 60%, and 55% of the diffraction limit, respectively. These preliminary results suggest that sparse model imaging algorithm appears to be a promising tool for aiding in the interpretation of stellar imaging data at radio and millimeter wavelengths.
Summary
=======
We have used the JVLA to image the radio photospheres of four nearby, long-period variable stars at 7 mm wavelengths. Through fits to the visibility data we find that all four stars are clearly resolved and exhibit shapes that range from nearly spherical to an ellipticity of $\sim$0.17.
A comparison to measurements taken during previous observational epochs several years earlier shows that in all cases some of the photospheric properties (mean diameter, shape, orientation, and/or flux density) appear to have changed with time. These secular changes help to rule out several possible causes for the non-spherical shapes of radio photospheres, including tidal effects, magnetic fields, or binary companions. Instead, the most probable explanation for these shapes appears to be manifestations of large-scale convective flows and/or pulsation.
We have shown that the sparse modeling imaging technique provides a means to achieve a modest degree of super-resolution in the images of radio photospheres obtained with the VLA. Sparse model images for the four program stars provide further evidence for irregular photospheric shapes and non-uniform brightnesses across the radio surfaces. Sparse model imaging thus appears to be a promising new tool for aiding the interpretation of stellar imaging data at radio and (sub)millimeter wavelengths.
The radio photosphere of the carbon star IRC+10216 has a diameter nearly twice as large as that of the other three M- and S-type stars in our sample. Based on fits to the real and imaginary parts of the visibilities, IRC+10216 also exhibits a pronounced deviation from a pure uniform elliptical disk. The data can be well-fitted by a combination of a uniform elliptical disk plus a more extended component (modeled as a ring-like structure) comprising $\sim$10% of the total flux.
As described in the Appendix, our JVLA observations of IRC+10216 also permit a new measurement of the star’s proper motion. Our results are in agreement with previous values obtained from radio wavelength measurements and do not support recent claims of observable astrometric signatures from a binary companion.
The observations presented here were part of NRAO programs 14A-026, AR446, and AM845. L.D.M. gratefully acknowledges guidance from E. Waagen in the use of AAVSO resources, as well as support from award 1516106 from the National Science Foundation. K.A. is supported by a Jansky Fellowship from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
The Absolute Position and Proper Motion of IRC+10216
====================================================
As described in Section \[nomasercal\], the use of self-calibration on the stellar line emission to improve calibration of the complex gains precludes measuring the absolute position of three of our target stars. However, the calibration technique adopted for IRC+10216 preserves the absolute positional information, enabling a measurement of the proper motion of the star.
To measure the absolute position of IRC+10216, we produced a image of the star with the same parameters as given in Table 4, but without applying any a priori positional shifts. This image was then fitted with a single-component Gaussian using the AIPS task , yielding the position quoted in Table 1. Following M12, we estimate uncertainties of 10 mas in both the RA and DEC coordinates.
The first constraints on the proper motion of IRC+10216 were obtained by Becklin et al. (1969), who obtained upper limits of 30 mas yr$^{-1}$ by using a comparison between their own measurement on a red-sensitive photographic plate (epoch 1969.274) with another from a 1954 [*Palomar Sky Survey*]{} plate. Using radio wavelength measurements, Menten et al. (2006) and M12 subsequently confirmed a proper motion of the star toward a northeasterly direction.
More recently, Sozzetti et al. (2017) reported astrometric measurements of IRC+10216 based on archival (1995-2001) $I$-band ($\sim$800 nm) data. They found an east-west component of the proper motion, $\mu_{x}$, comparable to within uncertainties with that derived by M12, but reported a significantly different north-south component, $\mu_{y}$, and postulated that this difference may be due to the effects of a binary companion and its so-called variability-induced motion (VIM) on the apparent motion of the star.
Figure \[fig:PM\] presents the previous proper motion measurements of IRC+10216 from Becklin et al. (1969), Menten et al. (2006), and M12, along with a measurement from our current data. We adopt the convention that offsets to the east and to the north are positive, and following M12, we take 1987.419 as the reference epoch. The lines on the figure represent weighted least-squares fits to the $x$ and $y$ offsets, respectively, of the combined data. From this we find a proper motion of ($\mu_{x}$, $\mu_{y}$)=(33.84$\pm$0.7, 10.0$\pm$0.7) mas yr$^{-1}$. These values agree with the determination of M12 to within uncertainties. Our $\mu_{x}$ determination also agrees with Sozzetti et al. (2017), but we find significant disagreement in the $y$ component of motion, where the latter authors report $\mu_{y}$=30.22$\pm$2.02 mas yr$^{-1}$ based on a single-star fit to the data and $\mu_{y}$=25.43$\pm$1.69 mas yr$^{-1}$ based on a “VIM+acceleration” model, intended to account from perturbations from a suspected binary companion. A possible explanation for this discrepancy in the $y$ component of motion is that the 800 nm data analyzed by Sozzetti et al. are not sampling the stellar photosphere, but instead material in the circumstellar envelope whose emission morphology observed at optical and infrared wavelengths is known to exhibit temporal changes unrelated to orbital motions (Osterbart et al. 2000; Stewart et al. 2016).
The time elapsed between our recent measurement and the previous high-precision radio measurement of M12 ($\sim$8 yr) is slightly larger than the time span of the measurements presented by Sozzetti et al. (2017). However, we find no evidence for excursions of the motion of the star compared with an extrapolation of the data between 1969-2006. Radio measurements to date therefore show no evidence for wobble caused by a companion with a significance greater than $\sim1.5\sigma$, or $>$1 mas yr$^{-1}$.
Akiyama, K., Kuramochi, K., Ikeda, S. et al. 2017a, ApJ, 838, 1
Akiyama, K., Ikeda, S., Pleau, M., et al., 2017b, AJ, 153, 159
Baudry, A., Mazurier, J. M., Perié, J. P., Requième, Y., & Rousseau, J. M. 1990, A&A, 232, 258
Becklin, E. E., Frogel, J. A., Hyland, A. R., Kristian, J., & Neugebauer, G. 1969, ApJ, 158, L133
Briggs, D. S., Schwab, F. R., & Sramek, R. A. 1999, in Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, edited by G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, and R. A. Perley, ASP Conference Series, 180, (ASP: San Francisco), 127
Burns, D., Baldwin, J. E., Boysen, R. C. et al. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 462
Carilli, C. L. & Holdaway, M. A. 1997, VLA Scientific Memo No. 173
Chau, W., Zhang, Y., Nakashima, J.-I., Deguchi, S., & Kwok, S. 2012, ApJ, 760, 66
Claussen, M. J., Sjouwerman, L. O., Rupen, M. P., Olofsson, H., Schöier, F. L., Bergman, P., & Knapp, G. R. 2011, ApJL, 739, L5
Cohen, M. 1979, MNRAS, 186, 837
Condon, J. J. 1997, PASP, 109, 166
Cornwell, T., Braun, R., & Briggs, D. S. 1999, in Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, edited by G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, and R. A. Perley, ASP Conf. Series, (ASP: San Francisco), 180, 151
Cotton, W. D. 2008, PASP, 120, 439
Feast, M. W., Glass, I. S., Whitelock, P. A., & Catchpole, R. M. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 375
Fedele, D., Wittkowski, M., Paresce, F., Scholz, M., Wood, P. R., & Ciroi, S. 2005, A&A, 431, 1019
Fish, V. L., Akiyama, K., Bouman, K. L., et al. 2016, Galaxies, 4, 54
Freytag, B. & Höfner, S. 2008, A&A, 483, 571
Freytag, B., Liljegren, S., & Höfner, S. 2017, A&A, 600, 137
Greisen, E. W. 2003, Information Handling in Astronomy—Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 109
Haniff, C. A., Scholz, M., & Tuthill, P. G. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 640
Honma, M., Akiyama, K., Uemura, M., & Ikeda, S. 2014, PASJ, 66, 95
Huggins, P. J., Mauron, N., & Wirth, E. A. 1990, MNRAS, 396, 1805
Ireland, M. J., Tuthill, P. G., Bedding, T. R., Robertson, J. G., & Jacob, A. P. 2014, MNRAS, 350, 365
Kuramochi, K., Akiyama, K., Ideda, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, in press, arXiv:1802.05783
Lacour, S., Thiébaut, E., Perrin, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 632
Lattanzi, M. G., Munari, U., Whitelock, P. A., & Feast, M. W. 1997, ApJ, 485, 328
Lim, J., Carilli, C. L., White, S. M., Beasley, A. J., & Marson, R. G. 1998, Nature, 392, 575
Livio, M. 1994, in Theory of Accretion Disks - 2, edited by W. J. Duschl, J. Frank, F. Meyer, E. Meyer-Hofmeister, and W. M. Tscharnuter, NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series C, 417, 411
Matthews, L. D. & Karovska, M. 2006, ApJ, 637, L49
Matthews, L. D., Reid, M. J., & Menten, K. M. 2015, ApJ, 808, 36
Mennesson, B., Perrin, G., Chagnon, G., et al. 2002, ApJ, 579, 446
Menten, K. M., Reid, M. J., Kamiński, T., & Claussen, M. J. 2012, A&A, 543, 73 (M12)
Menten, K. M., Reid, M. J., Krügel, E., Claussen, M. J., & Sahai, R. 2006, A&A, 453, 301
Monnier, J. D., Millan-Gabet, R., Tuthill, P. G., et al., 2004, ApJ, 605, 436
Obuchi, T., Ikeda, S., Akiyama, K., & Kabashima, Y. 2017, PLoSO, 12, id. 0188012
Obuchi, T. & Kabashima, Y. 2016, JSMTE, 5, 3304
O’Gorman, E., Harper, G. M., Brown, A., Guinan, E. F., Richards, A. M. S., Vlemmings, W., & Wasatonic, R. 2015, A&A, 580, A101
O’Gorman, E., Kervella, P., Harper, G. M., Richards, A. M. S., Decin, L., Montargès, M., & McDonald, I. 2017, A&A, 602, L10
Osterbart, R., Balega, Y. Y., Blöcker, T., Men’shchikov, A. B., & Weigelt, G. 2000, A&A, 357, 169
Paladini, C., Baron, F., Jorissen, A., et al. 2018, Natur, 553, 310
Paladini, C., Klotz, D., Sacuto, S., et al., 2017, A&A, 600, A136
Perley, R. A. & Taylor, G. B. 2003, VLA Calibration Manual\
(<http://www.vla.nrao.edu/astro/calib/manual/index.shtml>)
Perley, R. A. & Butler, B. J. 2013, ApJS, 204, 19
Perrin, G., Coudé du Foresto, V., Ridgway, S. T., Mennesson, B., Ruilier, C., Mariotti, J.-M., Traub, W. A., & Lacasse, M. G. 1999, A&A, 345, 221
Perrin, G., Ridgway, S. T., Mennesson, B., et al. 2004, A&A, 426, 279
Reid, M. J. & Goldston, J. E. 2002, ApJ, 568, 931
Reid, M. J. & Menten, K. M. 1990, ApJ, 360, L51
Reid, M. J. & Menten, K. M. 1997, ApJ, 476, 327 (RM97)
Reid, M. J. & Menten, K. M. 2007, ApJ, 671, 2068 (RM07)
Schwarzschild, M. 1975, 195, 137
Shenavrin, V. I., Taranova, O. G., & Nadzhip, A. E. 2011, ARep, 55, 31
Skinner, C. J., Meixner, M., & Bobrowsky, M. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 29
Smith, B. J., Price, S. D., & Moffett, A. J. 2006, AJ, 131, 612
Sozzetti, A., Smart, R. L., Drimmel, R., Giacobbe, P., & Lattanzi, M. G. 2017, MNRAS, 471, L1
Stello, D., Compton, D. L., Bedding, T. R. et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, L10
Stewart, P. N., Tuthill, P. G., Monnier, J. D., Ireland, M. J., Hedman, M. M., Nicholson, P. D., & Lacour, S. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3102
Szymczak, M., Cohen, R. J., & Richards, A. M. S. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 1151
Tsuji, T. 2000, ApJ, 540, L99
Tsuji, T. 2001, in Galaxies and their Constituents at the Highest Angular Resolutions, IAU Symposium 205, edited by R. T. Schilizzi, 316
Tsuji, T. 2008, A&A, 489, 1271
Tuthill, P. G., Haniff, C. A., Baldwin, J. E., & Feast, M. W. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 745
van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653
Vlemmings, W. H. T., Humphreys, E. M. L., & Franco-Hernández, R. 2011, ApJ, 728, 149
Vlemmings, W., Khouri, T., O’Gorman, E., De Beck, E., Humphreys, E., Lankhaar, B., Maercker, M., Olofsson, H., Ramstedt, S., Tafoya, D., & Takigawa, A. 2017, NatA, 1, 848
Vlemmings, W. H. T., Ramstedt, S., O’Gorman, E., Humphreys, E. M. L., Wittkowski, M., Baudry, A., & Karovska, M. 2015, A&A, L4
Wittkowski, M., Chiavassa, A., Freytag, B., Scholz, M., Höfner, S., Karovicova, I., & Whitelock, P. A. 2016, A&A, 587, A12
Woitke, P. 2006, A&A, 452, 537
Wong, K. T., Kamiński, T., Menten, K. M., & Wyrowski, F. 2016, A&A, 590, 127
Wood, P. R. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3829
Young, J. S., Baldwin, J. E., Boysen, R. C., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 381
Zhao-Geisler, R., Köhler, R., Kemper, F., Kerschbaum, F., Mayer, A., Quirrenbach, A., & Lopez, B. 2015, PASP, 127, 732
Zhao-Geisler, R., Quirrenbach, A., Köhler, R., Lopez, B., & Leinert, C. 2011, A&A, 530, A120
[^1]: S-type stars contain similar amounts of carbon and oxygen.
[^2]: See [<https://www.aavso.org/vsot$_$whya>]{} for discussion.
[^3]: The VLA of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) is operated by Associated Universities, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^4]: <https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vla/docs/manuals/oss/performance/fdscale.>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'General permutation invariant statistics in the second quantized approach are considered. Simple interpolations between dual statistics are constructed. Particularly, we present a new minimal interpolation between parabosons and parafermions of any order. The connection with a simple mixing between bosons and fermions is established. The construction is extended to anyonic-like statistics.'
address: 'Institut Rugjer Bošković, Bijenička 54, P.O.Box 1016, 10001 Zagreb, Croatia'
author:
- 'Blaženka Meli'' c [^1] and Stjepan Meljanac [^2]'
title: |
**PERMUTATION INVARIANT STATISTICS, DUALITY\
AND SIMPLE INTERPOLATIONS**
---
1.2cm 1.2cm
1.5cm
In the last few years there has been increasing interest in generalized statistics. The main reason is their possible application to the theory of the fractional quantum Hall effect \[1\] and to the theory of anyon superconductivity \[2\] based on the two-dimensional concept of anyons. Haldane fractional statistics \[3\], generalizing the Pauli exclusion principle to any spatial dimension, has also attracted much interest. A large class of generalizations is based on permutation group invariance, for example parastatistics \[4\], infinite quon statistics \[5,6\], a simple interpolation between bosons and fermions introduced by Wu [*et al.*]{} \[7\] and Scipioni \[8\]. Similarly, braid group invariance leads to anyonic-like statistics. Recently, permutation invariant statistics has been studied in the first quantized approach \[9\],\[10\].
In this letter we follow the second quantized approach and present a unified view on all types of statistics invariant under the permutation group. For a given type of generalized statistics we introduce the notion of its dual statistics and construct a simple interpolation between these two. Particularly, we analyse the minimal interpolation between Bose and Fermi statistics and some of its physical consequences, as well as the minimal interpolation between para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics. We establish a connection with the statistics of Wu [*et al.*]{} \[7\] and Scipioni \[8\]. Finally, we briefly discuss the extension of our simple interpolation to the anyonic-like statistics which are not permutation invariant.\
\
[**Fock space and generalized statistics**]{}
Let us consider a system of multi-mode oscillators described by $M$ pairs of creation and annihilation operators $a_{i}^{\dagger}$, $a_{i}$ ($i = 1,2,...,M$) hermitian conjugated to each other. We consider operator algebras with relations defined by a normally ordered expansion $\Gamma$ \[11\], $$a_{i} a_{j}^{\dagger} = \Gamma_{ij}(a^{\dagger},a)$$ and which possess the well-defined number operators $[N_{i},a_{j}^{\dagger}] = a_{i}^{\dagger}\delta_{ij}$,
$[N_{i},a_{j}] = - a_{i}\delta_{ij}$ and $[N_{i},N_{j}] = 0$, $
i,j = 1,2,...,M$. In the associated Fock-like representation, let $|0\rangle$ denote the vacuum vector.\
The scalar product is uniquely defined by $\langle 0|0\rangle = 1$, the vacuum condition $a_{i}|0\rangle = 0$, $a_i a_i^{\dagger}|0\rangle \neq 0$ and eq.(1). A general $N$-particle state is a linear combination of monomial state vectors $\ad_{i_{1}}\cdot\cdot\cdot
\ad_{i_{N}}|0\rangle$, $i_{1},...,i_{N} = 1,2,...,M$.\
We consider only relations (1) that may allow the norm zero vectors, but do not allow the state vectors of negative norm in the Fock space. The norm zero vectors imply relations between the creation (annihilation) operators. These relations are consequences of eq.(1) and need not be postulated independently.
For a given $N$-particle monomial state $a^{\dagger}_{i_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot
a^{\dagger}_{i_N}|0\rangle$ we write its type as $1^{n_1}
2^{n_{2}}...M^{n_{M}}$, where $n_{1},n_{2},...,n_{M}$ are multiplicities satisfying $n_{i}\geq 0$ and $\sum^{M}_{i=1} n_{i} = N$. There are in principle $N!/n_{1}!\cdot\cdot\cdot n_{M}!$ different states of the type $ 1^{n_1} 2^{n_{2}}...M^{n_{M}}$ and we define the corresponding matrix $A(n_{1},...,n_{M})$ of their scalar products. The number of linearly independent states is given by $d_{n_{1},...,n_{M}} =
rank [A(n_{1},...n_{M})]$. The quantities $d_{n_{1},...,n_{M}}$ completely characterize the partition function and the thermodynamic properties of the free system defined by eq.(1). Note that the partition function of the free system, i.e. the numbers $d_{n_{1},...,n_{M}}$, in general do not uniquely determine the operator algebra, eq.(1). The free Hamiltonian is defined by $H_{0} = \sum_{i=1}^{M} E_{i} N_{i}$, where $E_{i}$ and $N_{i}$ are the energy and the number operator corresponding to the $i^{\rm th}$ level. The partition function of the free system described by eq.(1) is given by $$Z(x_{1},...,x_{M};\Gamma) = \sum^{\infty}_{N=0}\,\sum_{n_{1}+...n_{M}=N}\;
d_{n_{1},...,n_{M}}\, x_{1}^{n_{1}}\cdot\cdot\cdot x_{M}^{n_M}\,,$$ where $d_{n_{1},...,n_{M}}$ is the degeneracy of the state with the energy $E = \sum_{i=1}^{M} E_{i}$ and $x_{i} = e^{-\beta/E_{i}},\,
\beta = 1/kT$.\
\
[**Permutation invariant generalized statistics**]{}
Our aim is to unify statistics \[4-8\] in the second quantized algebraic approach, eq.(1) by the simplest possible unifying principle with minimal restrictions. It is permutation invariance, meaning that the matrix element $\langle 0|a_{i_{\pi (N)}} \cdot\cdot\cdot a_{i_{\pi (1)}}
\ad_{j_{\pi (1)}} \cdot\cdot\cdot \ad_{j_{\pi (N)}}|0\rangle$ does not depend on the permutation $\pi \in S_N$. Hence we assume that the set of relations defined by $\Gamma_{ij}$ in eq.(1) is invariant under the permutation group $S_{M}$. Then the coefficients in the expansion (1) do not depend on concrete indices in normal ordered monomials, but only on certain linearly independent types of permutation invariant terms, i.e. $$a_{i}\ad_{j} = \delta_{ij} + C_{1,1} \;\ad_{j} a_{i}
+ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\,\sum_{\pi,\sigma \in S_{n+1}}\;\;C_{\pi,\sigma}\,
\sum^{M}_{k_{1},...,k_{n} =1}\,[\pi(j,k_{1},...,k_{n})]^{\dagger}\,[\sigma(
i,k_{1},...,k_{n})]\,,$$ where the operators $a_{i}$ are normalized in such a way that the coefficient of the $\delta_{ij}$ term is equal to $1$. The existence of the number operators $N_i$ implies that the annihilation and creation operators appearing in a monomial in the normal ordered expansion (3) have to come in pairs, i.e. monomials are diagonal in the variables $k_1,...,k_n$ (up to permutations) \[11\]. The symbol $[\sigma(i,k_{1},...,k_{n})]$ denotes $a_{\sigma(i)}a_{\sigma(k_{1})}\cdot\cdot\cdot a_{\sigma(k_{n})}
\equiv \sigma(a_{i}a_{k_{1}}\cdot\cdot\cdot a_{k_{n}})$. Also, $C_{\pi,\sigma} = C^{\ast}_{\sigma,\pi}$, owing to the hermiticity of the operator product $a_{i}\ad_{i}$. Furthermore, the $S_{M}$-invariant relations in eq.(3) acting on the corresponding Fock space imply the following relations: $$a_{i}\ad_{i_{1}}\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_{i_{N}}|0\rangle = \sum^{N}_{k=1}\,
\delta_{i i_{k}}\,\sum_{\sigma \in S_{N-1}}\,
\phi^{k}_{\sigma}[\sigma(i,..,\hat{i}_k,..,i_{N})^{\dagger}]\,|0\rangle\,,$$ where $\hat{i}_{k}$ denotes the omission of the index $i_k$. The sum is running over all linearly independent monomials and $\phi^k_{\sigma}$ are (complex) coefficients. The identity $\phi^1_{id} = 1$ is implied by normalization in eq. (3). The coefficients $\phi^k_{\sigma}$ can be uniquely determined from $C_{\pi,\sigma}$ and vice versa.
The transition number operators $N_{i j}$, defined by the relations $[N_{i j},
\ad_{ k}] = \delta_{j k} \ad_{i}$ and $N_{i i } \equiv N_{i}$, have a similar expansion as $\Gamma_{i j}$ in eq.(3), namely $$N_{i j} = \ad_{j} a_{i} + \sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\,\sum_{\pi,\sigma \in S_{n+1}}\;
D_{\pi,\sigma}\,\sum^{M}_{k_{1},..,k_{n}=1} [\pi(j,k_{1},...,k_{n})]^{
\dagger} [ \sigma(i,k_{1},...,k_{n})]\,,$$ where $D_{\pi,\sigma}$ are independent of $i,j$ (by permutation invariance) and $D_{\pi,\sigma} = D_{\sigma,\pi}^{\ast}$ following from $N_{i}^{\dagger} = N_{i}$. Hence, it follows that $N_{i j}^{\dagger} = N_{j i}$.
Each of the three sets of coefficients, $\{C_{\pi,\sigma}\}$, $\{
\phi^{k}_{\sigma}\}$, $\{ D_{\pi,\sigma}\}$, uniquely determines the two remaining sets, fixing the structure of the Fock space \[11\], and each of them is equivalent to the set of matrices $A(n_1,...,n_M)$.
The matrix $A(n_{1},...,n_{M})$ and its rank $d_{n_1,...,n_M}$ depend only on the collection of multiplicities $\{n_1,...,n_M\}$, which, written in the descending order $\lambda_1 \geq\lambda_2\geq ... \geq \lambda_M \geq 0,
\,|\lambda|= \sum_{i=1}^{M}\lambda_i = N$, give rise to a partition $\lambda$ of $N$, i.e. $d_{n_1,...,n_M} = d_{\lambda}$ and $A(n_1,...,n_M) = A_{\lambda}$ \[12\]. If $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \,...\,=\lambda_N = 1$, $\lambda_{N+1} = \,...
\,=\lambda_M = 0$, the corresponding Young tableau, denoted by $1^N$, is a column of $N$ boxes. The $N!\times N!$ generic matrix is denoted by $A_{1^N}$. All other matrices $
A_{\lambda},\, (|\lambda|=N)$ for any partition $\lambda$ of $N$ are easily obtained from the matrix $A_{1^N}$ \[12,18\]. The non-generic matix $A_{\lambda}$, for $\lambda \neq 1^N$, $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq ...
\lambda_k >0$, $|\lambda|=N$, is the matrix of the type $\frac{N!}{\lambda_1 !
\cdot\cdot\cdot\lambda_k !} \times \frac{N !}{\lambda_1 ! \cdot\cdot\cdot
\lambda_k !}$, whose matrix elements are enumerated by orbits $\bar{\alpha}$, $\bar{\beta}$ of permutations $\alpha,
\beta \in S_N$ acting on the multi-set $\{i_1 \leq i_2 ... \leq i_N\}$ with multiplicities $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,...,\lambda_k$, and $$(A_{\lambda})_{\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta}} = \sum_{\sigma \in S_N,
\sigma\bar{\beta}
= \bar{\beta}} (A_{1^N})_{\alpha , \sigma\beta}.$$ (Note that the matrix elements do not depend on $i_1,...,i_N$, only on their multiplicities.)
By the permutation symmetry of $\Gamma$, eq.(3), it follows that $A_{1^N}$ can be written as $$A_{1^N} = \sum_{\pi \in S_N} f(\pi) R(\pi)\,,$$ where $R$, $R(\pi)_{\mu , \nu} = \delta_{\mu\pi , \nu}$ is the right regular representation of the permutation group $S_N$ and $f(\pi)$ are complex numbers completely determining all matrix elements and statistics. The matrix $A_{1^N}$ is hermitian with non-negative eigenvalues and rank $d_{1^N} \leq N!$.
The $S_M$-invariant partition function can be expanded into the form $$Z_N(x_1,...,x_M) = \sum_{\lambda,|\lambda|=N}\;d_{\lambda} \,m_{\lambda}
(x_1,..., x_M) = \sum_{\mu,|\mu|=N}\;n(\mu) s_{\mu}(x_1,...,x_M)\,,$$ where $ m_{\lambda}(x_1,...,x_M)$ is the monomial $S_M$-invariant function and $s_{\mu}(x_1,...,x_N)$ is the Schur function \[13\] satisfying $$s_{\mu}(x_1,...,x_M) = \sum_{\mu}\,K_{\mu\lambda}\, m_{\lambda}(x_1,...,x_M)\,.$$ Hence, from eqs.(7) and (8) it follows that $$d_{\lambda} = \sum_{\mu}\,n(\mu) K_{\mu \lambda}\,,$$ where $n(\mu)$, $dim (\mu) \geq n(\mu)\geq 0$, is the number of equivalent IRREP’s (irreducible representation) $\mu$ of physical states contributing to the decomposition of $A_{1^N}$, and $K_{\mu \lambda}$ are Kostka’s numbers denoting the number of linearly independent states\
$\ad_{i_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot \ad_{i_N}|0\rangle $ of type $\lambda$ which fill the Young frame $\mu$ in the column strict way and $K_{\mu \lambda} \leq K_{\mu 1^N} = dim (\mu)$. The number of $N$-particle independent states is $D(M,N) = Z_N(1,1,...,1)$.
The numbers $n(\mu)$ completely determine the partition function of the free $S_M$-invariant system defined by eq.(1), but do not determine the operator algebra itself. The two free systems with the same partition function can differ in the following properties: (i) in the commutation relations of their creation (annihilation) operators, (ii) in the probabilities of finding the monomial state $\ad_{i_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_{i_N}|0\rangle$ in the IRREP $\mu$ of $S_N$, (iii) in the probabilities of finding the particular IRREP $\rho_k$ of $S_{n_1+
n_2}$ in the decomposition of $\mu_1 \times \mu_2 = \sum_k \rho_k$, where $\mu_i$ is the IRREP of $S_{n_i}, i = 1,2$ and (iv) in the probabilities of finding a particular subsystem characterized by the IRREP $\mu_1 \times \mu_2
\cdot\cdot\cdot$ of $S_{n_1}\times S_{n_2}\times\cdot\cdot\cdot$ in the larger system $\mu$ of $S_n, n \geq n_1+n_2+\cdot\cdot\cdot$.\
Examples of permutation invariant statistics defined by eq.(1) are parastatistics \[4\], interpolation between parastatistics \[14\] and infinite quon statistics \[5,6\].\
\
[**Duality and simple interpolation**]{}
Let us first discuss a duality between Bose and Fermi statistics. For Bose statistics, $f(\pi) = 1$ in the expression (6), and for Fermi statistics, $f(\pi)=
(-)^{I(\pi)}$, $\forall\pi\in S_N$, where $I(\pi)$ is the number of inversions in $\pi$. Hence, the Bose and Fermi generic matrices are hermitian of rank one with the same spectrum (generic matrices are similar). If these properties of the Bose and Fermi generic matrices were true for all partitions $\lambda$, Bose and Fermi statistics would be the same. However, for Bose statistics, all matrix elements are equal to $\lambda_1 !\cdot\cdot\cdot\lambda_k !$ (the rank is one with the eigenvalue $N !$) and for Fermi statistics, all matrix elements are zero. Hence, the crucial difference between Bose and Fermi statistics is in the structure of non-generic matrices. However, a duality transformation between completely symmetric (Bose) and antisymmetric (Fermi) eigenvectors of generic matrices can be defined.
Here we generalize this duality between Bose and Fermi statistics to any permutation invariant statistics defined by a set of generic matrices $A_{1^N}$. The dual generic matrix $A^d_{1^N}$ is given by $$A^d_{1^N} = D_{1^N}\, A_{1^N} \,D_{1^N}\,,$$ where $D_{1^N}$ is the $N! \times N!$ diagonal matrix with matrix elements $$(D_{1^N})_{\pi,\sigma} = (-)^{I(\pi)}\delta_{\pi,\sigma}\,,$$ where $\pi$, $\sigma \in S_N$ and $I(\pi)$ is the number of inversions of permutation $\pi$. We point out that the duality trasformation has non-trivial consequences on the non-generic matrices $A_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \neq 1^N$.\
It follows that $D^{\dagger}_{1^N} = D_{1^N}\, ,\, D^2_{1^N} = 1$ and $Tr D_{1^N} = 0$. If $A_{1^N} = \sum_{\pi} f(\pi) R(\pi)$, eq.(6), then $A^d_{1^N} = \sum_{
\pi} f^d(\pi) R(\pi)$, where $f^d(\pi) = (-)^{I(\pi)} f(\pi)$ since $D_{1^N} R(\pi) D_{1^N} = (-)^{I(\pi)} R(\pi)$. Furthermore, we have the following proposition:\
[*Proposition.*]{} If the matrix $A_{1^N}$ is hermitian, then $A^d_{1^N}$ is also hermitian and possesses the same eigenvectors and spectrum as $A_{1^N}$. Hence, $A^d_{1^N}$ and $A_{1^N}$ commute.\
[*Proof.*]{} Let us denote the eigenvectors of $A_{1^N}$ as $|a,b,\mu\rangle$, $a,b = 1,2,...,dim(\mu)$, where $\mu$ fixes the IRREP of $S_N$, $b$ enumerates equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ and $a$ enumerates states in the $b^{th}$ IRREP $\mu$, in accordance with the decomposition of a regular representation. The components of the given eigenvector $|a,b,\mu\rangle$ are $$|a,b,\mu\rangle = \sum_{\pi\in S_N} R^{\mu}_{a,b} (\pi)|\pi\rangle\,,$$ where $R^{\mu}$ is the unitary IRREP $\mu$ of $S_N$, characteristic of the generic matrix $A_{1^N}$.
The corresponding eigenvalue of $A_{1^N}$ is $\Lambda^{\mu}_b$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_{1^N}|a,b,\mu\rangle &=& \Lambda^{\mu}_{b}|a,b,\mu\rangle \, ,\; a=1,2,...,
dim(\mu)\,, \nonumber\\
\Lambda_{b}^{\mu} &=& \sum_{\pi\in S_N} R^{\mu}_{bb}(\pi)f(\pi)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Let us show that $|a,b,\mu\rangle$ are the eigenvectors of $A_{1^N}$ as well: $$\begin{aligned}
A^d_{1^N}|a,b,\mu\rangle &=& D_{1^N} A_{1^N} D_{1^N}|a,b,\mu\rangle =
D_{1^N}A_{1^N}|a',b',\mu^{T}\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& D_{1^N}\Lambda^{\mu^T}_{b'}|a',b',\mu^T\rangle = \Lambda^{\mu^T}_{b'}
|a,b,\mu\rangle\,, \nonumber\\
\Lambda^{\mu^T}_b &=& \sum_{\pi\in S_N} R^{\mu^T}_{bb}(\pi) f(\pi) = \sum_{
\pi\in S_N} (-)^{I(\pi)} R^{\mu}_{bb}(\pi) f(\pi)\,,\end{aligned}$$ since $D_{1^N}|a,b,\mu\rangle =
|a',b',\mu^T \rangle$ and $R^{\mu^T}(\pi) = (-)^{I(\pi)} R^{\mu}(\pi)$. Hence, the operator $D$ transforms the IRREP $\mu$ to its dual IRREP $\mu^T$. The $A^d_{1^N}$ and $A_{1^N}$ have common eigenvectors $|a,b,\mu\rangle$ with eigenvalues $(\Lambda^d)^{\mu}_b = \Lambda^{\mu^T}_b$ and $\Lambda^{\mu}_b$, respectively.
We point out that the complete characterization of the statistics considered is not given only by $n(\mu)$’s (determining the number of equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ of independent physical states that contribute), but also requires the eigenvalues $\Lambda^{\mu}_b \geq 0, \forall
\mu,b$, which determine all relevant probabilities of finding the monomial state $\ad_{i_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_{i_N}|0\rangle$ in equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ of $S_N$, i.e. $w(\mu) = K_{\mu\,1^N}/N!\,\sum_b \Lambda^{\mu}_b$. Hence, although the dual generic matrix $A^d_{1^N}$ has the same eigenvectors as $A_{1^N}$ and $d^d_{1^N} = d_{1^N}$, they basically differ since $\Lambda^{\mu^T}_b \neq \Lambda^{\mu}_b$. Thus, the two permuation invariant statistics related through the duality transformation, eq.(10), are qualitatively different. They are connected by conjugation of the Young tableaux.\
\
[**Simple interpolation**]{}
There is a general simple construction of mixing the given permutation invariant statistics with its dual statistics. Since our generic matrices $A_{1^N}$ have non-negative eigenvalues, their dual generic matrices have non-negative eigenvalues, too. The mixed generic matrices $A^q_{1^N}$ are defined by\
$$\begin{aligned}
A^q_{1^N} &=& \frac{1+q}{2} A_{1^N} +
\frac{1-q}{2} A^d_{1^N} = \sum_{\pi \in S_N} f^q(\pi) R(\pi)\,, \\
f^q(\pi) &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
f(\pi) & \;\;{\rm for}\;\; \pi \;\;{\rm even}\\
q f(\pi) & \;\;{\rm for}\;\; \pi \;\;{\rm odd}
\end{array}
\right. \,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $|q| \leq 1$. The matrix $A^q_{1^N}$ has the same eigenvectors as $A_{1^N}$, with eigenvalues $\Lambda^q_{1^N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
A^q_{1^N}|a,b,\mu\rangle &=& (\Lambda^q)^{\mu}_b|a,b,\mu\rangle \,,\nonumber\\
(\Lambda^q)^{\mu}_b &=& \frac{1+q}{2}\Lambda^{\mu}_b + \frac{1-q}{2}
\Lambda^{\mu^T}_b \geq 0,\; |q| \leq 1.\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that $(\Lambda^q)^{\mu}_b \geq 0$ if $\Lambda^{\mu}_b \geq 0$ and $|q|\leq 1$ and that $d_{1^N} \leq d^q_{1^N} \leq 2 d_{1^N}$.\
Let us analyse a few examples.\
\
[**Minimal interpolation between bosons and fermions**]{}
Here we construct the minimal generalized statistics with permutation group invariance, interpolating between Bose and Fermi statistics. The generic matrix $A_{1^N}$, eq.(6), for Bose statistics is characterized by $f(\pi) = 1$, for all $\pi \in S_{N}$ and for Fermi statistics by $f(\pi) = 1$, if $\pi$ is an even permutation and $f(\pi) = -1$ if $\pi$ is an odd permutation. We suggest a simple interpolation defined by $$f^q(\pi) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \;\;{\rm for}\;\; \pi \;\;{\rm even}\\
q & \;\;{\rm for}\;\; \pi \;\;{\rm odd}
\end{array}
\right. \,,$$ where $|q| \leq 1$. Note that $q = 1\,(-1)$ corresponds to Bose (Fermi) statistics. The non-zero non-degenerate eigenvalues of the matrix $A_{1^N}$ are $(1+q)N!/2$ and $(1-q)N!/2$ with eigenvectors in the symmetric and antisymmetric representation, respectively. Hence, if $|q| < 1$, the rank of the matrix $A_{1^N}$ is $d_{1^N} = 2$ and the Fock space does not contain vectors of negative squared norm. Then it follows that the multiplicity is $n(\mu) = 1$ for $\mu = 1^N$ and $\mu = N$, and $n(\mu) = 0$ otherwise. Null vectors imply that the state vectors are divided into two classes: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\pi (\ad_1\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_N) \equiv \ad_1\ad_2\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_N|0
\rangle \, , \; \pi \;{\rm even}\,,\\
\pi (\ad_1\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_N) \equiv \ad_2\ad_1\ad_3\cdot\cdot\ad_N|0
\rangle\, , \; \pi \;{\rm odd}\,,
\end{array}$$ and any generic monomial state can be decomposed into the sum of symmetric and antisymmetric states: $$\ad_1\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_N|0\rangle = \frac{1}{2}(\ad_1\ad_2 + \ad_2\ad_1)\,
\ad_3\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_N|0\rangle + \frac{1}{2}(\ad_1\ad_2 - \ad_2\ad_1)\,
\ad_3\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_N|0\rangle\,.$$ The probability for the state $\ad_1\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_N|0\rangle$ to be found in the symmetric (resp. antisymmetric) state is $w_s = (1+q)/2$ (resp. $w_a = (1-q)/2)$.\
The matrix $A_{\lambda}$, $\lambda \neq 1^N$, has rank $d_{\lambda} = 1$ and it is identical to the matrix $A_{\lambda}$ for Bose statistics, $A_{\lambda}
^B$, i.e completely has the Bose character, $$A_{\lambda}^q = \frac{1+q}{2}\,A_{\lambda}^B \;.$$
Using the generic matrix $A_{1^N}$ one easily finds $$a_i\ad_{i_1}\ad_{i_2}|0\rangle = [\,\delta_{i i_1} \ad_{i_2} + q
\delta_{i i_2}\ad_{i_1}]\,,$$ and for $N \geq 3$, a\_i\_[i\_1]{}\_[i\_N]{}|0= &\[& \_[i i\_1]{} (i\_2,...,i\_N)\_[even]{} + \_[i i\_2]{} (i\_1,i\_3,...,i\_N)\_[odd]{} + ...\
&+& \_[i i\_N]{} (i\_1,i\_2,...,i\_[N-1]{})\_[even(odd)]{}\]|0. The subscript in the last term denotes even(odd) permutations for $N$ odd(even).
If all indices are equal, eqs.(21,22) imply $$\begin{array}{ll}
a_i(\ad_i)^2|0\rangle = (1+q) \ad_i |0\rangle \,,\\
a_i(\ad_i)^n|0\rangle = n (\ad_i)^{n-1}|0\rangle\, ,\; n \neq 2\,.
\end{array}$$ Then for a single oscillator \[15\], one can write $\ad a = \varphi (n)\, ,\; a\ad = \varphi (n+1)$ and $\langle 0|a^n(\ad)^n|0\rangle = [\varphi (n)]! = \frac{1}{2}(1+q)n!$, where $$\varphi (n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
n & \;\; n \neq 2 \\
1+q & \;\; n=2 \,.
\end{array}
\right.$$
The expansion in eq.(3) implied by eqs.(21,22) can be written as follows: a\_i\_j = \_[ij]{} &+& q \_j a\_i\
&+& \^[M]{}\_[k=1]{}\[x\_1 (jk)\^(ik) + z\_1(kj)\^(ki) + y\_1 (kj)\^(ik) + y\_1 (jk)\^(ki)\]\
&+& \_[n=2]{}\^\^[M]{}\_[k\_1,...,k\_n=1]{} \[x\_n(jk\_1k\_n)\^ + y\_n(jk\_1k\_n k\_[n-1]{})\^\] (ik\_1k\_n), and for $|q| < 1$, x\_1 &=& - , z\_1 = , y\_1 = ,\
x\_2 &=& q , y\_2 = -1 . For $n \geq 2$, $x_n$ and $y_n$ satisfy the recursion relations x\_n + q y\_n &=& -(x\_[n-1]{} + q y\_[n-1]{}) - (q + n z\_1) - 2 \_[k=1]{}\^[n-2]{} ,\
q x\_n + y\_n &=& - (q x\_[n-1]{} + y\_[n-1]{}) - (-1 + n y\_1) - 2 \_[k=1]{}\^[n-2]{} . When $q = \pm 1$, the expansion in eq.(25) reduces to $a_i \ad_j =
\delta_{ij} \pm \ad_j a_i$ and all other terms vanish identically.
The partition function of a free $M$-level system defined in eq.(17) is (for $|q| < 1$) $$Z(x_1,...,x_M) = \prod^{M}_{i=1} \, \frac{1}{1-x_i} + \prod^{M}_{i=1} \, (1 - x_i) - \sum_{i=1}^M x_i -1$$ and the number of independent $N$-particle states is the sum of Bose and Fermi counting rules $$D(M,N) = \left( \stackrel{\displaystyle M+N-1}{N} \right) +
\left(\stackrel{\displaystyle M}{N} \right)
\;\;\; N \geq 2 \,.$$ We point out that our simple interpolation defined by eq.(17) is equivalent to the statistics introduced by Wu [*et al.*]{} \[7\] and Scipioni \[8\]. The construction of Wu [*et al.*]{} is based on two vacuums $|\pm \rangle$ and on the commutation rules containing the $g$ - operator: a\_i \_j - g \_j a\_i &=& \_[ij]{} ,\
g |= |. They introduced the $\phi$-vacuum as a linear combination of the $|\pm \rangle$ vacuums, $|\phi\rangle = cos\phi |+\rangle + sin\phi |-\rangle$ and defined the corresponding Fock representation built on $|\phi\rangle$. The $q$ parameter in eq.(17) is then related to the angle $\phi$ through $cos\phi = \sqrt{(1+q)/2}$. In our approach we start with one vacuum from the beginning and (except $a_i,\ad_i$), no additional operators appear in eq.(25).
The physical consequences of the minimal interpolation follow from the grand partition function, eq.(28). It consists of the bosonic and fermionic partition functions from which one-particle states are subtracted. Such a partition function mainly has a Bose character since, for a large number of particles, the symmetric (bosonic) subspace is much larger than the antisymmetric (fermionic) subspace. Therefore, the whole spectrum of bosonic phenomena can be found here: Bose condensation \[7\], black body radiation \[8\]. The effects of the antisymmetric states keep trace only in corrections to the ordinary Bose phenomena, disappearing completely in the high temperature limit.
It is worth mentioning that the statistics of the type described in this letter can be discussed from the point of view of possible violation of Bose statistics. Some analysis has been done \[16\], comparing the experimental limits on the $Z$ boson decay into two photons with the theoretical consideration based on a general phenomenological model of Bose symmetry violation. In the model of minimal mixing between bosons and fermions, the $q$-parameter would be $q<10^{-2}$.
For comparison, we mention that another simple interpolation between Bose and Fermi statistics \[5\] $$a_i \ad_j - q \ad_j a_i = \delta_{ij}\; , \;\;\; |q| < 1\,,$$ corresponds to infinite quon statistics, i.e. to the maximal interpolation in which every IRREP $\mu$ of $S_N$ contributes with the multiplicity $n(\mu) = K_{\mu,1^N} = dim(\mu)$. The number of independent $N$-particle states is $D(M,N) = M^N$.\
\
[**Minimal interpolation between parabosons and parafermions**]{}
Para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics of a given order $p \in N$ generalize the Pauli exclusion principle and also belong to the class of permutation invariant statistics. The $N$-particle state of para-Bose (para-Fermi) statistics of order $p$ cannot be antisymmetrized (symmetrized) in more than $p$ indices, which means that the allowed Young tableaux are restricted to those with at most $p$ rows (columns). They are defined through trilinear relations: $$[\,(\ad_i a_j \pm a_j \ad_i), \ad_k \,] = \frac{2}{p}\,\delta_{jk}\ad_i\;,\;\;
i,j,k = 1,2,...,M$$ with the unique vacuum $|0\rangle$ and the following conditions: $\langle 0|0
\rangle = 1$, $a_i|0\rangle = 0$, $a_i\ad_j|0\rangle = \delta_{ij}|0\rangle$. The upper (lower) sign in eq.(32) corresponds to the para-Bose (para-Fermi) algebra and $p$ is an integer.
It was shown that no interpolation between para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics through deformed trilinear relations was possible \[6\], since states of the negative norm appeared. However, in \[14\] it is suggested that such an interpolation is possible through a continuous family of generic matrices. The concrete construction was performed through deformed Green’s oscillators obeying infinite quon statistics. The corresponding statistics belongs to the class of infinite statistics and is similar to that of Greenberg \[5\] and reduces to it for $p=1$ and $p=\infty$.
Here we suggest a new family of generic matrices interpolating between para-Bose and para-Fermi generic matrices defined by eq.(15). It follows from eq.(32) that the coefficients $f^{p,\epsilon}(\pi)$ for parastatistics, $\epsilon = +\,$ (parafermions)$/-\,$ (parabosons) of order $p$, satisfy recursion relations \[6,11\], and that $$f^{p,-\epsilon}(\pi) = (-)^{I(\pi)}f^{p,\epsilon}(\pi)\,.$$ This recursion relation implies that para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics of order $p$ are dual to each other (see eq.(10) and equations following eq.(11)).
The generic matrices $A_{1^N}^{p,\epsilon}$, eqs.(6),(33), are hermitian and if $p$ is a positive integer their eigenvalues are non-negative \[3\]. Using the results of \[12\], we find that the eigenvalues $(\Lambda^{p,\epsilon})_{\mu}$, corresponding only to one of equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ of $S_N$, are $$\Lambda^{p,\epsilon}_{\mu} = \sum_{\pi \in S_N} f^{p,\epsilon}(\pi) \chi^
{\mu}(\pi)\,,$$ where $\chi^{\mu}$ is the character of the IRREP $\mu$. We point out that the eigenvalues corresponding to all other (except one) equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ are identically zero.
Applying the interpolation between dual statistics, eq.(15), to para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics, we have $$A^{p,q}_{1^N} = \frac{1+q}{2}A^{p,-}_{1^N} + \frac{1-q}{2}A^{p,+}_{1^N}\,,$$ where $|q| \leq 1$. If $|q| < 1$, there are at most two positive eigenvalues corresponding to the equivalent IRREP’s $\mu, (\mu \neq
1^N, N)$ of $S_N$ and if $\mu = 1^N,N$, then $$\Lambda^{p,q}_{\mu} = \frac{1+q}{2}\Lambda^{p,-}_{\mu} +
\frac{1-q}{2}\Lambda^{p,+}_{\mu}\,,$$ where $\Lambda^{p,\epsilon}_{\mu}$ are given by eq.(34). The $\Lambda^{p,\epsilon}_{\mu} = 0$ if the number of rows of $\mu$, $l(\mu)$, is $l(\mu) > p$ for $\epsilon = -$ and $l(\mu^T) > p$ for $\epsilon= +$.
Note that the eigenvalues corresponding to all (except at most two) equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ vanish identically. Hence, at most two equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ ($\mu \neq 1^N,N$) contribute to eqs. (7),(9). We therefore call the above interpolation minimal since $n(\mu) \leq 2$.
The probability of finding a generic state $\ad_{i_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\ad_{i_N}|0\rangle$ with mutually different indices, in all equivalent IRREP’s $\mu$ of $S_N$, is $$w(\mu) = \frac{K_{\mu,1^N}}{N!}\,[\frac{1-q}{2}\Lambda^{p,+}_{\mu} +
\frac{1+q}{2} \Lambda^{p,-}_{\mu}]\,,$$ which generalizes the result for mixing of bosons and fermions. The relations (3)-(5) for the minimal interpolation between para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics of order $p$ can be obtained similarly as in \[11\].
Let us point out that the above minimal interpolation can be obtained by generalizing the statistics of Wu [*et al.*]{} \[7\] and Scipioni \[8\]. The relations in (32) become $$[(\ad_i a_j + g a_j \ad_i), \ad_k] = \frac{2}{p} \delta_{j,k} \ad_i\,,$$ where $i,j,k = 1,2,...,M$ and $g|\pm\rangle = \pm|\pm\rangle$. Choosing one vacuum\
$|\phi\rangle = cos\phi|
+\rangle + sin\phi|-\rangle$, one obtains the same statistics as in eq.(35) with $cos\phi = \sqrt{(1+q)/2}, \phi \in [0,\pi/2]$.\
\
[**Simple interpolation between anyonic-like statistics**]{}
Finally, let us mention that the above consideration on duality and a simple interpolation can be extended to anyonic-like generalized statistics, which are not invariant under the permutation group. We call them anyonic-like statistics by analogy with the anyonic interpolation between Bose and Fermi statistics, where we interpolate between any two permutation invariant dual statistics.
The anyonic-like generic matrix $A_{1^N}^{\phi}$ can be obtained from any permutation invariant generic matrix $A_{1^N}$, eq.(6), in the following way: $$A_{1^N}^{\phi} = D_{1^N}^{\phi}\, A_{1^N}\, D_{1^N}^{-\phi} \,,$$ where $D^{\phi}_{1^N}$ is the $N!\times N!$ diagonal matrix with matrix elements, $$(D^{\phi}_{1^N})_{\pi\sigma} = e^{i\phi(\pi)}\,\delta_{\pi\sigma}$$ and $\phi(\pi)$ are real coefficients (i.e. function from $S_N$ to real numbers). If the generic matrix $A_{1^N}$ is hermitian, then the corresponding anyonic generic matrix $A^{\phi}_{1^N}$ in eq.(40) is hermitian with the same spectrum as $A_{1^N}$. If $A_{1^N} = \sum_{\pi\in S_N} f(\pi)
R(\pi)$, then $A^{\phi}_{1^N} = \sum_{\pi\in S_N} f(\pi) R^{\phi}(\pi)$, where $R^{\phi} = D^{\phi}RD^{-\phi}$, i.e. $R^{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}(\pi) =
e^{i[\phi(\alpha)-\phi(\beta)]}R_{\alpha\beta}(\pi)$ is equivalent to the regular representation. The non-generic matrix $A^{\phi}_{\lambda}(i_1,...,i_N)$, $\lambda \neq 1^N$, $|\lambda|=N$, is similarly defined as $A_{\lambda}$, see the relation preceding eq.(6). However, the phases in $D^{\phi}$, eq.(40), are of a more general form $\phi (\pi;\lambda)$ depending on permutation $\pi$ and the multiplicities of equal indices. Thus, we point out that generally no simple redefinition of states by an insignificant phase factor is possible. It could be done for the generic matrix $A_{1^N}$ alone, but not for $A^{\phi}_{\lambda}$ for all partitions $\lambda \neq 1^N$, $|\lambda| = N$ simultaneously. There is a large class of anyonic-like algebras which can be obtained by non- linear transformation on $\ad_i$, $a_i$ from permutation invariant algebras, but this is not true for every anyonic-like statistics in general.
The dual generic matrix is defined by $$(A^{\phi}_{1^N})^d = (A^d_{1^N})^{\phi} = D_{1^N}^{\phi}\,A_{1^N}^d\,D^{-\phi}_
{1^N} = \sum_{\pi\in S_N} f^d(\pi) R^{\phi}(\pi) \,.$$ The anyonic-like generic matrices $A_{1^N}^{\phi}$ and $(A_{1^N}^{\phi})^d$ are hermitian and have the same eigenvectors and eigenvalues.
The simple interpolation between the $A_{1^N}^{\phi}$ and $(A_{1^N}^{\phi})^d$, defined by eq.(15), has non-negative eigenvalues for $|q|\leq 1$.
The simplest examples of anyonic-like statistics related to permutation invariant statistics by eq.(40) are obtained as special cases $|q_{ij}|=1$, $i,j=1,2,...,M$, of the operator algebra defined by $a_i\ad_j - q_{ij}\ad_j a_i = \delta_{ij}$, $q_{ij}^{\ast} = q_{ji}$, $i,j=1,2,...,M$, investigated in \[17\],\[18\]. They can be obtained by regular non-linear mapping from fermions and/or bosons. However, anyonic generic matrices are not permutation invariant, although they are in a simple way related to Bose and Fermi generic matrices, eq.(39).\
\
[**Conclusion**]{}
We have considered general permutation invariant statistics in the second quantized approach. Particularly we have investigated generic matrices $A_{1^N}$ and their dual matrices $A^d_{1^N}$. Then we have suggested a simple interpolation between these two types of statistics. The permutation invariant statistics considered is completely determined (including the probabilities of finding IRREP’s $\mu$ of $S_N$ in all decompositions) by the functions $f(\pi)$, $\pi \in S_N$, for all $N$ that lead to non-negative eigenvalues of $A_{1^N}$.
Particularly, we have presented new minimal interpolations between (para)bosons and (para)fermions of order $p$ and established a connection with the mixing of bosons and fermions proposed by Wu [*et al.*]{} \[7\] and Scipioni \[8\].
Finally, we have proposed an extension of our analysis to anyonic-like statistics, which are related to permutation invariant statistics by eq.(40).\
Simbolically, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
& &A_{1^N} \Longleftarrow \;\;A^q_{1^N} \;\;\;\Longrightarrow A^d_{1^N}
\nonumber\\
& &\;\,\Downarrow \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \Downarrow
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \Downarrow \nonumber\\
& &A_{1^N}^{\phi} \Longleftarrow (A^{\phi}_{1^N})^q \Longrightarrow (A^{\phi}_
{1^N})^d\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the interpolating generic matrices are defined by eq.(15).
The physical properties of the minimal mixing of bosons and fermions were investigated in \[7\],\[8\] and the properties of the minimal mixing between parabosons and parafermions, as well as mixing between anyons, are under investigation.\
[**Acknowledgement**]{}
We thank M.Mileković and D.Svrtan for useful discussions.
B.I.Halperin, Phys.Rev.Lett.52 (1984) 1583, 2390 (E). R.B.Laughlin, Phys.Rev.Lett.60 (1988) 2677. F.D.M.Haldane, Phys.Rev.Lett.66 (1991) 1529; 67 (1991) 937. H.S.Green, Phys.Rev.90 (1953) 170, O.W.Greenberg and A.M.L.Messiah, Phys.Rev.B 138 (1965) 1155; J.Math.Phys.6 (1965) 500, Y.Ohnuki and S.Kamefuchi, [*Quantum Field Theory and Parastatistics*]{} ( University of Tokio Press, Tokio, Springer, Berlin 1982). O.W.Greenberg, Phys.Rev.D 43 (1991) 4111; R.N.Mohapatra, Phys.Lett.B 242 (1990) 407. A.B.Govorkov, Nucl.Phys.B 365 (1991) 381; Theor.and Math.Phys.98 (1994) 107. L.Wu and Z.Wu, Phys.Lett.A 170 (1992) 280 ; S.R.Zhao, L.A.Wu and W.X.Zhang, Nuovo Cim. 110B (1995) 427. R.Scipioni, Phys.Lett.B 327 (1994) 56 ; Mod.Phys.Lett.B Vol.7, No.29 (1993) 1911; Mod.Phys.Lett.B Vol.8, No.19 (1994) 1201 S.Chaturvedi, Canonical partition functions for parastatistical system of any order, Phys.Lett.E 54 (1996) 1378. A.P.Polychronakos, Nucl.Phys.B 474 (1996) 529. S.Meljanac and M.Mileković, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 11 (1996) 1391. S.Meljanac, M.Stojić and D.Svrtan, Partition functions for general multi-level systems, preprint hep-th/9605064, to appear in [ *Phys.Lett. A*]{}. I.G.Macdonald, [*Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials*]{} (Claredon, Oxford Press 1979). S.Meljanac, M.Mileković and A.Perica, Phys.Lett.A 215 (1996) 135. S.Meljanac, M.Mileković and S.Pallua, Phys.Lett.B 328 (1994) 55. A.Yu.Ignatiev, G.C.Joshi and M.Matsuda, Mod.Phys.Lett.A, Vol.11, No.11 (1996) 871. S.Meljanac and A.Perica, Mod.Phys.Lett.A 9 (1994) 3293; J.Phys.A:Math.Gen. 27 (1994) 4737; V.Bardek, S.Meljanac and A.Perica, Phys.Lett.B 338 (1994) 20. S.Meljanac and D.Svrtan, preprint IRB-TH-5/95 and Comm.Math.1 (1996) 1.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a wavefront-based method to estimate the PSF over the whole field of view. This method estimate the aberrations of all the mirrors of the telescope using only field stars. In this proof of concept paper, we described the method and present some qualitative results.'
author:
- |
F. Soulez, F. Courbin and M. Unser Biomedical Imaging Group, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.\
Laboratoire d’Astrophysique, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Observatoire de Sauverny CH-1290 Versoix, Switzerland
bibliography:
- 'TelescopeTomography.bib'
title: 'Back-propagating the light of field stars to probe telescope mirrors aberrations'
---
Motivation
==========
The Euclid [@LaureijsDuvetEscuderoSanzEtAl2010] and WFIRST missions [@SpergelGehrelsBreckinridgeEtAl2013] will probe dark matter distribution using weak gravitational lensing. The precision needed on galaxy shape measurements required by weak lensing imposes stringent requirements on the PSF knowledge. The anisoplanatism of such wide-field telescope can not be neglected and the PSF have to be estimated for every position in the field of view. Field stars can give PSF measurements at random positions across the field of view. However, for weak lensing, PSF must be computed at each galaxy position ([*i.e.*]{}between field stars). The problem is thus twofold:
- *PSF estimation* at the position of each field star from its noisy observations,
- *PSF interpolation* at each galaxy position.
There are mainly two approaches to solve the PSF estimation problem: (i) image domain methods that parameterize PSF with pixels[@MboulaStarckRonayetteEtAl2015] and (ii) pupil domain methods. In the latter case, the PSF is described as a function of aberrations in the entrance pupil of the telescope. These pupil estimation methods relies on phase retrieval algorithms and most of it were conceived to estimate Hubble Space Telescope aberrations at the beginning of the 90’s [@FienupMarronSchulzEtAl1993; @Fienup1999; @RoddierRoddier1993; @ReddingDumontYu1993; @lyon1997hubble; @KristBurrows1995]. The interpolation problem is then solved using a model of pupil aberration variation across the field of view.
In this paper, we propose to solve both problems jointly using a wavefront based method to estimate the PSF over the whole field of view. Indeed, the PSFs at every position of the field of view are fully characterized by aberrations of each optical surface of the telescope and can be computed using Fourier optics propagation.Although these aberrations can be calibrated on ground, it is probable that they will not remain stable enough after launch. One possible way to measure the wavefront on orbit would be to strongly defocus and refocus the telescope, an operation that is risky and therefore highly unlikely to be implemented by space agencies.
In this proof of concept paper, we propose a method to use scientific observations to estimate wavefront aberrations on the few optical surfaces of a space telescope. It uses each observed bright star as a source of a coherent plane wave to probe these aberrations as done for diffraction tomography [@KamilovPapadopoulosShorehEtAl2015]. This method can monitor the surface of every telescope mirrors bringing a new access to all its optical component status without any need to move optical elements. In addition, as it use stars present in the scientific channel, it does not require any additional calibration time. Finally, the knowledge of these optical surfaces will give the mean to estimate the PSF at all wavelengths and in each point of the field of view solving the problem of PSF interpolation on positions of lensed galaxies.
Determining mirrors aberrations using many images of stars is solved in an inverse problem framework. For each star, the forward model consists of free space propagation of a plane wave (whose angle is given by the star position) across the telescope optics ended by intensity recording in the detector plane. This model is non linear, however, as propagation between each mirror is a linear operation, modeling errors can be back-propagated and used to update the estimated aberrations of each mirrors. These back-propagated errors for many stars across the field of view are used by a continuous optimization algorithm (VMLMB, [@Thiebaut2002]) to probe precisely these aberrations. In this algorithm, the phase retrieval problem given the measured intensity is solved by the mean of an adapted proximity operator [@Schutz2014PAINTER].
Image formation model {#sec:ForwardModel}
=====================
The forward model links the incoming wave $w_1(x,y)$ arriving on the telescope and the image recorded on the detector given the telescope parameters and its aberrations ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$. This model has two main parts:
- the propagation of the incoming wave $w_1(x,y)$ through the telescope to the detector plane,
- the measurement by the detector which records only the intensity ([*i.e.*]{} the squared modulus of the complex amplitude of the light in the detector plane) and is plagued by measurement noises such as both photon noise and read out noise.
The telescope model
-------------------
The incoming wavefront emitted at wavelength $\lambda$ by a single star at angular position $(\theta_1, \theta_2)$ relatively to the telescope optical axis, can be modeled as a plane wave. Its complex amplitude in the first mirror (M1) plane is given by $$\label{eq:w1}
w_1(x,y) = \exp\left(\imath \left( x\,\sin(\theta_1) / \lambda + y
\,\sin(\theta_2 )/ \lambda \right) \right)\,.$$
To define our forward model, this wave is adequately sampled on $N$ pixels and we adopt a vector representation: ${\boldsymbol{w}}_1 = (w_{1,1},\dots, w_{1,N})$. The propagation of this wave through the telescope can be decomposed as a sequence of $K$ similar operations, where $K$ is the number of optical interfaces (mirrors, lenses and the detector). For each interface $k$, the incoming wave ([*i.e.*]{}the wave right before the interaction with the interface) can be itself modeled as a sequence of linear operations $$\label{eq:TelescopModel}
{\boldsymbol{w}}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) = {\mathbf{H}}_{k-1}\,{\mathbf{M}}_{k-1}\,{\mathbf{A}}_{k-1}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k)
\,{\boldsymbol{w}}_{k-1}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$$ where ${\mathbf{M}}_{k-1}$ and ${\mathbf{A}}_{k-1}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k)$ are two diagonal operators accounting for the effect of the $(k-1)^{\mathrm{th}}$ interface and its aberration respectively and ${\mathbf{H}}_{k-1}$ is a propagation operator from the interface $k-1$ to the interface $k$. All these operators are square matrices in $
{\mathbb{C}}^{N\times N}$. The aberration operator ${\mathbf{A}}_{k-1}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k)$ is a function of the unknown aberration parameters ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k$ that will be estimated in our methods. Whereas the model described in Equation (\[eq:TelescopModel\]) is linear in ${\boldsymbol{w}}$, it is highly non-linear in ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$.
### Mirrors
A mirror $M_k$ modifies the incoming wave in two ways; (i) it cuts the light outside of its support $p_k(x,y)$ and (ii) it adds a space-varying phase term: $$m_k(x,y) = p_k(x,y) \exp\left(\imath\,2\,\phi_k(x,y) \right)\,$$ where $\phi_k(x,y)$ is the sagitta of the mirror defined by $$\phi_k(x,y) = \frac{x^2 + y^2}{R_k + \sqrt{R_k^2 - (1-\epsilon^2_k)\,(x^2 +
y^2)}}\,,$$ where $R_k$ and $\epsilon_k$ are the radius of curvature and the eccentricity respectively.
The mirror support $p_k$ is defined by $$p_k(x,y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1\,, & \text{if } (x,y) \text{ is inside the support}\\
0 \,, & \text{otherwise.}\\
\end{array}\right.$$
With an adequate sampling of $m_k(x,y)$, the discrete operator ${\mathbf{M}}_k$ is diagonal and writes $${\mathbf{M}}_k = {{\mathop{\operator@font diag}\nolimits}}\left({\boldsymbol{m}}_k\right).$$
### Aberrations
The aberrations are due to errors in the polishing of mirrors and optical misalignement. They are described by additional phase terms in the plane of each mirror. As the support of each mirror is usually a disk, the Zernike polynomials ${\mathbf{Z}}$ provide a suitable basis to express these aberrations. The aberrations of the $k^\textrm{th}$ mirror are described in the zernike basis ${\mathbf{Z}}_k$ with the parameters ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k$. The aberration operator is $$\label{eq:aberration}
{\mathbf{A}}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k) = {{\mathop{\operator@font diag}\nolimits}}\left(\exp\left(\imath\, {\mathbf{Z}}_k \,{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k
\right)\right)\,.$$
### Propagation
The propagation operator ${\mathbf{H}}_{k}$ from the interface $k$ to the interface $k+1$ is modeled using the paraxial approximation. Given the size of most telescopes, the Fresnel number is in general very high ($\propto 10^6$) and we define the propagation operator ${\mathbf{H}}_{k}$ using the angular spectrum method.
Measurements
------------
The detector measures only the intensity of the light wave. The forward model that links the complex amplitude in the detector plane ${\boldsymbol{w}}_K
\in {\mathbb{C}}^N $ to the measured image intensities ${\boldsymbol{d}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{N}_{+} $ is then $$d_n = {\left\vert w_{K,n}\right\vert}^2 + e_n\,,$$ where $e_n$ is some measurement noise with spatially varying variance $\sigma_n^2$ and ${\left\vert w_{K,n}\right\vert}^2$ denotes the squared modulus of $w_{K,n}$.
Algorithm
=========
The goal of our algorithm is to estimate the vector of aberration parameters ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ using observations of $S$ stars randomly distributed across the field of view. Assuming Gaussian measurement noise ${\boldsymbol{e}}$, the estimated aberration parameters ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^+ $ is the solution of the minimization problem: $${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^+ = {{\mathop{\operator@font arg\,min}\limits}}_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} \sum^S_{s=1} \sum^N_{n=1}
\frac{1}{\sigma_n^2} \left({\left\vert w^s_{K,n}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})\right\vert}^2 - d_n^s\right)^2 \,.$$ $w^s_{K,n}$ is the complex amplitude at $n^{\text{th}}$ pixel of the detector of the light emitted by the $s^{\text{th}}$ star. It is modeled using the Equation \[eq:TelescopModel\] with ${\boldsymbol{w}}^s_1$ given by the Equation \[eq:w1\].
This problem can be reformulated as a constrained problem: $${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^+{{\mathop{\operator@font arg\,min}\limits}}_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} \sum^S_{s=1} \sum^N_{n=1}
\frac{1}{\sigma_n^2} \left({\left\vert y_n^s\right\vert}^2 - d_n^s\right)^2 \,
\text{ subject to } y_n^s = w^s_{K,n}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \,,$$ The Augmented Lagrangian formulation of this constrained problem is: $$\mathcal{L}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{t}}, {\boldsymbol{u}}) = \sum^S_{s=1}
\sum^N_{n=1}
\frac{1}{\sigma_n^2} \left({\left\vert t^s_{n}\right\vert}^2 - d_n^s\right)^2 + \frac{\rho}{2}
\sum^S_{s=1} {\left\Vert w^s_K({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) - {\boldsymbol{t}}^s - {\boldsymbol{u}}^s \right\Vert}_2^2\,,$$ where ${\boldsymbol{u}}^s$ are the scaled Lagrange multipliers and $\rho>0$ is the augmented penalty parameter.
Following Mourya [*et al.*]{}[@MouryaDenisBeckerEtAl2015], we solve this problem in a hierarchical way:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} &= {{\mathop{\operator@font arg\,min}\limits}}_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\sum^S_{s=1} \sum^N_{n=1}
{\left\Vert w^s_{K,n}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) - {t}_n^s({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) - u_n^s \right\Vert}^2\label{eq:outer}
\\
\text{with }
t_n^s({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) &= {{\mathop{\operator@font arg\,min}\limits}}_{t \in {\mathbb{C}}}
\frac{1}{\sigma_n^2}\left({\left\vert t\right\vert}^2 - d_n^s\right)^2 +
\frac{\rho}{2} {\left\Vert t - w^s_{K,n}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) +
u_n^s \right\Vert}^2 \label{eq:inner}
\end{aligned}$$
The Equation \[eq:outer\] is solved using a continuous iterative optimization method ([*e.g.*]{}quasi-Newton method). The inner Equation \[eq:inner\] is separable and consists on solving $S\times N$ small 1D problems that can be easily parallelized. At the end of each iteration $k$, we update the Lagrangian parameters: $${\boldsymbol{u}}^{(k+1)} = {\boldsymbol{u}}^{(k)} + {\boldsymbol{w}}^{(k)} - {\boldsymbol{t}}^{(k)}$$
The phase retrieval problem
---------------------------
The inner minimization problem in Equation \[eq:inner\] is a phase retrieval problem. It is separable and can be defined as the solution of the proximity operator of the function $f$: $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) &=& \frac{1}{\sigma^2} ({\left\vert x\right\vert}^2 -
d)^2\,,\label{eq:Glkldef}\\
\label{eq:prox-def}
{\operatorname{prox}}_{1/\rho\,f}(t) &=& {{\mathop{\operator@font arg\,min}\limits}}_{x \in {\mathbb{C}}}
\left( \frac{1}{\rho}\, f(x) + \frac{1}{2}\,{\left\vert x - t\right\vert}^2\right)
\, .\end{aligned}$$ This proximity operator has a closed form solution described in Schutz [*et al.*]{}[@Schutz2014PAINTER].
The tomography problem
----------------------
The outer minimization in Equation \[eq:outer\] is a tomography problem. It can be rewritten as: $${\boldsymbol{\alpha}} = {{\mathop{\operator@font arg\,min}\limits}}_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} \sum^S_{s=1}
{\left\Vert {\boldsymbol{w}}_{K}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) -
{\boldsymbol{t}} - {\boldsymbol{u}} \right\Vert}_2^2\label{eq:tomo}$$ We solve this non linear problem using VMLMB [@Thiebaut2002], a continuous optimization routine. The needed derivatives are computed using the recursive back-propagation algorithm described by Kamilov [*et al.*]{}[@KamilovPapadopoulosShorehEtAl2015].
Results
=======
[lc]{}\
Diameter (m) & $2.4$\
Curvature radius (m)& $11.040$\
Conic constant& $-1.0022985$\
\
Diameter (m) & $ 0.281$\
Curvature radius (m)& $-1.358$\
Conic constant&$-1.496$\
\
M1 to M2 & $4.9069$\
M2 to detector & $6.4062$\
\
Field of view (°) & $0.6 \times 0.6$\
Pixel size (${\text{\textmu{}m}}$)& $5$\
Wavelength & $500\,$nm\
[![ $300\times300$ pixels central part of the recorded intensity for the star indicated by the letter A on [Figure \[fig:FoV\]]{}[]{data-label="fig:t50_noisy"}](FoV50Stars "fig:"){height="\linewidth" width="\linewidth"}]{}
[![ $300\times300$ pixels central part of the recorded intensity for the star indicated by the letter A on [Figure \[fig:FoV\]]{}[]{data-label="fig:t50_noisy"}](t50_noisy "fig:"){height="\linewidth" width="\linewidth"}]{}
[m[1em]{} m[.3]{} m[.3]{} m[.3]{}]{} & Estimation & Truth & [No Aberration]{}\
A &
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
&
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
&
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
\
B&
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
&
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
&
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
\
C &
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
&
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
&
{width="\columnwidth" height="\columnwidth"}
\
We have tested our algorithm on simulations. We have simulated a Richtey-Chrétien telescope similar to the Hubble Space Telescope. Its characteristics are given by the Table \[tab:HST\]. We introduce aberrations by drawing random coefficients of Zernike basis in Equation \[eq:aberration\]. We used $56$ and $10$ coefficients for the aberration of the first and the second mirrors respectively.
The dataset was generated with the telescope model described in Section \[sec:ForwardModel\]. 50 stars distributed randomly across the field of view were generated. Their positions are shown on Figure \[fig:FoV\]. Their fluxes were adjusted such that $26000$ photons on average were recorded per star ; that corresponds to a maximum intensity of $256$ photons in the brightest pixel of the $1500\times1500$ pixels PSF. To simulate the detector, we add background noise of $5\,e^-$ and generate the data ${\boldsymbol{d}}^s$ using the Poisson distribution $\mathcal{P}$: $$d_n^s = \mathcal{P}({\left\vert w^s_{K,n}\right\vert}^2 + 5)\,.$$ The $300\times300$ pixels central part of the observation of the star indicated by an A on Figure \[fig:FoV\] is shown on Figure \[fig:t50\_noisy\].
We minimized Equation \[eq:outer\] using the unaberrated telescope as a starting point ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}} = {\boldsymbol{0}}$. To assess the performance of our method, we simulate observations of stars that were not in the data-set (denoted as B and C on Figure \[fig:FoV\]) using our aberrations estimate, the true aberrations and without any aberrations. These stars B and C and one of the star used in aberrations estimation (A) shown on Figure \[fig:PSFs\]. On this figure, we can see that, beginning from an aberration free model, our algorithm successfully converges toward a PSF very similar to the ground truth.
Conclusion and future works
===========================
In this proof of concept paper, we show the validity of our approach to estimate PSFs at every positions across the field of view without any need to carry out in-flight telescope defocusing to measure directly the wavefront. It achieves to provide qualitatively good PSF even in noisy conditions and we are working on quantitative results in term of ellipticiy and size of the estimated PSF. In addition a lot of works has to be done to be able to process real data, particularly it has to handle undersampled and broadband PSFs.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by the Sinergia project “Euclid: precision cosmology in the dark sector" from the Swiss National Science Foundation
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Juan Carlos Vargas,$^{1}$ Malhar Bhoite,$^{1}$ Amir Barati Farimani$^{1}{}^,{}^{2\ast}$\
\
\
\
\
title: Creativity in Robot Manipulation with Deep Reinforcement Learning
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[ **Galactic propagation of positrons from particle dark-matter annihilation**]{}
[**Igor V. Moskalenko$^{1,2}$ and Andrew W. Strong$^{1}$**]{}\
[*$^{1}$MPI für extraterrestrische Physik, D–85740 Garching, Germany\
$^{2}$Institute for Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, 119 899 Moscow, Russia*]{}
[**Abstract\
**]{}
We have made a calculation of the propagation of positrons from dark-matter particle annihilation in the Galactic halo for different models of the dark matter halo distribution using our 3D code. We show that the Green’s functions are not very sensitive to the dark matter distribution for the same local dark matter energy density. We compare our predictions with computed cosmic ray positron spectra (“background”) for the “conventional” cosmic-ray (CR) nucleon spectrum which matches the local measurements, and a modified spectrum which respects the limits imposed by measurements of diffuse Galactic $\gamma$-rays, antiprotons, and positrons. We conclude that significant detection of a dark matter signal requires favourable conditions and precise measurements unless the dark matter is clumpy which would produce a stronger signal. Although our conclusion qualitatively agrees with that of previous authors, it is based on a more realistic model of particle propagation and thus reduces the scope for future speculations. Reliable background evaluation requires new accurate positron measurements and further developments in modelling production and propagation of cosmic ray species in the Galaxy.
Introduction: {#intro}
=============
Investigations of galaxy rotation, big-bang nucleosynthesis, and large-scale structure formation imply that a significant amount of the mass of the universe consists of non-luminous dark matter (Trimble 1989). Among the favored particle dark matter candidates are so-called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), whose existence follows from supersymmetric models (see Jungman, Kamionkowski, & Griest 1996 for a review). A pair of stable WIMPs can annihilate into known particles and antiparticles and it may be possible to detect WIMPs in the Galactic halo by the products of their annihilations. Though the microphysics is quite well understood and many groups make sophisticated calculations of the spectra of annihilation products for numerous WIMP candidates which include many decay chains (e.g., Baltz & Edsjö 1998), there are still uncertainties in the macrophysics which could change the estimated fluxes of WIMP annihilation products by 1–2 orders of magnitude, making predictions for their detection difficult. The most promising is perhaps the positron signal since it can appear at high energies where the solar modulation is negligible, but its strength depends on many details of propagation in the Galaxy. The “leaky box” model is often used (e.g., Kamionkowski & Turner 1991), a simplified approach which may not be applicable in the case of positrons. On the other hand, progress in CR positron measurements is anticipated since several missions operating or under construction are capable of measuring positron fluxes up to 100 GeV (e.g. experiments gas-RICH/CAPRICE: Barbiellini et al. 1997, and PAMELA: Adriani et al. 1997). Therefore, more accurate calculation of the positron propagation is desirable.
We have developed a numerical method and corresponding computer code (GALPROP) for the calculation of Galactic CR propagation in 3D (for an overview of our approach and results see Strong & Moskalenko 1999, and also papers OG 2.4.03, OG 3.2.18 in proceedings of this conference). Briefly, the idea is to develop a model which simultaneously reproduces observational data of many kinds related to cosmic-ray origin and propagation: directly via measurements of nuclei, antiprotons, electrons, and positrons, indirectly via and synchrotron radiation. Here we use our model for calculation of positron propagation in different models of the dark matter halo distribution (Moskalenko & Strong 1999). To be specific we will discuss neutralino dark matter, although our results can be easily adopted for any other particle dark matter candidate.
Green’s functions: {#green}
==================
The positron flux at the solar position is given by $$\label{eq.3}
\frac{dF}{dE}= \int d\epsilon\, G(E,\epsilon) \sum_i B_i f_i(\epsilon)
\quad [{\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm\ s}^{-1} {\rm\ sr}^{-1} {\rm\ GeV}^{-1}],$$where $f(\epsilon)$ is the source function which describes the spectrum of positrons from neutralino annihilation, $G(E,\epsilon)$ is the Green’s function for positron propagation in the Galaxy, and $B_i$ is the branching ratio into a given final state $i$. The Green’s function thus includes all details of the dark matter mass distribution, neutralino annihilation cross section, and Galactic structure (diffusion coefficient, spatially and energy dependent energy losses etc.). We can write it in the form: $$\label{eq.4}
G(E,\epsilon)= {\langle\sigma v\rangle}\frac{\rho_0^2}{m_\chi^2} \,
g(E,\epsilon)
\quad [{\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm\ s}^{-1} {\rm\ sr}^{-1} {\rm\ GeV}^{-1}],$$where ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$ is the thermally averaged annihilation cross section, $\rho_0$ is the local dark matter mass density, $m_\chi$ is the neutralino mass, and we have introduced a function $g(E,\epsilon)$ which describes the positron propagation for a
[r]{}[95mm]{}\
\
given dark matter mass density distribution in the halo.
Following Kamionkowski and Kinkhabwala (1998) we consider three different dark matter mass density profiles which match the Galactic rotation curve. The canonical “isothermal” sphere profile, the spherical Evans model, and an alternative model. For each given model we calculate the function $g(E,\epsilon)$ defined in Eq. (\[eq.4\]), which gives the positron flux at the solar position corresponding to the positron source function in the form of a Dirac $\delta$-function in energy. The positron propagation is calculated in a model which was tuned to match many available astrophysical data (Strong & Moskalenko 1998, Strong, Moskalenko, & Reimer 1999). Since the halo size in the range $z_h=4-10$ kpc is favored by our analyses of B/C and ratios and diffuse Galactic emission, we consider two cases $z_h=4$ and $10$ kpc which provide us with an idea of the possible limits. The preferred neutralino mass range following from accelerator and astrophysical constraints is $50$ GeV $< m_\chi
<600 $ GeV (Ellis 1998), and we consider positron energies $\epsilon \le 824$ GeV which cover this range.
Fig. \[fig1\] shows our calculated $g$-functions for different models of the dark matter distribution: “isothermal”, Evans, and alternative. The curves are shown for two halo sizes $z_h = 4$ and $10$ kpc and several energies $\epsilon = 1.03$, $2.06$, $5.15$, $10.3$, $25.8$, $51.5$, $103.0$, $206.1$, $412.1$, $824.3$ GeV. At high energies, increasing positron energy losses due to the inverse Compton scattering compete with the increasing diffusion coefficient, while at low energies increasing energy losses due to the Coulomb scattering and ionization (Strong & Moskalenko 1998) compete with energy gain due to reacceleration. The first effect leads to a smaller sensivity to the halo size at high energies. The second one becomes visible below $\sim
5$ GeV and is responsible for the appearance of accelerated particles with $E>\epsilon$.
It is interesting to note that for a given initial positron energy all three dark matter distributions provide very similar values for the maximum of the $g$-function (on the $E^2 g(E,\epsilon)$ scale), while their low-energy tails are different. This is a natural consequence of the large positron energy losses. Positrons contributing to the maximum of the $g$-function originate in the solar neighbourhood, where all models give the same dark matter mass density. The central mass density in these models is very different, and therefore the shape of the tail is also different since it is produced by positrons originating in distant regions. As compared to the isothermal model, the Evans model produces sharper tails, while the alternative model gives more positrons in the low-energy tail. At intermediate energies ($\sim10$ GeV) where the energy losses are minimal, the difference between $z_h=4$ and 10 kpc is maximal. Also at these energies positrons from dark matter particle annihilations in the Galactic center can contribute to the predicted flux. This is clearly seen in the case of the alternative model with its very large central mass density (Fig. \[fig1\]c, $z_h=10$ kpc).
Positron fluxes: {#flux}
================
An important issue in the interpretation of the positron measurements is the evaluation of the “background”, positrons arising from CR particle interactions with interstellar matter. Though the parameters of the propagation and the Galactic halo size can be fixed in a self-consistent way using CR isotope ratios, the ambient CR proton spectrum on the Galactic scale remains quite uncertain. The only possibility to trace the spectrum of nucleons on a large scale is to observe secondary products such as diffuse $\gamma$-rays, positrons, and antiprotons.
In order to show the effect of varying of the ambient proton spectrum, we compare our results with two models for the CR positron “background”. These are a “conventional” model (model C) which reproduces the local directly measured proton and Helium spectra above 10 GeV (where solar modulation is small), and a model with modified nucleon spectrum (model HEMN), which is flatter below 20 GeV and steeper above, and results from our analysis of Galactic diffuse emission. The “background” spectra are slightly dependent on the halo size. Since all secondary particles are produced in the Galactic plane, increasing the halo size results only in a small decrease of the flux at high energies due to larger energy losses. The propagation parameters for these models are given in Strong & Moskalenko (1998) and Strong, Moskalenko, & Reimer (1999), and the formalism for calculation of secondary positrons is described in Moskalenko & Strong (1998).
We do not intend to make sophisticated calculations of positron spectra resulting from numerous decay chains such as best done by, e.g., Baltz & Edsjö (1998) for many WIMP candidates. Instead, for illustration purposes, we simplify our analysis by treating the annihilation to $W^\pm$ and $Z^0$-pairs. For $m_\chi < m_W$ we consider only the direct annihilation to $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs. In the first case we use the cross sections for a pure Higgsino (Kamionkowski & Turner 1991), in the latter case we take $B\cdot {\langle\sigma v\rangle}=3\times 10^{-28}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ and monoenergetic positrons. These parameters can be considered as optimistic, but possible. To maximize the signal we further choose the Galactic halo size as $10$ kpc.
Fig. \[fig2\] shows our predictions for the two CR positron “background” models together with HEAT data (Barwick et al. 1998) and positrons from neutralino annihilation. It is seen that the predicted signal/background ratio has a maximum near $m_\chi \sim m_W$, while even in the “conventional” model the background is nearly equal to the signal at its maximum. It is however interesting to note that our calculations in this model show some excess in low energy ($\leq 10$ GeV) positrons where the measurements are rather precise but the solar modulation is also essential. If this excess testifies to a corresponding excess in interstellar space and if the positron background correspond to our “conventional” calculations, it could be a hint for the presence of the dark matter (Baltz & Edsjö 1998, Coutu et al. 1999). Our HEMN model fits the HEAT data better (no excess) and thus provides more background positrons. (This shows that in principle a good fit to positron data, which is consistent also with other measurements such as and antiprotons is possible without any additional positron source.) Under such circumstances a significant detection of a weak signal would require favourable conditions and precise measurements. Though this conclusion qualitatively agrees with that of Baltz and Edsjö (1998) and several earlier papers, it is based on a more realistic model of particle propagation and thus reduces the scope for future speculations.
Conclusions:
============
Our propagation model has been used to study several areas of high energy astrophysics. We use this model for the calculation of positron propagation in different models of the dark matter halo distribution. We have shown that the Green’s functions are not very sensitive to the dark matter distribution for the same local dark matter energy density. This is a natural consequence of the large positron energy losses. We compare our predictions with the computed CR positron “background” for two models of the CR nucleon spectrum. A correct interpretation of positron measurements requires reliable background calculations and thus emphasizes the necessity for further developments in modelling production and propagation of CR species in the Galaxy.
[**References**]{}
Adriani, O., et al., 1997, Proc. 25th ICRC (Durban) 5, 49\
Baltz, E.A., & Edsjö, J. 1998, Phys. Rev. D 59, 023511\
Barbiellini, G., et al. 1997, Proc. 25th ICRC (Durban) 5, 1\
Barwick, S.W., et al. 1998, [ApJ ]{}498, 779\
Coutu, S., et al. 1999, Astropart. Phys., in press ([[astro-ph/9902162]{}]{})\
Ellis, J. 1998, Proc. Nobel Symp. (Sweden) ([[astro-ph/9812211]{}]{})\
Jungman, G., Kamionkowski, M., & Griest, K. 1996, Phys. Rep. 267, 195\
Kamionkowski, M., & Kinkhabwala, A., 1998, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3256\
Kamionkowski, M., & Turner, M.S. 1991, Phys. Rev. D 43, 1774\
Moskalenko, I.V., & Strong, A.W. 1998, [ApJ ]{}493, 694\
Moskalenko, I.V., & Strong, A.W. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, in press\
Strong, A.W., & Moskalenko, I.V. 1998, [ApJ ]{}509, 212\
Strong, A.W., & Moskalenko, I.V. 1999, Proc. Workshop “LiBeB, Cosmic Rays and Gamma-Ray Line Astronomy”, eds. R.Ramaty et al., ASP Conf. Ser. 171, 154\
Strong, A.W., Moskalenko, I.V., & Reimer, O. 1999, submitted ([[astro-ph/9811296]{}]{})\
Trimble, V. 1989, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 25, 425\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[X-ray magnetic circular dichroism characterization of\
GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N digital ferromagnetic heterostructure]{}
[J. I. Hwang, M. Kobayashi, G. S. Song and A. Fujimori]{}\
*[Department of Complexity Science and Engineering and Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan]{}*
[A. Tanaka]{}\
*[Department of Quantum Matter, ADSM, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 739-8530, Japan]{}*
[Z. S. Yang, H. J. Lin, D. J. Huang and C. T. Chen]{}\
*[National Synchrotron Radiation Research Center, Hsinchu 30076, Taiwan]{}*
[H. C. Jeon and T. W. Kang]{}\
*[Quantum-Functional Semiconductor Research Center and Department of Physics, Dongguk University, Seoul 100-715, South Korea]{}*
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
We have investigated the magnetic properties of a GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N ($x$ = 0.1) digital ferromagnetic heterostructure (DFH) showing ferromagnetic behavior using soft x-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) and x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD). The Mn $L_{2,3}$-edge XAS spectra were similar to those of Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N random alloy thin films, indicating a substitutional doping of high concentration Mn into GaN. From the XMCD measurements, it was revealed that paramagnetic and ferromagnetic Mn atoms coexisted in the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N digital layers. The ferromagnetic moment per Mn atom estimated from XMCD agreed well with that estimated from SQUID measurements. From these results, we conclude that the ferromagnetic behavior of the GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH sample arises only from substitutional Mn$^{2+}$ ions in the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N digital layers and not from ferromagnetic precipitates. Subtle differences were also found from the XMCD spectra between the electronic states of the ferromagnetic and paramagnetic Mn$^{2+}$ ions.
Diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS) have recently been studied extensively because of their potential applications for spintronics. For potential applications, it is indispensable to synthesize DMS with Curie temperatures ($T_C$’s) above room temperature. GaN-based DMS have attracted particular interest because the GaN host has been considered as a promising host material for DMS having high $T_C$ based on theoretical predictions [@Dietl; @Mah]. Although Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N random alloy thin films were successfully grown by molecular-beam epitaxy (MBE) on sapphire substrates [@gmn1; @gmn2; @gmn3; @gmn4], a high concentration of Mn atoms cannot be incorporated into the GaN host because nitrogen defects are inevitably created in the crystals. Furthermore, it has been recognized that ferromagnetic precipitates such as Ga$_x$Mn$_y$ having $T_C$ exceeding room temperature can be formed in Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N [@4GaMn]. These facts have made the realization of high $T_C$ DMS difficult and search for the origin of the ferromagnetism complicated. On the other hand, a recent Monte Carlo simulation study [@Monte] has predicted that the $T_C$ of Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N random alloy remains low because the magnetic interaction between Mn ions in the GaN host is short ranged and consequently long range ferromagnetic ordering is not realized for low Mn concentrations. Therefore, doping high concentration Mn into the GaN host without degrading its quality has been desired to realize Mn-doped GaN having a high $T_C$. It has been reported that high quality Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N thin films grown by MBE on wurtzite GaN substrates showed ferromagnetism but with low $T_C$ [@5SonodaAPL; @5SariPRB]. It has been demonstrated that the ferromagnetism is enhanced for samples in which Mn$^{2+}$ and Mn$^{3+}$ coexist, indicating the possibility of high temperature ferromagnetism in this system [@5SonodaAPL]. Thus, recent studies have focused on the reduction of N defect concentration and the increase of Mn concentration in Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N [@quality].
An interesting and promising route to realize high $T_C$’s is to synthesize DMS embedded in two-dimensional (2D) heterostructures by digital doping. The heterostructures consist of non-magnetic semiconductor layers and highly doped thin magnetic semiconductor layers, and are called digital ferromagnetic heterostructure (DFH). This allows the doping of high concentration transition-metal ions into spatially localized regions in the semiconductor host without degrading its quality. Nazmul $et\ al.$ [@4deltaGMA] reported that Mn delta-doped GaAs indicated ferromagnetism up to $T_C$ = 250 K. Jeon $et\ al.$ [@4DFH] adopted the DFH technique to the growth of Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N to enhance the local Mn concentration and reported that a considerable enhancement of magnetization and $T_C$ was achieved compared with those of Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N random alloy.
In the present study, we have performed high energy spectroscopic studies of Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH using x-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) and x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) to investigate the electronic structure and the magnetic property of the GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH. XMCD is an element selective technique and is a powerful tool to investigate the microscopic origin of ferromagnetism in solids. Subsequently, theoretical analysis based on configuration-interaction theory was adopted to understand the local electronic structure of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH.
The GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH sample used in this study was grown on a sapphire substrate by the RF-plasma-assisted MBE [@4DFH]. A multiple heterostructure of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N of 4 periods was grown on the sapphire substrate with a GaN buffer layer at the substrate temperature of 850 $^{\circ}$C. The sample structure is shown in the inset of Fig. \[squid\] (a). The thickness of each Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N layer and GaN layer was 5 and 15 nm, respectively. On top of it, a thin GaN capping layer ($<$1 nm) was deposited to prevent oxidations of the top Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N layer.
XAS and XMCD measurements were performed at the Dragon beam line BL11A of Taiwan Light Source (TLS). Absorption spectra were measured by the total electron yield method with the energy resolution $E$/$\Delta$$E$ better than 10000 and the circular polarization of 83 %. In the XMCD measurements, the circular polarization of the incident photons was fixed and the direction of the applied magnetic field was changed. The XAS and XMCD measurements were made at temperature of 25 K in an ultra-high vacuum below 1$\times$10$^{-10}$ Torr. Magnetization measurements were made using a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID, MPMS, Quantum Design Co., Ltd.) at the Institute for Solid State Physics (ISSP), University of Tokyo.
Figure \[squid\] (a) shows the magnetization curves of the GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH measured at $T$ = 25 K using the SQUID magnetometer. The magnetic field was applied perpendicular to the sample surface \[the (0001) direction of the wurtzite structure\]. One can see a hysteresis loop superimposed on a negative slope, indicating that the present DFH sample showed ferromagnetism at low temperature. The linear response of the magnetization $M$ in the high magnetic field region ($H>2$ T) was fitted to the formula $M = \chi_{H>2{\rm T}} H + M_0$, where $\chi_{H>2{\rm T}}$ and $M_0$ are high-field magnetic susceptibility and the saturation magnetization, respectively. Figure \[squid\] (b) shows the temperature dependence of the saturation magnetization $M_0$ thus obtained. One can see that the saturation magnetization rapidly decreased above 200 K forward zero at 300 K, implying that the $T_C$ of the present sample was $\le$ 300 K.
Figure \[squid\] (c) shows the temperature dependence of the high-field magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{H>2{\rm T}}$. The data were fitted to the Curie-Weiss law plus a temperature-independent constant $\chi_0$: $\chi_{H>2{\rm T}} = {\partial M}/{\partial H_{H>2{\rm T}}} = NC/(T-\Theta) + \chi_0$. Here, $N$ is number of the magnetic Mn ions, $g$ is the $g$ factor, $C = (g\mu_B)^2S(S+1)/3k_B$ is the Curie constant and $\theta$ is the Weiss temperature. Assuming $S=5/2$ (Mn$^{2+}$), a good fit was obtained with $N = 8.29$ ($\pm$ 0.01) $\times 10^{14}$, $\Theta = - 16.3 \pm 3.0$ K and $\chi_0 = - 3.74$ ($\pm$ 0.01) $\times 10^{15}\mu_{\rm B}/{\rm T}$, indicating that the temperature dependence of the susceptibility was caused by local magnetic moments in the paramagnetic state. The negative Weiss temperature indicates a weak antiferromagnetic interaction between the local moments. The amount of magnetic ions contributing to the paramagnetism plus ferromagnetism was $\sim$ 58 % of the total Mn ions doped into the sample. This indicates that $\sim$ 40 % of the Mn ions are magnetically inactive, probably due to strong antiferromagnetic coupling between the Mn ions. The negative constant $\chi_0$ was due to the diamagnetic contribution from the GaN layers in the DFH and the sapphire substrate. Subtracting the diamagnetic component from the raw data, one can obtain the magnetization curve attributed to Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N layers in the DFH as shown in Fig. \[squid\] (d). The magnetization curve thus obtained showed a clear hysteresis loop at 25 K while the hysteresis was not observed at 300 K. The magnetization at 25 K was not saturated even at $H$ = 1.0 T due to the paramagnetic contribution while the hysteresis loop was closed at $H$ = 0.4 T.
To investigate the microscopic nature of the ferromagnetic and paramagnetic components, we have performed x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) measurements at the Mn $L_{2,3}$ edge. Figure \[mcd\] (a) shows the Mn $L_{2,3}$-edge XAS spectra of the GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH compared with that of the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N random alloy ($x$ = 0.042) [@hwang] and the configuration-interaction (CI) cluster-model calculations. The parameters used in the CI cluster-model calculations are the charge-transfer energy from the ligand $p$ orbitals to the transition metal $d$ orbitals ($\Delta$), the on-site Coulomb energy between two 3$d$ electrons ($U$) and the $p$-$d$ hybridization strength defined by a Slater-Koster parameters ($pd\sigma$) [@cicalc], The rich structures in the observed spectrum are also close to those of the random alloy and can be explained by the typical multiplet structure of the localized $d^5$ (Mn$^{2+}$) configuration, and not of the $d^4$ (Mn$^{3+}$) configuration. The CI cluster-model calculation assuming the $d^5$ ground state indeed well reproduced the multiplet structure of the experimental spectra using $\Delta = 4.0 \pm 0.5$ eV, $U = 5.0 \pm 0.5$ eV and $(pd\sigma) = -1.3 \pm 0.2$ eV. This lead us to conclude that the Mn ions were in the high-spin Mn$^{2+}$ ($d^5$) state in a crystal field of $T_d$ symmetry. This result indicates that a high concentration Mn ions were substitutionally doped at the Ga site without segregations of impurity phases.
In Fig. \[mcd\] (b), we compare the XMCD spectrum of the GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH with the CI cluster-model calculations for $d^4$ and $d^5$. Here, the XMCD spectrum has been obtained as the difference of the XAS spectra for the magnetic fields applied parallel and antiparallel to the photon helicity of the incident light, which is the equivalent to the difference between the spectra recorded for right-handed and left-handed circularly polarized light ($\mu_+ - \mu_-$) in a fixed magnetic field. Peak positions in the XMCD spectrum coincided with those of the multiplet structures of the XAS spectra. The XMCD spectra are also compared with the CI cluster-model calculations assuming the $d^5$ ground state and were well reploduced using the same parameter values. This suggests that the Mn$^{2+}$ ions in the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N layers of the DFH sample as seen in the XAS spectra are responsible for the observed XMCD spectrum.
To gain further information, the magnetic field dependence of XMCD was measured as shown in Fig. \[moment\] (a). The intensities of the XMCD spectra decreased with decreasing magnetic field but no clear change in the overall spectral line shape was observed between the spectra recorded in different magnetic fields, as shown in the main panel of Fig. \[moment\] (a).
Using the XMCD sum rules [@4sum1; @4sum2], one can estimate the magnetic moment per Mn atom using the XAS and XMCD spectra. The magnetic moments at various magnetic fields thus obtained are plotted in Fig. \[moment\] (b). Here, the XMCD intensities have been corrected for the degree of the circular polarization of 83 %. The magnetic moment obtained using the SQUID magnetometer are also shown in Fig. \[moment\] (b) Note that the diamagnetic contributions have been subtracted using the $\chi_0$ obtained from the Curie-Weiss fit and that the error bars of the SQUID data in Fig. \[moment\] (b) are due to errors in $\chi_0$ \[see Fig. \[squid\] (d)\]. In Fig. \[moment\] (b), one can see excellent agreement between the SQUID and the XMCD data. The extrapolated magnetic moment of $M \sim 0.04\ \mu_B$/atom at $H$ = 0 was originated from the ferromagnetic component and the linear contribution from the paramagnetic component. Although the line shape of the XMCD spectra recorded at various magnetic fields were very similar, a subtle change was found in the $L_3$ main peak region as shown the inset of Fig. \[moment\] (a). The XMCD intensity of the peak at $h\nu$ = 640.9 eV, which corresponds to the peak position of the Mn $L_3$ XAS spectra (labeled A) decreased with decreasing magnetic field while that at $h\nu$ = 641.2 eV (labeled B) was nearly independent of the magnetic field. This implies that in this magnetic field region the magnetic-field dependent (paramagnetic) and independent (ferromagnetic) components with slightly different electronic environments (of possibly caused by different local carrier concentration or defect concentrations) coexist and their electronic states are slightly different from each other. Also, one can conclude that the magnetically inactive component and the field-dependent component have similar electronic environment.
In conclusion, we have performed XAS and XMCD measurements of a GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH sample. From the XAS measurements, Mn ions in the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N layer of DFH was found to be in the Mn$^{2+}$ state in a tetrahedral crystal field. From the XMCD measurements, the Mn ions were found to be responsible for the ferromagnetism of the sample. Comparison between the XMCD result and the SQUID data, it is suggested that the ferromagnetic as well as paramagnetic contributions arise from the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N layer of this sample and cannot be attributed to any ferromagnetic precipitates.
This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Priority Area “Semiconductor Nano-Spintronics” (14076209). We also thank the Material Design and Characterization Laboratory, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo, for the use of the SQUID magnetometer.
[99]{} T. Dietl, H. Ohno, F. Matsukura, J. Cibert and D. Ferrand, Science [bf 287]{}, 1019 (2000).
P. Mahadevan and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 115211 (2004). S. Kuwabara, T. Kondo, T. Chikyow, P. Ahmet and H. Munekata, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 2 [**40**]{}, L724 (2001).
S. Sonoda, S. Shimizu, T. Sasaki, Y. Yamamoto and H. Hori, J. Cryst. Growth. [**237**]{}, 1358 (2002).
M. Hashimoto, Y. K. Zhou, H. Tampo, M. Kanamura and H. Asahi, J. Cryst. Growth. [**252**]{}, 449 (2003).
P. P. Chen, H. Makino, J. J. Kim and T. Yao, J. Cryst. Growth. [**251**]{}, 331 (2003).
S. J. Pearton, C. R. Abernathy, G. T. Thaler, R. M. Frazier, D. P. Norton, F. Ren, Y. D. Park, J. M. Zavada, I. A. Buyanova, W. M. Chen and A. F. Hebard, J. Phys. : Cond. Matt. [**16**]{}, R209 (2004).
K. Sato, W. Schweika, P. H. Dederichs and H. Katayama-Yoshida, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 201202(R) (2004).
S. Sonoda, I. Tanaka, F. Oba, H. Ikeno, H. Hayashi, T. Yamamoto, Y. Yuba, Y. Akasaka, K. Yoshida, M. Aoki, M. Asari, T. Araki, Y. Nanishi, K. Kindo and H. Hori, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**90**]{}, 012504 (2007).
E. Sarigiannidou, F. Wilhelm, E. Monroy, R. M. Galera, E. Bellet-Amalric, A. Rogalev, J. Goulon, J. Cibert and H. Mariette, Phys. Rev. B. [**74**]{}, 041306(R) (2006).
S. Kuroda, E. Bellet-Amalric, R. Giraud, S. Marcet, J. Cibert and H. Mariette, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4580 (2003).
A. M. Nazmul, T. Amemiya, Y. Shuto, S. Sugahara and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 017201 (2005).
H. C. Jeon, T. W. Kang and T. W. Kim, Sol. Stat. Commun. [**132**]{}, 63 (2004).
J. I. Hwang, Y. Ishida, M. Kobayashi, H. Hirata, K. Takubo, T. Mizokawa, A. Fujimori, J. Okamoto, K. Mamiya, Y. Saito, Y. Muramatsu, H. Ott, A. Tanaka, T. Kondo, and H. Munekata, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 085216 (2005).
T. Mizokawa and A. Fujimori, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 14150 (1993).
B. T. Thole, P. Carra, F. Sette and G. van der Laan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1943 (1992).
P. Carra, B. T. Thole, M. Altarelli and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 694 (1993).
{height="4.4cm"} {height="4.4cm"}\
{height="4.1cm"} {height="4.1cm"}
![(Color online) X-ray absorption (XAS) spectra and x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) at the Mn $L_{2,3}$ edge of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH. (a) X-ray absorption spectra of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH (open circles) compared with that of the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N ($x$ = 0.042) random alloy (open triangles) [@hwang] and the CI cluster-model calculations for $d^4$ and $d^5$ ground states in a crystal field of $T_d$ symmetry (solid line) using the electronic-structure parameters $\Delta = 4.0$ eV, $U = 5.0$ eV and $(pd\sigma) = -1.3$ eV. (b) XAS and corresponding XMCD spectra recorded at $T$ = 25 K and $H$ = 0.87 T.[]{data-label="mcd"}](2a_Mn2pXAS2.eps "fig:"){height="4.9cm"} ![(Color online) X-ray absorption (XAS) spectra and x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) at the Mn $L_{2,3}$ edge of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH. (a) X-ray absorption spectra of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH (open circles) compared with that of the Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N ($x$ = 0.042) random alloy (open triangles) [@hwang] and the CI cluster-model calculations for $d^4$ and $d^5$ ground states in a crystal field of $T_d$ symmetry (solid line) using the electronic-structure parameters $\Delta = 4.0$ eV, $U = 5.0$ eV and $(pd\sigma) = -1.3$ eV. (b) XAS and corresponding XMCD spectra recorded at $T$ = 25 K and $H$ = 0.87 T.[]{data-label="mcd"}](2b_xas_mcd.eps "fig:"){height="4.9cm"}
![(Color online) Magnetic field dependence of XMCD and the magnetization of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH at $T$ = 25 K. (a) Magnetic field dependence of the XMCD intensity. The inset shows an enlarged plot in the Mn $L_3$-edge region. (b) Magnetic moments per Mn atom obtained from the XMCD and SQUID data. The magnetic moment of $\sim$ 0.04 $\mu_B$ extrapolated to $H$ = 0 T corresponds to that of the SQUID data.[]{data-label="moment"}](3a_mcd_int_L3.eps "fig:"){height="4.5cm"} ![(Color online) Magnetic field dependence of XMCD and the magnetization of GaN/Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$N DFH at $T$ = 25 K. (a) Magnetic field dependence of the XMCD intensity. The inset shows an enlarged plot in the Mn $L_3$-edge region. (b) Magnetic moments per Mn atom obtained from the XMCD and SQUID data. The magnetic moment of $\sim$ 0.04 $\mu_B$ extrapolated to $H$ = 0 T corresponds to that of the SQUID data.[]{data-label="moment"}](3b_moment_calpolar.eps "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Aided by ultra-high resolution spectroscopy, the overall systematic uncertainty of the $^{1}S_{0}$-$^{3}P_{0}$ clock resonance for lattice-confined $^{87}$Sr has been characterized to $9\times10^{-16}$. This uncertainty is at a level similar to the Cs-fountain primary standard, while the potential stability for the lattice clocks exceeds that of Cs. The absolute frequency of the clock transition has been measured to be 429,228,004,229,874.0(1.1) Hz, where the $2.5\times10^{-15}$ fractional uncertainty represents the most accurate measurement of a neutral-atom-based optical transition frequency to date.'
author:
- 'Martin M. Boyd, Andrew D. Ludlow, Sebastian Blatt, Seth M. Foreman, Tetsuya Ido$^{\dag}$, Tanya Zelevinsky, and Jun Ye'
title: '$^{87}$Sr lattice clock with inaccuracy below 10$^{-15}$'
---
The significant advances in femtosecond comb technology [@Diddams1; @Udem; @Ye1] in the past decade have sparked immense interest in atomic clocks based on optical transitions [@Diddams2]. These transitions have large line quality factors ($Q$) [@Boyd1; @Bergquist1], which will provide orders of magnitude improvement in clock stability over state-of-the-art microwave clocks. An optical clock based on a single trapped Hg$^+$ ion has recently surpassed Cs fountain clocks [@SyrteCs; @NISTCs] in terms of accuracy, with clock systematics reduced to $7\times10^{-17}$ [@Bergquist2]. Other high accuracy ion standards include Sr$^+$ [@NPLScience; @NRC] and Yb${^+}$ [@PTBYb]. The high line $Q$ allows a stability comparable to the best achieved thus far with Cs, despite the fact that the single-ion signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) is drastically reduced compared to microwave systems which typically employ $\sim$$10^5$ atoms. Optical lattice clocks show promise for reaching a level of accuracy comparable to the ion systems, with significantly improved stability due to the large number of atoms involved in the measurement. This stability gain has spurred an intensive investigation of lattice clocks based on spin-forbidden transitions in alkaline-earth atoms, specifically in Sr [@Boyd1; @Katori1; @KatoriNature; @Ludlow1; @LeTargat1] and Yb [@Fortson1; @NistYb], where the trapping potential is designed to allow accurate measurements effectively free of both ac Stark shifts [@Katori1; @Katori2; @Anders1] and motional effects which can hamper optical clocks based on atoms in free space [@SterrNew; @OatesNew; @Ido1].
While the clock-stability benefits provided by the optical lattice method are now clear [@NistYb; @Boyd1], reaching the accuracy level of the microwave standards remains a paramount issue in the field. Recently, great strides towards this goal have been taken, as a troublesome 4$\sigma$ disagreement between the first two high accuracy experiments using $^{87}$Sr [@KatoriNature; @Ludlow1] has been resolved by a third independent investigation [@LeTargat1], and a revised report by the authors of Ref. [@KatoriNature] published shortly thereafter [@KatoriJSP]. Agreement between the three groups speaks strongly for the lattice clock as a future candidate for redefinition of the SI second; however, to be competitive with the current Cs fountain clocks the overall systematics must be reduced well below the $10^{-15}$ level.
In this Letter, we report a detailed study of the systematic uncertainty associated with the $^{87}$Sr $^1S_0$-$^3P_0$ clock transition frequency at the level of $9\times10^{-16}$. This measurement, aided mainly by the record level line $Q$ achieved recently [@Boyd1], shows that the Sr lattice clock can reach an accuracy level competitive with Cs fountains, while the potential stability for the system is far greater. An absolute frequency measurement of the transition is also reported with an uncertainty of $2.5\times10^{-15}$, limited by a Cs-calibrated NIST H-maser reference.
Full details of the cooling and trapping system used in this work are discussed elsewhere [@Loftus1; @Ludlow1]. In brief, $^{87}$Sr atoms are captured from a thermal beam into a magneto-optical trap (MOT) based on the $^1S_0$-$^1P_1$ cycling transition. Second stage cooling, using a dual frequency $^1S_0$-$^3P_1$ MOT [@Mukaiyama1], is performed concurrently with the loading of a vertical one-dimensional lattice, yielding $\sim$2 $\times$ $10^4$ atoms at a temperature of 1.5 $\mu$K. The lattice is operated at the Stark cancelation wavelength [@Anders1] with an intensity $I_0$ = 5 kW/cm$^2$ (83$\%$ of which forms the standing wave due to window losses), resulting in measured longitudinal and radial trap frequencies of 40 kHz and 125 Hz respectively. The atoms are distributed over $\sim$80 lattice sites with a density $\rho_0$ = $5\times10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$. The spectroscopy sequence for the 1 mHz $^1S_0$-$^3P_0$ clock transition begins with a Rabi pulse from a highly stabilized diode laser [@Ludlow2] that is co-propagated and co-polarized with the lattice laser. With some atoms shelved in the $^3P_0$ state, the remaining $^1S_0$ population is removed from the lattice by exciting the $^1S_0$-$^1P_1$ transition. The $^3P_0$ atoms are then driven back to the ground state, by pumping through intermediate states, and the population is measured by again driving the $^1S_0$-$^1P_1$ transition and detecting scattered photons. This process is repeated each time atoms are loaded into the lattice, as the laser frequency is tuned. The time window for the Rabi pulse is varied within 40-480 ms depending on the desired Fourier width (22-1.8 Hz).
The $^1S_0$ ($F$=9/2) - $^3P_0$ ($F$=9/2) transition, facilitated by nuclear-spin induced state mixing [@Kluge1], suffers from a differential Landé $g$-factor between the clock states, with the $^3P_0$ sensitivity being $\sim$60$\%$ larger than that of the ground state. The resultant Zeeman shift of -109 Hz/(G $m_F$) [@Boyd1] (1 G = $10^{-4}$ T) can be a limitation in terms of the achievable accuracy and line $Q$ in the presence of magnetic fields. Figure 1(a) shows a spectrum for a 80 ms probe time, representing the parameters typically used in the work reported here, yielding a FWHM (full width at half maximum) linewidth of 10.6(3) Hz. The spectrum shown here supports a clock instability of less than $3\times10^{-15}$ at 1 s. For atom-shot-noise limited spectra of the same width, and reasonable improvements to the duty cycle, the number could be reduced by more than an order of magnitude. The narrowest resonances have so far been achieved when a resolved nuclear sublevel is used for spectroscopy as shown in Fig. 1(b). Here, linewidth limitations from magnetic fields or state-dependent Stark shifts are eliminated, and widths below 2 Hz are repeatably observed.
As a general approach for evaluating systematics, an interleaved scheme is used where the parameter of interest is cycled through different values, synchronized with each frequency step of the probe laser across the resonance. The interleaved data is then separated into resonance profiles for each parameter value, allowing the center frequency (relative to the laser cavity), and more importantly the slope of the frequency shift, to be measured for a variety of system parameters in a short time. This method allows us to measure shifts against the probe laser, which has a stability superior to our available microwave reference [@Ludlow2].
Of the many effects to be characterized for an optical lattice clock, the effect of the lattice laser itself remains a focal point. The differential light shifts of the clock states due to the scalar, vector, and tensor polarizabilities all vary linearly with trap intensity and can be strongly suppressed with an appropriate choice of lattice wavelength [@Katori2; @Fortson1]. Higher-order Stark shifts, due to the hyperpolarizability of the clock states, are negligibly small ($<10^{-17}$)[@Anders1] at our operating intensity and wavelength. Hence, a linear extrapolation to the zero-intensity clock frequency is sufficient to characterize the total Stark shift from all contributors mentioned above. An example of this is shown in Fig. 2(a) where four different values of the lattice intensity are interleaved during a trace taking less than one minute. Using 2, 4, or 8 lattice intensity values, 776 interleaved measurements revealed that for a wavelength $\lambda_0$ = 813.4280(5) nm, the Stark shift is -108(257) mHz/$I_0$. A summary of the lattice Stark shift measurements is shown in Fig 2(b) as a histogram, along with a gaussian fit of the data.
The effect of atomic density on the transition frequency is explored in a similar fashion as densities ranging within (0.2-1)$\rho_0$ are interleaved (by varying the number of atoms in the MOT). A histogram of 422 measurements of the density effect is shown in Fig. 2(c), resulting in a shift coefficient of 3(140) mHz/$\rho_0$. Notably the upper limit of the density-related fractional frequency shift of $5.6\times10^{-28}$ cm$^{-3}$ is $\sim$$10^6$ times smaller than for Cs [@NISTCs; @SyrteCs].
The ten nuclear-spin sublevels of the clock transition result in systematic effects related to magnetic and optical fields. For example, the asymmetric distribution of population among the sublevels can be a central systematic issue when using unpolarized atomic samples, as any $m_F$-dependent magnetic or optical interaction can cause a frequency shift, even if the sub-levels are shifted symmetrically about the center. The differential $g$-factor of the clock states provides the most significant effect as it leads to a sensitivity to magnetic fields of nearly 500 Hz/G for the stretched states. Three orthogonal sets of Helmholtz coils are used to characterize frequency shifts caused by the Zeeman sensitivity of the nuclear-spin sublevels. Figure 3 summarizes the characterization of magnetic field effects along one of these three axes. For each direction, the transition linewidth is used to find the field minimum as shown in Fig. 3(a). The narrow 10 Hz resonances allow the field zero to be constrained within 10 mG for each axis. Frequency shift sensitivity is explored using the interleaved scheme with the results for the featured axis shown in Fig. 3(b). Here the average values for 112 measurements are shown, yielding a slope of 26(4) Hz/G. Similar measurements were performed for the other two axes yielding 22(7) Hz/G and 12(3) Hz/G. The fields for the three axes are zeroed below 5, 5, and 10 mG respectively, resulting in a total Zeeman uncertainty of $5.3\times10^{-16}$. This gives insight into the minimal effect of the vector light shift which causes symmetric $m_F$-dependent shifts proportional to the degree of lattice ellipticity and trapping intensity [@Fortson1; @Katori2]. The resultant splitting for the stretched states is estimated as less than 8 (Hz/rad)/$I_0$. To combat this effect, a high extinction polarizer ($>$$10^{4}$) is used for the lattice and probe beam, and while the vacuum chamber windows likely reduce the purity of the linear polarization, rotations of even a few degrees are equivalent to a sub mG residual field, attesting to the insignificance of this effect compared to the differential $g$-factor.
Systematics related to the probe laser were considered in two respects. First, the probe can cause Stark shifts of the clock states by coupling to external levels. Second, asymmetric motional sidebands could cause line pulling. This effect is minimal as the sidebands are well resolved (even the radial sidebands are detuned by more than ten times the transition width) and are only observed for large probe intensities. These effects were checked experimentally by varying the probe power by more than an order of magnitude during 77 measurements. To eliminate Stark shifts from other sources, all lasers used for cooling, trapping, and detection are switched with both acousto-optic modulators and mechanical shutters. Shifts from black body radiation (BBR) are also considered [@DerevBBR], including the effect of a nearby heated vacuum window.
Table I summarizes the dominant systematic uncertainties for spectroscopy of the clock transition, reported in terms of fractional frequency. A total uncertainty of $0.88\times10^{-15}$ is achieved, representing the first experimental verification that the lattice technique can reach inaccuracies below the $10^{-15}$ level, comparable with Cs fountains. The largest uncertainties are limited by technical issues such as a small dynamic range on the lattice intensity and sensitivity to stray magnetic fields. Future work using isolated spin states should allow orders of magnitude reduction in the nuclear-spin related shifts, while significant reductions in the lattice shift uncertainty can be achieved using a larger range of intensities. Spin-polarizing the atoms can also minimize collision shifts via Fermi suppression. However, unless the spin polarization is pure and all atoms are in a single motional state of the trap (possible but not yet achieved in a lattice clock), the collision shift must still be evaluated experimentally.
[l..]{} & &\
AC Stark (Lattice) & 0.25 & 0.60\
AC Stark (Probe) & -0.02 & 0.12\
AC Stark (BBR) & 5.44 & 0.16\
Zeeman Effect & 0 & 0.53\
Density Shift & -0.01 & 0.33\
Total & 5.66 & 0.88\
To measure the absolute frequency of the $^1S_0$ - $^3P_0$ transition, a Cs-fountain-calibrated H-maser is used to stabilize a radio frequency synthesizer located at NIST. The synthesizer modulates the amplitude of a 1320 nm laser, which is transferred to JILA via a $\sim$4 km fiber link [@ye03; @Foreman06]. The modulation frequency of 950 MHz is compared to the repetition rate of a femtosecond frequency comb locked to the spectroscopy laser. The maser and transfer system provide a 1 s instability of $2.5\times10^{-13}$, and for the work reported here, the maser is calibrated to $1.7\times10^{-15}$. Passive transfer using the fiber link has been found to introduce frequency offsets as large as $1\times10^{-14}$, specifically related to periodic stretching and compressing of the fiber length owing to daily temperature variations. To eliminate this effect, the fiber length is stabilized using a fiber stretcher controlled by comparison of the local microwave phase at NIST with that of modulated light reflected back from JILA. While in-loop measurements show the frequency transfer is stabilized to a few parts in $10^{17}$, we assign a conservative uncertainty of $1\times10^{-16}$ to account for other potential errors [@FrenchFiber]. The reference synthesizer for the transfer can also cause frequency errors [@Diddams3] as drifts in the synthesizer’s temperature result in fractional shifts at the level of $4\times10^{-14}$ (K/Hour)$^{-1}$. For the measurements reported here, the synthesizer is placed in a temperature stabilized enclosure and the temperature inside and outside the enclosure is monitored, resulting in a correction of $-1.7(7)\times10^{-15}$.
[l..]{} & &\
Sr Syst. (Table I) & 5.66 & 0.88\
Maser Calibration & -401.0 & 1.7\
Synth. Temp. Drift & -1.7 & 0.7\
Fiber Transfer & 0 & 0.1\
Gravitational shift & 1.25 & 0.02\
Freq. Meas. Syst. & -395.8 & 2.0\
Freq. Meas. Stat. & 0 & 1.4\
Total & -395.8 & 2.5\
$\nu_\mathrm{Sr}-\nu_{0}$ & 74.0 & 1.1\
A summary of 880 absolute frequency measurements spanning a full 24 hour period is shown in Fig. 4(a). Each point corresponds to a 30 second measurement of an 11 Hz spectrum with a frequency uncertainty of $\sim$20 Hz, consistent with the Allan deviation of the H-Maser. The data averages down with gaussian statistics, as shown in Fig. 4(b) and in the histogram of Fig. 4(c). During the measurement, the Sr chamber temperature was continuously monitored, and the magnetic field was repeatedly calibrated (Fig. 3(c)) both by monitoring transition linewidths and by employing the zeroing technique in Fig. 3(a). Table II summarizes the relevant corrections and uncertainties associated with the absolute frequency measurement. The only significant corrections not determined by direct frequency measurements here are the BBR shift and the gravitational shift arising from the difference in elevation of the NIST Cs fountain and the JILA Sr lattice. The frequency of the $^1S_0$-$^3P_0$ transition is 429,228,004,229,874.0(1.1) Hz, with the uncertainty mainly limited by the maser calibration. Figure 4(d) shows that this value agrees well with recent reports from the SYRTE [@LeTargat1] and Tokyo [@KatoriJSP] groups as well as with our original value [@Ludlow1]. The final absolute frequency uncertainty of 2.5$\times10^{-15}$ corresponds to the most accurate optical frequency measurement for neutral atoms to date, and falls short of only the recent Hg$^+$ ion result [@Bergquist2] as the most accurate optical measurement in any system.
We gratefully acknowledge technical contributions by S. Diddams and T. Parker on maser transfer. We also thank D. Hudson and M. Ting for help with the fiber link. This work was supported by ONR, NIST, and NSF.
$\dag$ Current address for T. Ido: NICT, Tokyo, Japan.
[32]{}
S. A. Diddams [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 005102 (2000). Th. Udem [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**416**]{}, 233 (2002). See for example: [*Femtosecond Optical Frequency Comb: Principle, Operation and Applications*]{} J. Ye and S. T. Cundiff ed., Springer, (2004). S. A. Diddams [*et al.*]{}, Science [**306**]{}, 1318 (2004). M. M. Boyd [*et al.*]{}, Science in press (2006). R. J. Rafac [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2462 (2000). S. Bize [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**38**]{}, S449 (2005). T. P. Heavner [*et al.*]{}, Metrologia [**42**]{}, 411 (2005). W. H. Oskay [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 020801 (2006). H. S. Margolis [*et al.*]{}, Science [**306**]{}, 1355 (2004). P. Dubé [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 033001 (2005). T. Schneider [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 230801 (2005). H. Katori [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 173005 (2003). M. Takamoto [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**435**]{}, 321 (2005). A. D. Ludlow [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 033003 (2006). R. Le Targat [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 130801 (2006). S. G. Porsev [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 021403(R) (2004). Z. W. Barber [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 083002 (2006). V. Ovsiannikov [*et al.*]{}, Quantum Electron. [**36**]{}, 3 (2006). A. Brusch [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 103003 (2006). C. Degenhardt [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 062111 (2005). G. Wilpers [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. B [**85**]{}, 31 (2006). T. Ido [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 153001 (2005).
M. Takamoto [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**75**]{}, 10 (2006). T. H. Loftus [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 063413 (2004). T. Mukaiyama [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 113002 (2003). A. D. Ludlow [*et al.*]{}, arxiv-physics/0610274 (2006). H. J. Kluge and H. Sauter, Z. Physik [**270**]{}, 295 (1974). S. G. Porsev and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 020502 (2006). J. Ye [*et al.*]{}, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**20**]{}, 1459 (2003). S. M. Foreman [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Sci. Instr., in press (2006). F. Narbonneau [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Sci. Instr. [**77**]{}, 064701 (2006). J. E. Stalnaker [*et al.*]{}, in Proceedings of the Int. Freq. Cont. Symp. Miami, USA, June 5-7 (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Cooperative coupling between optical emitters and light fields is one of the outstanding goals in quantum technology. It is both fundamentally interesting for the extraordinary radiation properties of the participating emitters and has many potential applications in photonics. While this goal has been achieved using high-finesse optical cavities, cavity-free approaches that are broadband and easy to build have attracted much attention recently. Here we demonstrate cooperative coupling of ultracold atoms with surface plasmons propagating on a plane gold surface. While the atoms are moving towards the surface they are excited by an external laser pulse. Excited surface plasmons are detected via leakage radiation into the substrate of the gold layer. A maximum Purcell factor of $\eta_\mathrm{P}=4.9$ is reached at an optimum distance of $z=250~\mathrm{nm}$ from the surface. The coupling leads to the observation of a Fano-like resonance in the spectrum.'
author:
- Christian Stehle
- Claus Zimmermann
- Sebastian Slama
title: Cooperative coupling of ultracold atoms and surface plasmons
---
It is a long-sought goal of photonics to gain ultimate control over light-matter interactions on the single photon level [@Haroche06]. This goal is mainly motivated by the prospect of many possible applications, e.g. generation of single photons on-demand [@Imamoglu94; @Kim99; @He13], control of the emission rate of quantum emitters [@Englund05], nonlinearities on the single photon level [@Yamamoto99; @Birnbaum05; @Peyronel12] and the construction of single photon switches [@Volz12] and transistors [@Chang07; @Neumeier13]. All of these applications require high cooperativity, a regime of cavity quantum electrodynamics (cqed) in which an optical emitter radiates with high probability into a distinct light mode [@Kimble98]. This regime is characterized by the condition that the cooperativity parameter $$\eta=4g^2/\left(\gamma\kappa\right)>1~,$$
with coupling constant $g$, natural line width of the emitter $\gamma$ and decay rate of the light field amplitude $\kappa$. Please note that this regime is contained in the strong coupling regime of cqed. The coupling constant $g$ is proportional to the dipole moment $d$ of the emitter and to the electric field $\cal{E}_\mathrm{1}$ connected to a single photon. High cooperativity can thus be reached by combining highly polarizable emitters with systems of large field enhancement. The latter condition can be reached e.g. in high-Q nanocavities with small mode volume [@Khitrova06; @Benson11]. An even stronger concentration of optical fields is possible with surface plasmons (SP) [@Barnes03; @Gramotnev10; @Schuller10]. While direct energy transfer from molecules to surface plasmons has been observed in early experiments [@Weber79; @Pockrand80], the interaction of single photon emitters and surface plasmons has attracted renewed interest in the last years [@Chang06; @Tame13]. In this context modified emission rates were measured [@Amos97; @Anger06; @Andersen10], single plasmons were excited [@Akimov07; @Huck11], and strong coupling between excitons and surface plasmons was demonstrated [@Bellessa04; @Dintinger05; @Vasa08; @Hakala09; @Gomez10; @Schwartz11; @Guebrou12; @Tudela13].\
While in the above mentioned work artificial atoms (i.e. molecules, nanocrystals and quantum dots) are deposited as quantum emitters on the surface, proposals for trapping real ultracold atoms close to plasmonic structures have attracted much attention recently [@Chang09; @Murphy09; @Gullans12]. These proposals are based on the concept of dipole traps which are generated above plasmonic nanostructures, similar to the optical trapping of nanoobjects in plasmonically patterned light fields [@Righini07]. Real atoms have the advantage of being identical quantum emitters and having very narrow optical transitions with typical widths in the MHz range. Using quantum optics techniques clouds of atoms can be cooled to quantum degeneracy at temperatures on the order of nanokelvin [@Anderson95]. They can be trapped with ultrahigh precision in magnetic micotraps [@Fortagh07] and in optical dipole traps [@Grimm00] where they suffer very low intrinsic decoherence [@Wilk10]. Plasmonic traps might even further improve the control over the motion of atoms in the subwavelength regime, with dramatic consequences for interatomic scattering properties within one trap and atomic tunneling rates between neighboring traps [@Gullans12]. These traps could even be used for engineering strong p-wave interactions and the realization of exotic quantum many-body states with topological properties [@Diaz13]. Moreover, atoms which are positioned very close to plasmonic structures couple with high efficiency to surface plasmon modes which could be used for single photon applications and for enabling long-range interactions between atoms [@Chang09; @Gullans12]. Please note that strong coupling is also pursued by combining cold atoms with nanophotonic waveguides [@Chang13; @Thompson13; @Goban14].\
![Schematic drawing of experimental situation. **a** An atom situated close to a metal surface emits photons radiatively with rate $\gamma_\mathrm{rad}$ into free space and nonradiatively with rate $\gamma_\mathrm{sp}$ into surface plasmons propagating on the metal surface with wavenumber $k_\mathrm{sp}$. **b** Surface plasmons on a thin metal film couple to the far field in the dielectric substrate via leakage radiation. The emitted light field is p-polarized. A detector collects photons under the solid angle $\Delta\Omega$. **c** In the experiment a cloud of ultracold Rubidium atoms is positioned very close to a gold film and is illuminated by a laser field. Photons which are emitted into the substrate are collected by an optical fibre coupler (FC) under an adjustable angle $\theta$ and are detected with an avalache photo diode (APD) with single photon sensitivity. The polarization of the detected light can be switched between s and p by a $\lambda /2$ waveplate and a polarizing beam cube (PBC).[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](setup.jpg)
Despite the mentioned theoretical proposals only little experimental work has so far combined cold atoms with surface plasmons. In early work atoms have been reflected from evanescent light fields which were enhanced by surface plasmons on planar surfaces [@Esslinger93; @Feron93; @Schneble03]. Recently, we could show experimentally that potential landscapes for ultracold atoms can be tailored by plasmonic microstructures with the prospect of coupling single atoms to plasmonic devices [@Stehle11]. In this Article, we demonstrate direct and cooperative coupling of the fluorescence of cold atoms to surface plasmons propagating on a plane gold surface. The experiment is carried out with the experimental setup decribed in detail in [@Stehle11]. An ultracold $^{87}$Rb atom cloud consisting of $N_\mathrm{at}\sim10^6$ atoms with a temperature of $T\sim 1~\mu\mathrm{K}$ is trapped in a magnetic trap inside a UHV chamber. The density of the cloud is given by $$n_\mathrm{at}(\vec r)=N_\mathrm{at}\left(8\pi^3\sigma_r^4\sigma_z^2\right)^{-{1/2}} e^{-(x^2+y^2)/2\sigma_r^2}e^{-(z-z_0)^2/2\sigma_z^2}~,$$ with measured cloud width $\sigma_r\approx\sigma_z=76~\mu\mathrm{m}$. The maximum density in the center of the cloud is $n_\mathrm{at}^\mathrm{max}=1.4\times10^{17}~\mathrm{m}^{-3}$. By applying external magnetic fields the trapping position $z_0$ is moved towards a glass prism on which a sapphire substrate is attached (Fig. \[fig:setup\]). Depending on the distance of the magnetic trapping minimum from the surface attractive Casimir-Polder forces give rise to a potential barrier over which the atoms can move and are then accelerated towards the surface. Details on Casimir-Polder forces are contained in the Supplementary Method Section. The sapphire substrate carries square fields of gold layers with $\sim50~\mathrm{nm}$ thickness and $\sim100~\mu\mathrm{m}$ side length. After the trapping minimum has been positioned in a variable distance from one of the gold fields the (moving) atoms are illuminated from the side with a $200~\mu\mathrm{s}$ long laser pulse. The laser intensity is adjusted to the saturation intensity $I_\mathrm{sat}=1.6~\mathrm{mW}/\mathrm{cm}^{2}$ corresponding to the $D2$-line of $^{87}$Rb. The incoming light field excites electric dipole oscillations in the atoms which are partially coupled to surface plasmons within the gold layer. The plasmon excitations decay into freely propagating photons [@Hohenau11]. An avalanche photo diode (APD) with single photon detection efficiency measures the number of photons which is emitted under an adjustable angle $\theta$ into an aperture-limited opening angle of $\Delta\phi=\Delta\theta=0.6^\circ$. Due to Gaussian optics, this corresponds to a detectable spot size on the gold layer with radius $R_\mathrm{det}=32~\mu\mathrm{m}$. Above this spot, the atomic line density along the $z-$axis is given by $n_\mathrm{at}^\mathrm{max}\cdot\left(\pi R_\mathrm{det}^2\right)=46/100~\mathrm{nm}$. The detection scheme is sensitive to the polarization of the emitted light. This is crucial for discerning surface plasmon excitations from stray light [@Raether88].\
![Radiation properties of a Rubidium atom at a gold surface. **a** Emission rates of a Rubidium atom with orthogonal dipole moment at a distance $z$ from a gold surface. Red line: Radiative emission into the far field ($\gamma_\mathrm{rad}$). Blue solid line: Nonradiative emission into surface plasmons ($\gamma_\mathrm{sp}$). Blue dashed line: Nanoradiative emission into evanescent waves ($\gamma_\mathrm{ew}$). All rates are normalized to the free space emission rate $\gamma_0$. **b** Purcell enhancement factor $\eta_\mathrm{P}=\frac{\gamma_\mathrm{sp}}{\gamma_\mathrm{rad}+\gamma_\mathrm{ew}}$ for a vertical dipole (red line) and a parallel dipole (blue line). The right axis corresponds to the black solid line and indicates the number of atoms in $100~\mathrm{nm}$ thick slices. **c** Radiation coefficient for emission into an angle $\theta$ within the substrate. The solid (dashed) line corresponds to a vertical dipole at a distance of $z=250~(500)~\mathrm{nm}$ from a $d=50~\mathrm{nm}$ thick gold layer on top of a sapphire substrate. The dielectric constants at the relevant wavelength of $\lambda=780~\mathrm{nm}$ are $\epsilon_1=-22.9+i\cdot1.42$ for gold and $\epsilon_2=3.0625$ for sapphire. Obviously, the surface plasmons are coupled into far field radiation in the sapphire substrate with high directionality under the plasmon angle $\theta_\textrm{pl}$. The angle of total reflection $\theta_\textrm{th}$ is that for an interface from sapphire to vacuum. Details on all the simulations are contained in the Supplementary Methods Section.[]{data-label="fig:theory"}](theory.jpg)
Direct coupling between dipolar emitters and surface plasmons has been theoretically described in the context of nonradiative energy transfer [@Chance78; @Sipe81]. The theories are based on a single electric dipole $\vec{d}(t)$ oscillating with frequency $\omega$ at a position $\vec{r}_0$. It generates a radiation field $\vec{E}_0\left(\vec{r},t\right)$. The energy decate rate of the dipole is proportional to the product of the dipole moment and the electric field at the position of the dipole [@Sipe81], $$\gamma=\frac{1}{2}\omega\cdot \mathrm{Im}\left[\vec{d}\cdot\vec{E}_0\left(\vec{r}_0\right)\right]~.$$ When the emitter is placed nearby a surface, also the part of the radiation field which is reflected at the boundary will interact with the dipole. This results in a modified decay rate, see Fig. \[fig:theory\] a). Moreover, also the emission pattern is changed. While in free space light can be emitted only radiatively, i.e. the wavenumber of the emitted light field is given by $k_0=\omega/c$, surfaces provide the possibility of nonradiative emission into bound surface waves. Their normal component of the wavevector is purely imaginary, whereas the parallel component has a value larger than that in free space, $k^\mathrm{sf}_\|>k_0$, i.e. bound surface waves propagate along the surface. Radiative $\gamma_\mathrm{rad}$ and nonradiative $\gamma_\mathrm{nrd}$ contributions to the total decay rate $$\gamma=\gamma_\mathrm{rad}+\gamma_\mathrm{nrd}$$ can thus be separated by a Fourier expansion of $\gamma$ with respect to the dimensionless parameter $\kappa=k^\mathrm{sf}_\|/k_0$ and integration over the corresponding range $\kappa\leq1$ resp. $\kappa>1$ [@Sipe81]. Details on the different decay channels are contained in the Supplementary Methods Section. The theoretical results for a single $^{87}$Rb atoms at a distance $z$ from a gold surface are shown in Fig. \[fig:theory\] a. Here, nonradiative decay is mainly due to coupling to surface plasmon modes, with rate $\gamma_\mathrm{sp}$. These are collective electron oscillations in the metal surface connected with an electromagnetic wave propagating along the surface with wavenumber $k_\mathrm{sp}$. Decay into other bound modes like evanescent waves with rate $\gamma_\mathrm{ew}$ dominates only for very short distances $z\lesssim10~\mathrm{nm}$ [@Chance78]. Due to the symmetry of the problem the excited surface plasmon mode is cylindrically symmetric. For large distances from the atom it is well described by Hankel functions [@Arc09], whereas for short distances where this approach fails, we describe the plasmon mode by the near field of a dipole close to a perfect conductor using the image dipole method. Details on the plasmon mode and its parameters are contained in the Supplementary Methods Section. Please note, that atomic collective effects can occur in dense ensembles of emitters which further influence the emission properties. In our setup atomic collective effects cannot be observed due to the low atomic density with a mean interatomic distance of $1.9~\mu\mathrm{m}$. Details on possible atomic collective effects are contained in the Supplementary Methods Section.\
The efficiency of the direct coupling to surface plasmons is defined via the Purcell factor [@Chang07; @Chang07b] $$\eta_\mathrm{P}=\frac{\gamma_\mathrm{sp}}{\gamma_\mathrm{rad}+\gamma_\mathrm{ew}}~.$$ Please note, that a large Purcell enhancement $\eta_\mathrm{P}>1$ is equivalent to the regime of high cooperativity in cqed [@Tanji11]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:theory\] b $^{87}$Rb atoms in a distance range of $20~\mathrm{nm}<z<410~\mathrm{nm}$ are coupled to plasmons in the gold surface with high cooperativity, if their atomic dipoles are oscillating vertically to the surface. In contrast, atoms with parallelly oscillating dipoles (with respect to the surface) do not reach the regime of high cooperativity. A pecularity of atoms as compared to molecules and quantum dots is the fact that the dipolar oscillation axis is not fixed by the orientation of the particle (the polarizability of an atom is radially symmetric), but it is parallel to the electric field of the exciting laser. Thus, the dipolar orientation can, in principle, be adjusted by the polarization of the incident laser pulse. In the present experiment the magnetic offset field of the trapping potential leads to a substantial Faraday rotation of the laser beam polarization while it propagates through the atom cloud. This reduces the number of vertically oscillating dipoles by $1/2$ and the plasmon excitation becomes independent of the pump laser polarization. The theory [@Sipe81] describes also the angular dependence of photons emitted into the substrate. The radiation coefficient for emission at an angle $\theta$ (see Fig. \[fig:setup\] b) is given by $$\label{eq:b}
b(\theta,z)=\frac{3}{8\pi}n_2\frac{k_x^2}{k_0^2}\left|T_{012}^p\frac{k_{z2}}{k_{z0}}\right|^2 e^{-2\mathrm{Im}(k_{z0})z}~,$$ with parallel (to surface) wavevector $k_x$, free space wavevector $k_0=2\pi/\lambda$, and normal (to surface) wavevectors $k_{zj}$ in vacuum ($j=0$) and sapphire ($j=2$). The Fresnel field transmission coefficient $T_{012}^p$ is calculated for the considered three layer system (vacuum / $50~\mathrm{nm}$ gold layer / sapphire substrate) and incident parallel electric field oscillation. Details on the simulatoin are contained in the Supplementary Methods Section. The considered dipole is oscillating vertically at a distance $z$ from the surface. The radiation coefficient is normalized to the free space decay rate $\gamma_0$ such that the decay rate into a solid angle $\Delta\Omega$ of the substrate is given by $$\label{eq:gamma2}
\gamma_2(\theta,\Delta\Omega,z)=\gamma_0\cdot\int b(\theta,z) d\Omega~.$$ Once excited, the plasmons emit photons highly directionally into the substrate under the so-called plasmon angle $\theta_\mathrm{pl}$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:theory\] c. Please note that due to the rotational symmetry of the plasmon mode photons are emitted on the surface of a cone, see Fig. \[fig:setup\] b.\
![Measured photon numbers. **a** Number of detected p- and s-polarized photons at an angle of $\theta-\theta_\mathrm{th}=0.9^\circ$ above the gold surface and above the plain sapphire substrate. The position $z_0$ is the distance of the cloud center to the surface. **b** The photon number difference $\Delta N_\mathrm{det}=N_\mathrm{det}^\mathrm{p}-N_\mathrm{det}^\mathrm{s}$ at a distance of $z_0=41~\mu\mathrm{m}$ has a maximum at the plasmon angle above gold. The solid line is a simulation of nonradiative coupling of the atomic emission to the surface plasmon mode. The only fit parameter in this simulation is a loss factor $\eta_\mathrm{add}=0.36$ comprising the fibre coupling efficiency of the emitted light and additional losses at optical elements. Above the plain sapphire substrate no maximum is observed. The increase for small angles can be attributed to Fresnel transmission of light through surface roughness.[]{data-label="fig:photons"}](photzahl,arxiv.jpg)
The number of detected photons $N_\mathrm{det}^\mathrm{p,s}$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig:photons\] a versus the trap center distance $z_0$ from the surface. As the atoms in the trap are moved towards the surface the number of detected photons is increasing. This general behavior is observed for both polarizations ($s$ and $p$) of the detected light and can be explained by the fact that more photons impinge on the surface when the atoms are closer. Negative values of $z_0$ correspond to trap centers which are inside the dielectric substrate for which the number of detected photons is decreasing. This decrease is caused by a loss of atoms from the trap as soon as they get into physical contact with the surface. The interesting feature in Fig. \[fig:photons\]a is observed at distances $0\lesssim z_0\lesssim 120~\mu\mathrm{m}$ which are comparable to the radial extension of the cloud such that a sufficient number of atoms can be found at submicron distance from the surface. At such distances an excess of p-polarized photons $N_\mathrm{det}^\mathrm{p}$ as compared to s-polarized photons $N_\mathrm{det}^\mathrm{s}$ is observed above gold. We attribute this excess to the excitation of surface plasmons. Thus, the following analysis concentrates on the observed photon difference $$\Delta N_\mathrm{det}=N_\mathrm{det}^\mathrm{p}-N_\mathrm{det}^\mathrm{s}~.$$ In Fig. \[fig:photons\] b the measured angular dependence of $\Delta N_\mathrm{det}$ is shown comparing data which were obtained above the gold layer with data that were taken above the plain sapphire substrate. A maximum of $\Delta N_\mathrm{det}$ is observed at the plasmon angle $\theta_\mathrm{pl}$ above gold. This is caused by the directive emission of surface plasmons into the substrate as calculated theoretically in Fig. \[fig:theory\] c. We simulate this angular dependence by integration of Eq. \[eq:gamma2\] $$\label{eq:photnumber}
\Delta N_\mathrm{sim}=\int\left( n_\mathrm{at}(\vec r)\cdot n_\mathrm{rel}(z)\cdot\gamma_2(\theta,\Delta\Omega,z)\cdot\eta_\mathrm{ges}\cdot T_\mathrm{WW}\right)d^3r$$ over the density of the atomic cloud $n_\mathrm{at}$ with interaction time $T_\mathrm{WW}$. The latter is given by the average time it takes for an atom with initial velocity zero to be detuned out of resonance due to radiation pressure. For $^{87}$Rb atoms illuminted with saturation intensity the interaction time is $T_\mathrm{WW}=84~\mu\mathrm{s}$ [@CohenTannoudji92]. The factor $n_\mathrm{rel}(z)$ describes the reduction of atomic density due to the accelerating influence of surface potentials, as determined in the Supplementary Methods. We integrate numerically in the radial direction over the detectable spot size with radius $R_\mathrm{det}$ and in the orthogonal direction from $z=0$ to $z=2~\mu\mathrm{m}$. We have checked that larger values for the upper integration limit do not change the result. The factor $$\eta_\mathrm{ges}=\eta_\mathrm{qe}\cdot\eta_\mathrm{coh}\cdot\eta_\mathrm{ort}\cdot\eta_\mathrm{add}=0.015$$ in Eq. \[eq:photnumber\] includes the quantum efficiency of the single photon counter $\eta_\mathrm{qe}=0.66$, the coherent scattering rate factor $\eta_\mathrm{coh}=\gamma_\mathrm{coh}/\gamma_0=0.125$ at saturation intensity, the fraction of orthogonally oscillating dipoles $\eta_\mathrm{ort}=0.5$ due to Faraday rotation of the exciting laser field, and a factor $\eta_\mathrm{add}=0.36$ comprising any additional reduction of the overall detection efficiency, e.g. due to coupling of light into the optical multimode fibre and losses by optical elements. The obtained theoretical curve fits very well to the measured photon numbers in Fig. \[fig:photons\] b. Another signature that emphasizes the role of surface plasmons is the fact that above sapphire, where plasmons do not exist, no peak is observed in $\Delta N_\mathrm{det}$. The additional increase of $\Delta N_\mathrm{det}$ above both substrates (gold and sapphire) at angles very close to the angle of total reflection $\theta_\mathrm{th}$ is attributed to the fact that part of the detected angle range $d \theta$ covers angles smaller than $\theta_\mathrm{th}$. Thus, some of the light which is emitted by the atoms can be transmitted directly through the surface. This behavior is confirmed by a simulation including the angular emission pattern of the atoms and Fresnel transmission into the substrate. Details on this simulation are contained in the Supplementary Methods Section. The simulation for sapphire is plotted as dashed line in Fig. \[fig:photons\] b and explains the observation qualitatively. The quantitative deviation is attributed to surface roughness which is not taken into account in the simulations and which shifts the simulated curve to larger values of $\theta$.\
![Measured spectrum. Red circles show the detected photon number $N_\mathrm{det}$ at an emission angle of $\theta-\theta_\mathrm{th}=0.9^\circ$ and cloud distance $z_0=41~\mu\mathrm{m}$. The data points are fitted by a model (solid line) including a constant offset $N_\mathrm{offset}$, a Lorentzian curve with amplitude $N_\mathrm{scatt}$ due to photons scattered by atoms far away from the surface and cooperatively coupled photons due to atoms very close to the surface that lead to a Fano profile. The dash-dotted line corresponds to the spectrum without the Fano contribution. For comparison, a reference spectrum (blue circles) was recorded simultaneously by saturation spectroscopy in a Rubidium vapor cell.[]{data-label="fig:spectrum"}](spectrum.jpg)
Even more information on the details of the coupling can be obtained from the spectrum. Strong coupling can e.g. be identified by a splitting of the spectrum. Although the present experiment is far from the strong coupling regime, a dip in the measured spectrum is observed, see Fig \[fig:spectrum\]. This dip can be attributed to a Fano resonance in the excitation of surface plasmons [@Fano61] as observed in a number of experiments in nanophotonics, see [@Fan14] and references therein. A Fano resonance is based on the coupling of a discrete state $|\chi\rangle$ via another discrete state $|\phi\rangle$ to a continuum of states $|k\rangle$ and the interference of this decay channel to the direct decay of $|\chi\rangle$ into $|k\rangle$ [@CohenTannoudji92]. The line profile of a Fano resonance is given by $$\label{eq:Fano1}
S_\mathrm{Fano}(\Delta)=\frac{\left|q_F+\frac{\Delta}{\gamma/2}\right|^2}{1+\left(\frac{\Delta}{\gamma/2}\right)^2}~,$$ with decay rate $\gamma$ of state $|\phi\rangle$ and detuning $\Delta$. The Fano parameter $q_F$ is determined by the ratio of the resonant scattering amplitude (via the intermediate level) to the nonresonant scattering amplitude (direct channel). In our experiment the incident state is $|\chi\rangle=|N\rangle_{L}|g\rangle|0\rangle_{k_\mathrm{SP}}$, with $N$ photons in the pump laser field, the atom in the ground state $|g\rangle$ and zero photons in the surface plasmon mode with wavevector $k_\mathrm{SP}$. In the intermediate state, the atom has absorbed one photon from the pump laser field and has been excited into state $|e\rangle$, i.e. $|\phi\rangle=|N-1\rangle_{L}|e\rangle|0\rangle_{k_{SP}}$, and the final state $|f\rangle$ is the one where the photon has passed to the surface plasmon mode, i.e. $|f\rangle=|N-1\rangle_{L}|g\rangle|1\rangle_{k_{SP}}$. The final state can be reached whether (1) via the fluorescence of an atom (cooperative coupling) or (2) by direct excitation of the surface plasmon by the pump laser field. The latter process can occur due to surface roughness and is observed in Fig. \[fig:photons\] a), where an excess of p-polarized photons $\Delta N_\mathrm{direct}\approx 1$ is measured even when the atom cloud is still far away from the surface, resp. when it is lost due to surface interactions. This background excitation has to be compared with the situation when the atoms interact with the surface and excite surface plasmons by cooperative coupling, with $\Delta N_\mathrm{max}\approx 3$. The Fano parameter can thus be estimated by $$\label{eq:Fanoparameter}
q_F=\left(\frac{\Delta N_\mathrm{max}-\Delta N_\mathrm{direct}}{\Delta N_\mathrm{direct}}\right)^{1/2}\approx\sqrt{2}~,$$ in which the square root is due to the fact that the observed photon numbers are given by the square of the scattering amplitudes. The spectrum in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\] shows the number of detected photons while tuning the laser frequency across the Rubidium resonance. The measured signal is composed of (i) stray light (a constant offset), (ii) light scattered from atoms far away from the surface (a Lorentzian line shape) and (iii) excitation of surface plasmons (a Fano resonance). The measured data are thus fitted by the sum of the three contributions $$\label{eq:Fano2}
N_\mathrm{det}^p(\Delta)=A_\mathrm{offset}+ A_{\text{scatt}}\frac{\gamma _{\text{scatt}}^{2}}{\gamma _{\text{scatt}}^{2}+4\left( \Delta -\delta _{\text{scatt}}\right) ^{2}}+ A_{\text{F}}\frac{\left|q_F+\frac{\Delta-\delta _{\text{F}}}{\gamma/2}\right|^2}{1+\left(\frac{\Delta-\delta _{\text{F}}}{\gamma/2}\right)^2}~.$$ The best fit is obtained for amplitudes $A_\mathrm{offset}=14.5$, $A_{\text{scatt}}=6.8$, $A_{\text{F}}=1.0$, shifts of the resonance curves relative to a simultaneously recorded saturation spectrum of $\delta _{\text{scatt}}=2\pi\times1~\mathrm{MHz}$ and $\delta _{\text{F}}=2\pi\times10~\mathrm{MHz}$ and a broadening of the Lorentzian curve which is incorporated in $\gamma _{\text{scatt}}=2\pi\times16.5~\mathrm{MHz}$. Broadening and shifts can be explained by Zeeman-shifts of the transition frequencies due to magnetic trapping fields in the vacuum chamber on the order of ten Gauss. The width of the Fano resonance was held fixed at a value of $\gamma=\gamma_0=2\pi\times6~\mathrm{MHz}$. The Fano resonance itself is not broadened, because contributing atoms stem from a very thin layer above the surface.\
Concluding, we have observed cooperative coupling between ultracold atoms and surface plasmons. Clouds of cold atoms are positioned in a magnetic trap at the surface of a sapphire substrate which is coated with a thin gold layer. From there the atoms move over a potential barrier towards the surface. They are illuminated and excited with a laser pulse and, depending on the distance of the atoms from the surface, the atomic excitation decays with high probability into surface plasmons that propagate along the metal surface. The plasmons are detected via photons that are emitted into the substrate. If the cloud is close enough to the surface more p-polarized than s-polarized photons are detected which is a signature of surface plasmons. The number of detected photons and the observed angular dependence of the emitted light fit quantitatively very well to the theoretical prediction with a maximum Purcell enhancement at a distance of $z_\mathrm{min}=250~\mathrm{nm}$ of $\eta_\mathrm{P}=4.9$. The recorded spectrum is asymmetric and can be explained by a Fano-like interference of surface plasmons excited via cooperative coupling and direct excitation of surface plasmons via surface roughness. Presently, the experiment is still far away from the strong coupling regime in which single atoms can perform full vacuum Rabi oscillations with plasmonic excitations. However, enhanced coupling may be reached by replacing the plane gold surface by a plasmonic nanostructure which acts as a cavity for surface plasmons. For a $\left(\lambda\times\lambda\right)-$metal square field ($\lambda=780~\mathrm{nm}$) with cavity mode volume of $V_\mathrm{mode}\sim\lambda^3$ the coupling constant is $$\label{eq:couplingconstant}
g=\sqrt{3\pi\gamma_0c^3/\omega_0^2V_\mathrm{mode}}\sim2\pi\times10~\mathrm{GHz}~.$$ A further enhancement of the coupling constant may by achieved by collective atomic effects, in which many atoms couple simultaneously to the same plasmon mode. While the atomic density in the present experiment is on the order of $n_\mathrm{at}^\mathrm{max}\sim10^{17}~\mathrm{m}^{-3}$, typical densities in Bose-Einstein condensates on the order of $n_\mathrm{at}^\mathrm{max}\sim10^{20}~\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ are achievable. These results and perspectives demonstrate that hybrid systems consisting of cold atoms and surface plasmons have the potential for photonic devices on the single photon level with coupling constants hitherto unreached in cold atom experiments. Moreover, cooperative coupling of individual atoms with surface plasmons may lead to long-range interactions between different atoms for slightly increased atomic densities. The emission properties can then be more complex than for a single atom with quantum correlations arising between the atoms [@Choquette10].
[10]{} Haroche, S. & Raimond, J.-M. *Exploring the quantum: Atoms, Cavities, Photons.* (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2006). Imamoglu, A. & Yamamoto, Y. Turnstile device for heralded single photons: coulomb blockade of electron and hole tunneling in quantum confined p-i-n heterojunctions. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **72**, 210-213 (2011). Kim, J., Benson, O., Kan, H. & Yamamoto, Y. A Single-photon turnstile device. *Nature* **397**, 500-503 (1999). He, Y.-M. et al. On-demand semiconductor single-photon source with near-unity indistinguishability. *Nature Nanotech.* **8**, 213-217 (2013). Englund, D. et al. Controlling the spontaneous emission rate of single quantum in a two-dimensional photonic crystal. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **95**, 013904 (2005). Yamamoto, Y. & Imamoglu, A. *Mesoscopic Quantum Optics.* (Wiley & Sons, 1999). Birnbaum, K.M. et al. Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom. *Nature* **436**, 87-90 (2005). Peyronel, T. et al. Quantum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms. *Nature* **488**, 57-60 (2012). Volz, T. et al. Ultrafast all-optical switching by single photons. *Nature Phot.* **6**, 605-609 (2012). Chang, D.E., Sørensen, A.S., Demler, E.A. & Lukin, M.D. A single-photon transistor using nanoscale surface plasmons. *Nature Phys.* **3**, 807 - 812 (2007). Neumeier, L., Leib, M. & Hartmann, M.J. et al. Single-Photon Transistor in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **111**, 063601 (2013). Kimble, H.J. Strong interactions of single atoms and photons in cavity qed. *Physica Scripta T* **76**, 127 (1998). Khitrova, G., Gibbs, H.M., Kira, M., Koch, S.W. & Scherer, A. Vacuum Rabi splitting in semiconductors. *Nature Phys.* **2**, 81-90 (2006). Benson, O. Assembly of hybrid photonic architectures from nanophotonic constituents. *Nature* **480**, 193-199 (2011). Barnes, W.L., Dereux, A. & Ebbesen, T.W. Surface plasmon subwavelength optics. *Nature* **424**, 824-830 (2003). Gramotnev, D.K. & Bozhevolnyi, S.I. Plasmonics beyond the diffraction limit. *Nature Photon.* **4**, 83-91 (2010). Schuller, J.A. et al. Plasmonics for extreme light concentration and manipulation. *Nature Mater.* **9**, 193-204 (2010). Weber, W.H. & Eagen, C.F. Energy transfer from an excited dye molecule to the surface plasmons of an adjacent metal. *Opt. Lett.* **4**, 236-238 (1979). Pockrand, I. & Brillante, A. Nonradiative Decay Of Excited Molecules Near A Metal Surface. *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **69**, 499-504 (1980). Chang, D.E., Sørensen, A.S., Hemmer, P.R. & Lukin, M.D. Quantum Optics with Surface Plasmons. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **97**, 053002 (2006). Tame, M.S., McEnery, K.R., Özdemir, S.K., Lee, J., Maier, S.A. & Kim, M.S. Quantum Plasmonics. *Nature Phys.* **9**, 329 - 340 (2013). Amos, R.M., & Barnes, W.L. Modification of the spontaneous emission rate of Eu$^{3+}$ ions close to a thin metal mirror. *Phys. Rev. B* **55**, 7249-7254 (1997). Anger, P., Bharadwaj, P. & Novotny, L. Enhancement and Quenching of Single-Molecule Fluorescence. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **96**, 113002 (2006). Andersen, M.L., Stobbe, S., Sørensen, A.S. & Lodahl, P. Strongly modified plasmons-matter interaction with mesoscopic quantum emitters *Nature Phys.* **7**, 215 - 218 (2010). Akimov, A.V. et al. Generation of single optical plasmons in metallic nanowires coupled to quantum dots. *Nature* **450**, 402 - 406 (2007). Huck, A., Kumar, S., Shakoor, A. & Andersen, U.L. Controlled Coupling of a Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Center to a Silver Nanowire. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **106**, 096801 (2011). Bellessa, J., Bonnand, C. & Plenet, J.C. Strong coupling between Surface Plasmons and Excitons in an Organic Semiconductor. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **93**, 036404 (2004). Dintinger, J., Klein, S., Bustos, F., Barnes, W.L. & Ebbesen, T.W. Strong coupling between surface plasmon-polaritons and organic molecules in subwavelength hole arrays. *Phys. Rev. B* **71**, 035424 (2005). Vasa, P. et al. Coherent Exciton-Surface-Plasmon-Polariton Interaction in Hybrid Metal-Semiconductor Nanostructures. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **101**, 116801 (2008). Hakala, T.K. et al. Vacuum Rabi Splitting and Strong-Coupling Dynamics for Surface-Plasmon Polaritons and Rhodamine 6G Molecules. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **103**, 053602 (2009). Gómez, D.E. , Vernon, K.C., Mulvaney, P. & Davis, T.J. Surface Plasmon Mediated Strong Exciton-Photon Coupling in Semiconductor Nanocrystals. *Nano Lett.* **10**, 274-278 (2010). Schwartz, T., Hutchison, J.A., Genet, C. & Ebbesen, T.W. Reversible Switching of Ultrastrong Light-Molecule Coupling. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **106**, 196405 (2011). Aberra Guebrou, S. et al. Coherent Emission from a Disordered Organic Semiconductor Induced by Strong Coupling with Surface Plasmons. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **108**, 066401 (2012). González-Tudela, A., Huidobro, P.A., Martín-Moreno, C. & García-Vidal, F.J. Theory of Strong Coupling between Quantum Emitters and Propagating Surface Plasmons. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110**, 126801 (2013). Chang, D.E. et al. Trapping and Manipulation of Isolated Atoms Using Nanoscale Plasmonic Structures. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **103**, 123004 (2009). Murphy, B. & Hau, L.V. Electro-Optical Nanotraps for Neutral Atoms. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **102**, 033003 (2009). Gullans, M. et al. Nanoplasmonic Lattices for Ultracold Atoms. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **109**, 235309 (2012). Righini, M., Zelenina, A.S., Girard, C. & Quidant, R. Parallel and selective trapping in a patterned plasmonic landscape. *Nature Phys.* **3**, 477-480 (2007). Anderson, M.H., Ensher, J.R., Matthews, M.R., Wieman, C.E. & Cornell, E.A. Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor. *Science* **269**, 198-201 (1995). Fortágh, J. & Zimmermann, C. Magnetic microtraps for ultracold atoms. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **79**, 235-289 (2007). Grimm, R., Weidemüller, M. & Ovchinnikov, Y.B. Optical Dipole Traps for Neutral Atoms. *Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys.* **42**, 95-170 (2000). Wilk, T. et al. Entanglement of Two Individual Neutral Atoms Using Rydberg Blockade. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **104**, 010502 (2010). Juliá-Díaz, B., Graß, T., Dutta, O., Chang, D.E. & Lewenstein, M. Engineering p-wave interactions in ultracold atoms using nanoplasmonic traps. *Nature Commun.* **4**, 2046 (2013). Chang, D.E., Cirac, J.I. & Kimble, H.J. Self-Organization of Atoms along a Nanophotonic Waveguide. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110**, 113606 (2013). Thompson, J.D. et al. Coupling a Single Trapped Atom to a Nanoscale Optical Cavity. *Science* **340**, 1202-1205 (2013). Goban, A. et al. Atom–light interactions in photonic crystals. *Nature Commun.* **5**, 3808 (2014). Esslinger, T., Weidemüller, M., Hemmerich, A. & Hänsch, T.W. Surface-plasmon mirror for atoms. *Opt. Lett.* **18**, 450-452 (1993). Feron, S. et al. Reflection of metastable neon atoms by a surface plasmon wave. *Opt. Comm.* **102**, 83-88 (1993). Schneble, D., Hasuo, M., Anker, T., Pfau, T. & Mlynek, J. Detection of cold metastable atoms at a surface. *Rev. Sci. Instr.* **74**, 2685-2689 (2003). Stehle, C. et al. Plasmonically tailored micropotentials for ultracold atoms. *Nature Photon.* **5**, 494-498 (2011). Hohenau, A. et al. Surface plasmon leakage radiation microscopy at the diffraction limit. *Opt. Exp.* **19**, 25749-25762 (2011). Raether, H. *Surface Plasmons on Smooth and Rough Surfaces and on Gratings* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988). Chance, R.R., Prock, A. & Silbey. R. Molecular Fluorescence And Energy Transfer Near Interfaces. *Adv. Chem. Phys.* **37**, 1-65 (1978). Sipe, J.E. The Dipole Antenna Problem In Surface Physics: A New Approach. *Surf. Science* **105**, 489-504 (1981). Archambault, A., Teperik, T.V. , Marquier, F. & Greffet, J.J. Surface plasmon Fourier optics. *Phys. Rev. B* **79**, 195414 (2009). Chang, D.E., Sørensen, A.S., Hemmer, P.R. & Lukin, M.D. Strong coupling of single emitters to surface plasmons. *Phys. Rev. B* **76**, 035420 (2007). Tanji-Suzuki, H. et al. Interaction between Atomic Ensembles and Optical Resonatots: Classical description. *Adv.At.Mol.Opt.Phys.* **60**, 201 (2011). Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Dupont-Roc, J. & Grynberg, G. *Atom-photon interactions, basic processes and applications* (Wiley, New York, 1992). Fano, U. Effects of configuration interaction on intensities and phase shifts. *Phys. Rev.* **124**, 1866–1878 (1961). Fan, P., Yu, Z., Fan, S. & Brongersma, M.L. Optical Fano resonance of an individual semiconductor nanostructure. *Nature Mater.* **13**, 471–475 (2014). Choquette, J.J., Marzlin, K.-P. & Sanders, B.C. Superradiance, subradiance, and suppressed superradiance of dipoles near a metal interface *Phys. Rev. A* **82**, 023827 (2010). Stratton, J.A. *Electromagnetic Theory, Chapter 9.8* (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1941). Archambault, A., Teperik, T.V. , Marquier, F. & Greffet, J.J. Surface plasmon Fourier optics. *Phys. Rev. B* **79**, 195414 (2009). Bender, H. et al. Cooperative Scattering by Cold Atoms. *J. Mod. Opt.* **57**, 1841-1848 (2010). Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Dupont-Roc, J. & Grynberg, G. *Atom-photon interactions, basic processes and applications* (Wiley, New York, 1992).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we present rotational and self-similar solutions for the compressible Euler equations in $R^{3}$ using the separation method. These solutions partly complement Yuen’s irrotational and elliptic solutions in $R^{3}$ \[*Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.* **17** (2012), 4524–4528\] as well as rotational and radial solutions in $R^{2}$ \[*Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.* **19** (2014), 2172–2180\]. A newly deduced Emden dynamical system is obtained. Some blowup phenomena and global existences of the responding solutions can be determined. The 3D rotational solutions provide concrete reference examples for vortices in computational fluid dynamics.
MSC: 76U05, 35C05, 35C06, 35Q31, 35R35
Key Words: Compressible Euler Equations, Rotational Solutions, Self-similar Solutions, Symmetry Reduction, Vortices, 3-dimension, Navier-Stokes Equations
author:
- |
M<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">anwai Yuen[^1]</span>\
*Department of Mathematics and Information Technology,*\
*The Hong Kong Institute of Education,*\
*10 Lo Ling Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong*
date: 'Revised 24-Sept-2014'
title: '**Rotational and Self-similar Solutions for the Compressible Euler Equations in** $R^{3}$'
---
Introduction
============
In fluid dynamics, the $N$-dimensional isentropic compressible Euler equations are expressed as follows:$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{rl}{\normalsize \rho}_{t}{\normalsize +\nabla\cdot(\rho\vec{u})} &
{\normalsize =}{\normalsize 0,}\\[0.08in]\rho\lbrack\vec{u}_{t}+(\vec{u}\cdot\nabla)\vec{u}]+K\nabla\rho^{\gamma} & =0,
\end{array}
\right. \label{EulerEq}$$ where $\rho=\rho(t,\vec{x})$ denotes the density of the fluid, $\vec{u}=\vec{u}(t,\vec{x})=(u_{1},u_{2},\cdots,u_{N})\in R^{N}$ is the velocity, $\vec{x}=(x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{N})\in R^{N}$, that we use $x_{1}=x$, $x_{2}=y$ and $x_{3}=z$ for $N\leq3$ and $K>0,\;\gamma\geq1$ are constants.
Basically, these Euler equations are a set of equations that govern the inviscid flow of a fluid. The first and second equations of (\[EulerEq\]) represent, respectively, the conservation of mass and the momentum of the fluid.
The Euler equations have applications in many mathematical physics subjects, such as fluids, plasmas, condensed matter, astrophysics, oceanography and atmospheric dynamics. For real-life applications, they can be used in the study of turbulence, weather forecasting and the prediction of earthquakes and the explosion of supernovas.
The Euler equations are the basic model of shallow water flows [@ConstantinA]. In [@Einzel], they are used to model the super-fluids produced by Bose-Einstein condensates in the dilute gases of alkali metals, in which identical gases do not interact at very low temperatures. However, at the microscopic level, fluids or gases are formed by many tiny discrete molecules or particles that collide with one another. As the cost of directly calculating the particle-to-particle or molecule-to-molecule evolution of the fluids on a large scale is expensive, approximation methods are needed to considerably simplify the process. An example of an approximation method is given in [@CIP], where the Euler equations are used to describe the behavior of fluids at the statistical limit of a large number of small ideal molecules or particles by ignoring the less influential effects, such as self-gravitational forces and the relativistic effect. The detailed derivation of the Euler equations can be found in [@Lion] and [@CW].
The construction of analytical or exact solutions is an important area in mathematical physics and applied mathematics, as it can further classify nonlinear phenomena. For non-rotational flows, Makino first obtained the radial symmetry solutions for the Euler equations (\[EulerEq\]) in $R^{N}$ in 1993 [@Makino93exactsolutions]. A number of special solutions for these equations [@LW] and [@Yuen3DexactEuler] were subsequently obtained. Yuen later obtained a class of self-similar solutions with elliptical symmetry in 2012 [@YuenCNSNS2012]. For rotational flows, Zhang and Zheng constructed explicitly rotational solutions for the Euler equations with $\gamma=2$ and $N=2$ in 1997 [@ZZ]. In 2014, Yuen obtained a class of rotational solutions for the compressible Euler equations (\[EulerEq\]) for $\gamma>1$ in 2D in [@YuenCNSNS2014]:$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\rho=\frac{\max\left( \left( -\frac{\lambda(\gamma-1)}{2K\gamma}\eta
+\alpha\right) ^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}},\text{ }0\right) }{a^{2}(t)},\\
u_{1}=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\text{,}\\
u_{2}=\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\text{,}\\
\ddot{a}(t)-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}=\frac{\lambda}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)}\text{,
}a(0)=a_{0}>0\text{, }\dot{a}(0)=a_{1},
\end{array}
\right. \label{2-Dg>1Rotation}$$ with a self-similar variable $\eta=\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}(t)}$ and arbitrary constants $\lambda$, $\alpha\geq0$, $\xi\neq0,$ $a_{0}$ and $a_{1}$.
For the physical applications of the similar solutions for the compressible Euler equations, readers may refer to [@Sedov; @Ba; @Ba2; @Barna; @CN].
Based on the works in [@YuenCNSNS2012] and [@YuenCNSNS2014], we obtain novel rotational and self-similar solutions for the 3D compressible Euler equations (\[EulerEq\]).
\[thm:1\]For the compressible Euler equations (\[EulerEq\]) in $R^{3}$, there exists a family of rotational and self-similar solutions$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\rho=\frac{f\left( s\right) }{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\text{, }\\
u_{1}=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\text{,}\\
u_{2}=\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\text{,}\\
u_{3}=\frac{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z\text{,}\end{array}
\right. \label{YuenSolution3DRotational}$$ with a variable $s=\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}(t)}+\frac{z^{2}}{b^{2}(t)}$ and $$f(s)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}\alpha e^{-\frac{\lambda}{2K}s}\text{\quad\quad for }\gamma=1\text{,}\\[0.02in]\max\left( \left( -\frac{\lambda(\gamma-1)}{2K\gamma}s+\alpha\right)
^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}},\text{ }0\right) \text{ \ \ for }\gamma>1\text{,}\end{array}
\right. \label{Solution5}$$ and the corresponding Emden system$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\ddot{a}(t)-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}=\frac{\lambda}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)},\text{ }a(0)=a_{0}>0,\text{ }\dot{a}(0)=a_{1}\text{,}\\
\ddot{b}(t)=\frac{\lambda}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\text{, }b(0)=b_{0}>0,\text{ }\dot{b}(0)=b_{1}\text{,}\end{array}
\right. \label{Solution6}$$ where $\xi\neq0$, $\lambda$, $\alpha\geq0$, $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$, $b_{0}$ and $b_{1}$ are arbitrary constants.In particular, if any one following condition is further fulfilled,(1) with $\gamma=1$;(2) with $\gamma>1$,(2a) $\lambda\leq0$ or(2b) $\lambda>0$ and $\gamma<2,$solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) are $C^{1}$.
Solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) of the compressible Euler equations (\[EulerEq\]) in $R^{3}$ are very efficient for testing the accuracy of many numerical solutions about vortices in computational fluid dynamics. In particular, the 3D rotational solutions provide concrete reference examples for modeling typhoons in oceans.
For the compressible Euler equations (\[EulerEq\]) in $R^{3}$, the rotational solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) correspond to Yuen’s irrotational and elliptic solutions in $R^{3}$ [@YuenCNSNS2012] as well as rotational and radial solutions in $R^{2}$ [@YuenCNSNS2014].
Rotational and Self-similar Solutions
======================================
To prove Theorem 1, we need the following novel lemma for the three-dimensional mass equation (\[EulerEq\])$_{1}$.
\[lem:generalsolutionformasseqrotation3d\]For the equation of the conservation of mass (\[EulerEq\])$_{1}$ in $R^{3}$,$$\rho_{t}+\nabla\cdot\left( \rho\vec{u}\right) =0, \label{MassLemma}$$ there exists a family of solutions,$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\rho=\frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)},\\
u_{1}=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-G(t)y,\\
u_{2}=G(t)x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y,\\
u_{3}=\frac{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z,
\end{array}
\right. \label{FunctionalLemma}$$ with a self-similar variable $s=\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}(t)}+\frac{z^{2}}{b^{2}(t)}$ and arbitrary $C^{1}$ functions $f(s)\geq0$, $G(t)$, $a(t)>0$ and $b(t)>0$.
By substituting the corresponding functions (\[FunctionalLemma\]) for $\rho$ and $\vec{u}$ into the mass equation (\[MassLemma\]) in $R^{3}$, we obtain$$\rho_{t}+\nabla\cdot\left( \rho\vec{u}\right)$$$$=\rho_{t}+\nabla\rho\cdot\vec{u}+\rho\nabla\cdot\vec{u}$$$$\begin{aligned}
& =\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\right]
+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ \frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\right] \left(
\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-G(t)y\right) \nonumber\\
& +\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left[ \frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\right]
\left( G(t)x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right) +\frac{\partial}{\partial
z}\left[ \frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\right] \frac{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z+\frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\left[ 2\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}+\frac{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}\right] \\
& =-\frac{2\dot{a}(t)f(s)}{a^{3}(t)b(t)}-\frac{\dot{b}(t)f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b^{2}(t)}+\frac{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\left[ \frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}\left( -2\dot{a}(t)\right) +\frac{z^{2}}{b^{3}(t)}(-2\dot
{b}(t))\right] \nonumber\\
& +\frac{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\frac{2x}{a^{2}(t)}\left( \frac{\dot
{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-G(t)y\right) +\frac{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\frac{2y}{a^{2}(t)}\left( G(t)x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right) \nonumber\\
& +\frac{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\frac{2z}{b^{2}(t)}\frac{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z+\frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\left[ 2\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}+\frac
{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}\right] \\
& =\frac{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\left[ \frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}\left(
-2\dot{a}(t)\right) +\frac{z^{2}}{b^{3}(t)}(-2\dot{b}(t))\right] +\frac
{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\frac{2x}{a^{2}(t)}\left( \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-G(t)y\right) \nonumber\\
& +\frac{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\frac{2y}{a^{2}(t)}\left( G(t)x+\frac
{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right) +\frac{\dot{f}(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\frac{2z}{b^{2}(t)}\frac{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z\\
& =0\text{.}$$ The proof is complete.
We are now in a position to prove Theorem 1.
\[Proof of Theorem 1\]By the above lemma, functions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) can be applied to solve the mass equation (\[EulerEq\])$_{1}$ in $R^{3}$ with arbitrary $C^{1}$ functions $f(s)\geq0$, $a(t)>0$ and $b(t)>0$.For the first momentum equation (\[EulerEq\])$_{2,1}$, we have$$\begin{aligned}
& \rho\left( u_{1t}+u_{1}u_{1x}+u_{2}u_{1y}+u_{3}u_{1z}\right)
+K\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ \frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\right]
^{\gamma}\\
& =\rho\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\right] +\left[ \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\right] \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\right] \\
+\left[ \frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right] \frac
{\partial}{\partial y}\left[ \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\right]
\end{array}
\right\} \nonumber\\
& +K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-1}(s)}{a^{2\gamma}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2x}{a^{2}(t)}\\
& =\rho\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\left( -\frac{\dot{a}^{2}(t)}{a^{2}(t)}+\frac{\ddot{a}(t)}{a(t)}\right)
x+2\frac{\xi\dot{a}(t)}{a^{3}(t)}y+\left[ \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi
}{a^{2}(t)}y\right] \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}\\
-\left[ \frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right] \frac{\xi
}{a^{2}(t)}\end{array}
\right\} \nonumber\\
& +K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-1}(s)}{a^{2\gamma}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2x}{a^{2}(t)}\\
& =\rho\left\{ \left[ \frac{\ddot{a}(t)}{a(t)}-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{4}(t)}\right] x+K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-2}(s)}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2x}{a^{2}(t)}\right\} \\
& =\frac{\rho}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)}\frac{x}{a(t)}\left\{ \left[
\left( \ddot{a}(t)-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}\right) a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)\right] +2K\gamma f^{\gamma-2}(s)\dot{f}(s)\right\} \\
& =\frac{\rho}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)}\frac{x}{a(t)}\left\{
\lambda+2K\gamma f^{\gamma-2}(s)\dot{f}(s)\right\} \\
& =0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\ddot{a}(t)-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}=\frac{\lambda}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)},\\
\text{ }a(0)=a_{0}>0,\text{ }\dot{a}(0)=a_{1}\text{,}\end{array}
\right. \label{a(t)}$$ and $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\lambda+2K\gamma f^{\gamma-2}(s)\dot{f}(s)=0,\\
f(0)=\alpha\geq0\text{.}\end{array}
\right. \label{ODE}$$ The exact solution of ordinary differential equation (\[ODE\]) is $$f(s)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}\alpha e^{-\frac{\lambda}{2K}s}\text{\quad\quad for }\gamma=1,\\[0.02in]\left( -\frac{\lambda(\gamma-1)}{2K\gamma}s+\alpha\right) ^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}\text{ \ \ \ for }\gamma>1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Therefore, to promise the non-negativeness of the $C^{1}$ density function $\rho$, we can re-take $f(s)$ for $\gamma>1$ by a cut-off function$$f(s)=\max\left( \left( -\frac{\lambda(\gamma-1)}{2K\gamma}s+\alpha\right)
^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}},\text{ }0\right) \text{,}$$ choosing any one following additional condition,(2a) $\lambda\leq0$ or(2b) $\lambda>0$ and $\gamma<2$.For the second momentum equation (\[EulerEq\])$_{2,2}$, we have$$\begin{aligned}
& \rho\left( u_{2t}+u_{1}u_{2x}+u_{2}u_{2y}+u_{3}u_{2z}\right)
+K\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left[ \frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\right]
^{\gamma}\\
& =\rho\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right] +\left[ \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\right] \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ \frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right] \\
+\left[ \frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right] \frac
{\partial}{\partial y}\left[ \frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right]
\end{array}
\right\} \nonumber\\
& +K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-1}(s)}{a^{2\gamma}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2y}{a^{2}(t)}\\
& =\rho\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}-2\frac{\xi\dot{a}(t)}{a^{3}(t)}x+\left( -\frac{\dot{a}^{2}(t)}{a^{2}(t)}+\frac{\ddot{a}(t)}{a(t)}\right) y\\
+\left[ \frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}x-\frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}y\right] \frac{\xi
}{a^{2}(t)}+\left[ \frac{\xi}{a^{2}(t)}x+\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}y\right]
\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}\end{array}
\right\} \nonumber\\
& +K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-1}(s)}{a^{2\gamma}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2y}{a^{2}(t)}\\
& =\rho\left\{ \left[ \frac{\ddot{a}(t)}{a(t)}-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{4}(t)}\right] y+K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-2}(s)}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2y}{a^{2}(t)}\right\} \\
& =\frac{\rho}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)}\frac{y}{a(t)}\left\{ \left[
\left( \ddot{a}(t)-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}\right) a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)\right] +2K\gamma f^{\gamma-2}(s)\dot{f}(s)\right\} \\
& =\frac{\rho}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)}\frac{y}{a(t)}\left\{
\lambda+2K\gamma f^{\gamma-2}(s)\dot{f}(s)\right\} \\
& =0.\end{aligned}$$ For the third momentum equation (\[EulerEq\])$_{2,3}$, we have$$\begin{aligned}
& \rho\left( u_{3t}+u_{1}u_{3x}+u_{2}u_{3y}+u_{3}u_{3z}\right)
+K\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left[ \frac{f(s)}{a^{2}(t)b(t)}\right]
^{\gamma}\\
& =\rho\left\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \frac{\dot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z\right] +\frac{\dot{b}^{2}(t)}{b^{2}(t)}z\right\} +K\gamma
\frac{f^{\gamma-1}(s)}{a^{2\gamma}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2z}{b^{2}(t)}\\
& =\rho\frac{\ddot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z+K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-1}(s)}{a^{2\gamma
}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\dot{f}(s)\frac{2z}{b^{2}(t)}\\
& =\rho\left( \frac{\ddot{b}(t)}{b(t)}z+K\gamma\frac{f^{\gamma-2}(s)}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma+1}(t)}\dot{f}(s)2z\right) \\
& =\frac{\rho z}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma+1}(t)}\left[ \ddot{b}(t)a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)+2K\gamma f^{\gamma-2}(s)\dot{f}(s)\right] \\
& =\frac{\rho z}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma+1}(t)}\left[ \lambda+2K\gamma
f^{\gamma-2}(s)\dot{f}(s)\right] \\
& =0,\end{aligned}$$ where$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\ddot{b}(t)=\frac{\lambda}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\text{,}\\
b(0)=b_{0}>0,\text{ }\dot{b}(0)=b_{1}\text{.}\end{array}
\right. \label{b(t)}$$ The local existence of solutions for the Emden system (\[Solution6\]) can be obtained by the fixed point theorem.
In addition, we can generally consider the corresponding weak solutions of the Euler equations, which in the sense, the discontinuous points with measure zero can be ignored. We can have the weak $C^{0}$ solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]).We complete the proof.
The following corollary is a direct consequence of Theorem 1 by the standard comparison theorem and the classical energy method of second order ordinary differential equations (which readers may see Chapter 2 in [@Arnold] for details). We note that the similar analysis for the Emden system (\[Solution6\]) has been shown by Lemma 7 in [@YuenJMAA2008a] and Lemma 3 in [@YuenCQG2009].
\[Cor\]For solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) of the compressible Euler equations (\[EulerEq\]) in $R^{3}$, we have(1) if $\lambda>0$, the solutions are global;(2) if $\lambda=0$ and(2a) $b_{1}\geq0$, the solutions are global;(2b) $b_{1}<0$, the solutions blow up in a finite time $T$;(3) if $\lambda<0$ and(3a) $\gamma=1$, the solutions blow up in a finite time $T;$(3b) $\gamma>1$ and $b_{1}\leq0$, the solutions blow up in a finite time $T$.
Solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) can also solve the following compressible Navier-Stokes equations in $R^{3}$,$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{rl}{\normalsize \rho}_{t}{\normalsize +\nabla\cdot(\rho\vec{u})} &
{\normalsize =}{\normalsize 0}\text{,}\\[0.08in]\rho\lbrack\vec{u}_{t}+(\vec{u}\cdot\nabla)\vec{u}]+K\nabla\rho^{\gamma} &
=\mu\Delta\vec{u}\text{,}\end{array}
\right.$$ with a constant $\mu>0$.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
In this paper, we present a class of rotational and self-similar solutions for the 3D compressible Euler equations using the separation method. These novel solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) partly complement Yuen’s irrotational and elliptic solutions in 3D [@YuenCNSNS2012] as well as rotational and radial solutions in 2D [@YuenCNSNS2014]. A newly deduced Emden dynamical system $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\ddot{a}(t)-\frac{\xi^{2}}{a^{3}(t)}=\frac{\lambda}{a^{2\gamma-1}(t)b^{\gamma-1}(t)}\text{, }a(0)=a_{0}>0,\text{ }\dot{a}(0)=a_{1}\text{,}\\
\ddot{b}(t)=\frac{\lambda}{a^{2\gamma-2}(t)b^{\gamma}(t)}\text{, }b(0)=b_{0}>0,\text{ }\dot{b}(0)=b_{1}\text{,}\end{array}
\right. \label{NewEmden3D}$$ is obtained.
We observe that some qualitative behavior of solutions (\[2-Dg>1Rotation\]) in $R^{2}$ is significantly different from solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) in $R^{3}$. In particular, by applying the classical energy method for the Emden equation (\[2-Dg>1Rotation\])$_{4}$, we can easily establish 2D time-periodic solutions (\[2-Dg>1Rotation\]) for $1\leq\gamma<2$ with $\lambda<0$. (See Lemma 5 in [@YuenCNSNS2014].). However, it is trivial to see that it is not possible to have the 3D time-periodic solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) as function $\ddot
{b}(t)<0$.
The complementary case with $\gamma>1$, $\lambda<0$ and $b_{1}>0$ for Corollary \[Cor\] is unknown, as it is not easy to be determined by the classical methods, the comparison theorem and the energy method. In future research, the following problems are highly recommended to be investigated.1. Can we show the blowup or global existence for solutions for the Emden system (\[NewEmden3D\]) with $\gamma>1$, $\lambda<0$ and $b_{1}>0$?2. Can we modify solutions (\[YuenSolution3DRotational\])–(\[Solution6\]) to show the existence of the corresponding $C^{1}$ solutions for $\lambda>0$ and $\gamma\geq2$?
Acknowledgement
===============
The author thanks for the reviewers’ valuable comments for improving the quality of this paper. This work is partially supported by the Internal Research Grant RG21/2013-2014R from the Hong Kong Institute of Education.
[99]{}
V.I. Arnol’d, Ordinary Differential Equations, Translated from the third Russian Edition by Roger Cooke, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
Barenblatt G.I., On Self-similar Solutions of the Cauchy Problem for a Nonlinear Parabolic Equation of Unsteady Filtration of a Gas in a Porous Medium (Russian), *Prikl Mat Meh* **20** 1956, 761–763.
Barenblatt G.I., Similarity, Self-similarity, and Intermediate Asymptotics, New York: Consultants Bureau, 1979.
Barna I.F. and Máytás L, Analytic Solutions for the One-dimensional Compressible Euler Equation with Heat Conduction and with Different Kind of Equations of State (English Summary), *Miskolc Math. Notes* **14** (2013), 785–799.
Cercignani C., Illner R. and Pulvirenti M., The Mathematical Theory of Dilute Gases, *Applied Mathematical Sciences* **106**, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
Chen G.Q. and Wang D.H., The Cauchy Problem for the Euler Equations for Compressible Fluids, *Handbook of Mathematical Fluid Dynamics* **I**, 421–543, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
Constantin A., Breaking Water Waves, *Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics*, 383–386, Elsevier, 2006.
Csörgő T. and Nagy M.I., New Family of Exact and Rotating Solutions of Fireball Hydrodynamics, *Phys. Rev. C* **89** (2014), 044901, 8 pp.
Einzel D., Superfluids, *Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics*, 115–121, Elsevier, 2006.
Li T.H. and Wang D.H., Blowup Phenomena of Solutions to the Euler Equations for Compressible Fluid Flow, *J. Differential Equations* **221** (2006), 91–101.
Lions P.L., Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics, **1**, **2**, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996, 1998.
Makino T., Exact Solutions for the Compressible Euler Equation, *Journal of Osaka Sangyo University Natural Sciences* **95** (1993), 21–35.
Sedov L.I., On the Integration of the Equations of One-dimensional Motion of a Gas, *Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR* **40** (1953), 753–754.
Yuen M.W., Analytical Blowup Solutions to the 2-dimensional Isothermal Euler-Poisson Equations of Gaseous Stars, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **341 (**2008**),** 445–456.
Yuen M.W., Analytically Periodic Solutions to the 3-dimensional Euler-Poisson Equations of Gaseous Stars with a Negative Constant*, Class. Quantum Grav.* **26** (2009), 235011, 8pp.
Yuen M.W., Exact, Rotational, Infinite Energy, Blowup Solutions to the 3-dimensional Euler Equations, *Phys. Lett. A* **375** (2011), 3107–3113.
Yuen M.W., Self-similar Solutions with Elliptic Symmetry for the Compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations in $R^{N}$, *Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.* **17** (2012), 4524–4528.
Yuen M.W., Vortical and Self-similar Flows of 2D Compressible Euler Equations, *Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.* **19** (2014), 2172–2180.
Zhang T. and Zheng Y.X., Exact Spiral Solutions of the Two-dimensional Euler Equations, *Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems* **3** (1997), 117–133.
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Bruno Ferman[^1]\
\
Sao Paulo School of Economics - FGV\
\
First Draft: December 15th, 2019\
This Draft: December 29th, 2019
bibliography:
- 'bib/bib.bib'
title: ' [ A simple way to assess inference methods]{}[^2]'
---
\#1
[Please click here for the most recent version](https://sites.google.com/site/brunoferman/research)
**Abstract**
We propose a simple way to assess the quality of asymptotic approximations required for inference methods. Our assessment can detect problems when the asymptotic theory that justifies the inference method is invalid and/or the structure of the empirical application is far from “Asymptopia”. Our assessment can be easily applied to a wide range of applications. We illustrate the use of our assessment for the case of stratified randomized experiments.
[*Keywords:*]{} inference, cluster robust variance estimator, field experiment, stratification, asymptotic theory [*JEL Codes:*]{} C12; C21
Introduction
============
The decision among different strategies for inference generally present important trade-offs in terms of the assumptions under which different inference methods are valid, and the asymptotic approximations different methods rely on. As a concrete example, consider the decision about using a cluster robust variance estimator (CRVE). When we use CRVE, we allow errors to be correlated within cluster. However, inference based on CRVE is only asymptotically valid when the number of clusters — not the total number of observations — goes to infinity.[^3] This becomes even more subtle when we take into account that details such as variation in cluster sizes and the leverage of covariates directly impact the quality of such approximations (e.g., [@MW_JAE] and [@doug]). Overall, it is not always obvious whether or not the asymptotic theory that an inference method relies on provides a reasonable approximation in a specific empirical application.
We propose a practical and very simple way to assess the quality of asymptotic approximations required for different inference methods in common empirical applications. The idea is to estimate the model under the null hypothesis, and generate simulations placing random draws of a random variable in place of the residuals.[^4] For each simulation, we estimate the parameter of interest and conduct inference in the same way as we would do in the original data. Then we calculate the proportion of times in which the null would be rejected in a large number of simulations. By construction, the null hypothesis is valid given this sampling framework. Moreover, when we increase the number of simulations, this assessment converges in probability to the size of the test, conditional on the structure of the empirical application, and given the distribution of the errors assumed in the simulations. Therefore, for an $\alpha$-level test, we should expect a rejection rate of approximately $\alpha \%$ in these simulations if the asymptotic theory that justifies the inference method provides a good approximation given the structure of the empirical application. In contrast, we should expect significant distortions if such approximation is poor, meaning that the asymptotic theory is invalid and/or the structure of the empirical application is far from “Asymptopia”.[^5]
While seemingly related to a bootstrap, the idea we propose is conceptually different. Instead of trying to recover the distribution of the estimator using the bootstrap simulations, we use these simulations to assess whether an alternative inference procedure is reliable. To understand this difference, consider again the CRVE case. A cluster-residual bootstrap in this setting would provide valid asymptotic inference — when the number of clusters goes to infinity — under strong assumptions, including homoskedasticity. Instead of using, for example, the cluster-residual bootstrap simulations to recover the distribution of the estimator, our idea in this case would be to use these simulations to assess whether inference based on CRVE, which is asymptotically valid under weaker conditions, would be reliable in a given empirical application. Our assessment is also conceptually different from the idea of using bootstrap to calculate critical values, which would generally only be valid asymptotically. Rather, our idea is to inform about whether asymptotic approximations are reliable.
Importantly, this assessment is uninformative about the plausibility of assumptions on the structure of the errors that different inference methods rely on. If we consider again the CRVE case, the main assumption considered in the literature for such inference method is that errors can be correlated within clusters, but uncorrelated across clusters.[^6] Our idea is to simulate a sampling framework such that the underlying assumptions for asymptotic validity of the inference method are valid. Therefore, by construction, this assessment would not inform about whether such assumptions are reasonable or not. Overall, we see this assessment as a first screening. If this assessment uncovers a rejection rate significantly larger than the level of the test, then this would be a strong indication that the inference method is not reliable for the specific empirical application, and the researcher should consider using an alternative inference method. However, if the assessment is close to $\alpha\%$, then this would not provide a definite indication that the inference method is reliable. In this case, the researcher would still have to justify that other assumptions/conditions that would not be captured by this assessment are reasonable for his/her empirical application.
We present this assessment in more details in Section \[body\], where we illustrate its use in stratified field experiments, with inference based on CRVE. In a recent paper, [@clement] consider the case of paired experiments where, for example, schools are matched into pairs, but data is at the student level. They show that CRVE at the school level can be severely downward biased, leading to substantial over-rejection under the null of no treatment effect. We show that our assessment would easily detect this problem. Therefore, if our assessment had been used in such applications, the problem with CRVE in this setting could have likely been uncovered decades earlier. [@clement] propose that standard errors should be clustered at the pair level in this setting. In this case, our assessment would indicate that the inference method is reliable when the number of clusters is large, but would detect a problem when there are only few clusters, so that the asymptotic approximation is poor. For this setting, [@doug] derive an effective number of clusters statistic that is informative about how good the asymptotic approximation is. However, their assessment would not detect problems related to the estimation of the CRVE, which would be detected by our assessment. Moreover, our assessment is valid for a wider range of applications. We discuss in Section \[Sec\_other\] alternative settings and other ways in which our assessment can be used. Section \[conclusion\] concludes.
A simple way to assess inference methods {#body}
========================================
In order to make the exposition easier, we present our assessment in more detail for the case of a stratified field experiment, in which treatment effects are estimated using an OLS estimator with strata fixed effects, and inference is based on CRVE. The assessment we propose, however, is applicable to a much wider range of applications.
Consider a setting in which we have a total of $N$ schools, and those schools are divided into $S$ strata of $G$ schools each, so $N = G \times S$. For each strata, exactly half of the schools receive treatment, while the other half are assigned as controls. For simplicity, we assume that each school has $n$ students. Let $y_{igs}$ be the outcome of student $i$, in school $g$, in strata $s$. We consider the model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq}
y_{igs} = \beta T_g + \theta_s + \epsilon_{igs},\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ is the treatment effect, which we assume for now is homogeneous, $T_g$ is an indicator variable for the treatment, and $\theta_s$ are strata fixed effects.[^7]
A sensible approach in this setting is to estimate $\beta$ using OLS regression of $y_{igs}$ on $T_g$ and strata fixed effects. It is well-known that one should take into account that the error term $ \epsilon_{igs}$ is likely correlated within schools. In this case, one could consider relying on CRVE at the school level. [@clement] show that inference based on CRVE at the school level in paired experiments ($G=2$) using standard softwares can be severely downward biased, leading to over-rejection when the null is true. They recommend clustering at the strata level to solve this problem. In a general setting, in which $G \geq 2$, we show that there is a trade-off between clustering at the school versus at the strata level. While clustering at the strata level corrects for this finite $G$ problem, this means a fewer number of clusters to estimate the variance. We show that our assessment would detect the problem raised by [@clement] for the case of paired experiments. Moreover, it would be informative about which of the inference methods would be more reliable, if any, given the structure of the empirical application.
We first briefly review the results from [@clement], but for a setting with $G \geq 2$. From Frisch-Waugh-Lovell theorem, it follows that the estimator for $\beta$ considering an OLS regression of $y_{igs}$ on $T_g$ and strata fixed effects is the within estimator. If we let $\mathcal{I}_{s1}$ ($\mathcal{I}_{s0}$) be the set of schools $g$ in strata $s$ that are treated (control), then the estimator with strata fixed effects is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \beta &=& \frac{1}{S} \left[ \sum_{s=1}^S \left( \frac{2}{G} \sum_{g \in \mathcal{I}_{s1}} \left(\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n y_{igs} \right) - \frac{2}{G} \sum_{g \in \mathcal{I}_{s0}} \left(\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n y_{igs} \right) \right) \right] \\
&=& \beta + \frac{1}{S} \sum_{s=1}^S \left( \frac{2}{G} \sum_{g \in \mathcal{I}_{s1}} \bar \epsilon_{gs} \right) - \frac{1}{S} \sum_{s=1}^S \left( \frac{2}{G} \sum_{g \in \mathcal{I}_{s0}} \bar \epsilon_{gs} \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $ \bar \epsilon_{gs} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_{igs}$. Therefore, under standard assumptions on the errors, including uncorrelation across schools, $\sqrt{\frac{GS}{2}} (\hat \beta-\beta) \rightarrow_d N(0, \sigma_1^2 + \sigma_0^2)$ as either $S \rightarrow \infty$ or $G \rightarrow \infty$ (or both), where $\sigma_d^2 = var( \bar \epsilon_{gs} | T_g =d) $. If we have consistent estimators for $ \sigma_1^2$ and $\sigma_0^2$, then we can use those to provide asymptotically valid inference when $S \rightarrow \infty$. Let $\hat \sigma_1^2 = \frac{1}{S} \sum_{s=1}^S \left( \frac{2}{G} \sum_{\mathcal{I}_{s1}} \hat{\bar \epsilon}_{gs} \right)$, where $ \hat{\bar \epsilon}_{gs} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \hat \epsilon_{igs} $, and $\hat \epsilon_{igs} $ is the residual from the OLS regression. The problem raised by [@clement] for the case $G=2$ is caused by the fact that, with fixed $G$, $\hat \sigma_1^2$ will not be consistent for $\sigma_1^2$ when $S \rightarrow \infty$. The problem is that, for a treated school $g$ in strata $s$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e_hat}
\hat{\bar \epsilon}_{gs} = 0.5(\beta - \hat \beta) + {\bar \epsilon}_{gs} - 0.5 \left(\frac{2}{G} \sum_{g' \in \mathcal{I}_{1s}} {\bar \epsilon}_{g's} \right) - 0.5 \left(\frac{2}{G} \sum_{g' \in \mathcal{I}_{0s}} {\bar \epsilon}_{g's} \right).\end{aligned}$$
The third and fourth terms in equation (\[e\_hat\]) comes from the fact that we are estimating the strata fixed effects, which generates an incidental parameter problem. In this case, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \sigma^2_1 \rightarrow_p \left( 1 - \frac{2}{G} \right) \sigma^2_1 + (0.5)^2 \frac{2}{G} \sigma_1^2 + (0.5)^2 \frac{2}{G} \sigma_0^2 \mbox{, when } S \rightarrow \infty \mbox{ and $G$ is fixed}. \end{aligned}$$
When $G=2$, $\hat \sigma^2_1 \rightarrow_p \frac{1}{4}[\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_0^2]$. The standard command `areg` in Stata with the `cluster()` option at the school level would give an estimator for the variance $\widetilde{var(\hat \beta)} = \frac{G\times S}{G\times S -1}\frac{G\times S \times n -1 }{G\times S \times n -S - 1 } \left[\frac{2}{GS} \hat \sigma_1^2 + \frac{2}{GS}\hat \sigma_0^2 \right]$. The adjustment for the case of paired experiments in this case would be $\frac{2\times S}{2\times S -1}\frac{2\times S \times n -1 }{2\times S \times n -S - 1 } \rightarrow \frac{2 \times n}{2 \times n-1}$. Therefore, except for the case in which $n=1$ (in which case cluster would not be necessary), the standard errors produced by such Stata command would be under-estimated, leading to over-rejection. This result for paired experiments was presented by [@clement]. Note that when $G$ increases, $\hat \sigma^2_1$ becomes closer to be consistent, and the Stata adjustment becomes closer to one, so that inference based on CRVE at the school level becomes asymptotically valid.
[@clement] suggest clustering at the strata level. This would work for any value of $G$ (as $S \rightarrow \infty$), because the CRVE in this case would estimate the variance of the linear combination of the errors $\left( \frac{2}{G} \sum_{g \in \mathcal{I}_{s1}} \bar \epsilon_{gs} - \frac{2}{G} \sum_{g \in \mathcal{I}_{s0}} \bar \epsilon_{gs} \right)$, which does not depend on the estimated fixed effects, so it circumvents the incidental parameter problem. The disadvantage in this case is that the asymptotic theory here relies on the number of strata going to infinity, implying that we need a large number of strata so that it becomes a good approximation.
Even if we consider a consistent estimator for the asymptotic variance, a test based on such standard errors would only be asymptotically valid when the number of clusters ($S$ or $N$, depending on the level of the cluster) goes to infinity. Importantly, in more complex designs the number of clusters would not be the only relevant variable to determine whether such asymptotic approximation should be reliable. As explored by [@MW_JAE] and [@doug], for example, such approximations become poorer when there are large variations in cluster sizes. See also the discussion from [@Conley2011], [@FP], and [@MW] for cases in which there is a large number of clusters, but there are only few treated clusters. Moreover, inclusion of covariates — in particular those that vary at the school level — effectively reduces the number of degrees of freedom for the estimation of the standard errors, implying that a larger number of clusters should be necessary so that such asymptotic approximations become reliable. This is related to the discussion on leverage, considered by [@Young].
Our assessment would be effective in determining whether, for this inference method, the asymptotic theory is correct and/or the number of clusters is large enough so that the asymptotic theory provides a reliable approximation. The idea is to estimate the model under the null, and then replace the residuals with another random variable. For example, we can simply consider random draws from iid $N(0,1)$ random variables. Alternatively, we could resample with replacement from the estimated residuals. Then we calculate the proportion of times such inference method would reject the null in a large number of simulations.
A step-by-step procedure to calculate our assessment is given by:
- Step 1: estimate the model imposing the null hypothesis. In this example, we would estimate the OLS regression from equation (\[eq\]) imposing that $\beta=0$. We could also add covariates $X_{igs}$ in the regression.
- Step 2: store the predicted values from the restricted regression in Step 1.
- Step 3: do $\mathcal{B}$ iterations of this step. In each step:
- Step 3.1: draw a random vector $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^b$ from a chosen distribution, and put it in place of the residuals from Step 1.[^8] In our example, we would generate $y_{igs}^b$ by adding $\epsilon_{igs}^b$ to the predicted value of unit $igs$ from Step 2.
- Step 3.2: estimate the unrestricted model with $y_{igs}^b$ instead of $y_{igs}$.
- Step 3.3: test the null hypothesis using the inference method that is being assessed. Store whether the null is rejected in this draw.
- Step 4: our assessment for this inference method is given by the proportion of the $\mathcal{B}$ simulations in which the null is rejected.
Importantly, the data from the simulations in Step 3 is generated by a DGP such that the null hypothesis is valid, and that has the same empirical design — in this example, number of clusters, number of strata, number of observations, and covariates — as the real empirical application. The only difference may be in the distribution of the errors. By construction, when the number of simulations $\mathcal{B}$ goes to infinity, our assessment converges in probability to the size of a test based on such inference method, conditional on the empirical design, and given the distribution of the errors considered in the simulations. Note that, for this assessment, we can consider a number of simulations as large as we want. If we draw the errors from a distribution that satisfies the assumptions for asymptotic validity of the inference method, then we should expect a rejection rate close to $\alpha\%$ for an $\alpha$-level test if the test is asymptotically valid and such asymptotic theory provides a good approximation given the empirical design. In contrast, we should expect distortions in the assessment if the asymptotic theory is invalid and/or the asymptotic theory provides a poor approximation given the empirical design.
We present a simple Monte Carlo study to show that our assessment can be informative in this setting. We vary the total number of schools $N \in \{12,20,40,100,400 \}$. In all cases, we set $n=10$. In panel A of Table \[Table\_cluster\], we consider the case in which schools are stratified in pairs. In column 1, we present our assessment if we consider for inference CRVE at the school level. We generate simulations with iid $N(0,1)$ random variables. When there are 12 schools, the assessment would detect an over-rejection of 23%.[^9] This could reflect that the inference method is not asymptotically valid and/or the asymptotic approximation is poor given a research design with 12 schools divided in 6 strata. When we consider a setting with 400 schools, we still find a significant over-rejection, which is consistent with the theoretical result from [@clement], showing that CRVE calculated in this Stata command is not asymptotically valid. Note that calculating the effective number of clusters as proposed by [@doug] would not detect a problem, since the problem in this case is related to the way the CRVE is calculated.
In column 2 of Table \[Table\_cluster\], we present our assessment when we consider inference based on CRVE at the strata level. In this case, we find over-rejection ($10\%$) when there are 12 schools. However, when the number of schools increases, then our assessment becomes close to 5%. For example, it is 6% when there are 100 schools, and 5.11% when there are 400 schools. This is consistent with the fact that such inference procedure is asymptotically valid, but that 12 schools do not provide a large enough sample so that this asymptotic approximation becomes reliable.
In panel B, we consider a case in which the $N$ schools are divided in $S$ strata of $G=4$ schools each. As expected, the assessment presents a lower over-rejection relative to the case of paired experiments when we consider CRVE at the school level. However, we still detect over-rejection even when $N$ is very large. When we consider inference based on CRVE at the strata level, the assessment shows that such inference method is reliable when $N$ is very large. However, it also detects a larger over-rejection for $N \leq 40$ relative to the case with paired experiments. This is consistent with the intuition that, for a given $N$, the number of clusters is larger in paired experiments. Therefore, a larger $N$ is necessary so that the asymptotic approximation becomes reliable when we consider $G=4$. Finally, in panel C we present the case in which $N$ schools are divided into $S=2$ strata. In this case, our assessment detects that CRVE at the strata level becomes unreliable even when $N$ is large, which is consistent with the fact that we have only two clusters to estimate the CRVE in this case. In contrast, our assessment suggests that inference based on CRVE at the school level is reliable in this case when we have $N \geq 40$.
We also consider the case in which there are five school-level covariates in the model. For each $(N,S,G)$ cell, we generate one single draw for such school-level covariates, and then proceed with the simulations to calculate our assessment conditional on this draw for the covariates. We present our assessments for the case with covariates in columns 3 and 4. In this case, the assessment detects that the inference methods that are asymptotically valid when $N \rightarrow \infty$ (CRVE at the strata level in Panels A and B, and at the school level in Panel C) remain reliable when $N$ is very large. However, it also detects that a larger $N$ is necessary so that the inference methods remain reliable relative to the case without covariates. For example, when $N=20$ in paired experiments, our assessment indicates an over-rejection of 7.4% for the case without covariates, but 27% for the case with covariates. As expected from the discussion above, our assessment detects a problem with the inference method regardless of the number of clusters when we consider an inference method that is not asymptotically valid (CRVE at the school level in Panels A and B, and at the strata level in Panel C).
The results presented in columns 3 and 4 from Table \[Table\_cluster\] are based on one single draw of the school-level covariates for each $(N,S,G)$ cell. We consider now whether different draws of the covariates could lead to different assessments on the quality of the asymptotic approximation. For the setting $(N,S,G)=(40,20,2)$, we consider the assessment for 100 different draws of the covariates. [We present in Figure \[Fig\] the pdf of our assessment in this case.]{} Our assessment indicates an over-rejection ranging from 10% to 16%, depending on the specific draw of the covariates. This variation in assessments is not simply generated by the fact that we are considering a finite number (10,000) of simulations in this case. We can strongly reject the null hypothesis that the assessment is the same for all draws of covariates ($p$-value $<0.01$). This shows that the number of schools and the number of school-level covariates are not sufficient to determine the finite-sample distortion we would have if we consider inference based on CRVE at the strata level. The particular draw of the school-level covariates will matter, as it would determine the amount of variation we still have for the treatment variable after we partial out the school-level covariates and the fixed effects. Our assessment will be informative about the specific empirical setting at hand, which includes the particular draw of the covariates. [For the case of clustered standard errors, [@doug] developed an effective number of clusters statistics. We present in Figure \[Scatter\].A the scatterplot of our assessment measure and the effective number of clusters. The two measures are highly correlated (correlation coefficient of $-0.75$), showing that our assessment detects a more serious problem for inference exactly when the effective number of cluster is smaller. Importantly, the effective number of clusters proposed by [@doug] does not detect a problem with standard errors clustered at the school level, which is detected by our assessment. ]{}
When we consider 100 draws of the covariates for the $(N,S,G)=(400,200,2)$ scenario, then the assessment would be closer to 5%, and would be much less disperse (see Figure \[Fig\]). In this case, it would range from 5% to 6%, and we cannot reject the null that the assessment is the same for all draws of the covariates ($p$-value $=0.71$). Therefore, most of the variation in the assessments in this setting comes from the fact that we consider only a finite number of simulations. While there is still variation across covariates draws, the number of effective clusters is always large, which implies that the assessment is close to 5% for all draws (see Figure \[Scatter\].B). This is consistent with the fact that a test based on CRVE at the strata level is asymptotically valid.
Importantly, as we consider by construction a distribution for the errors that satisfies the assumptions of the inference method, this assessment would obviously not detect violations of the inference method related to such specific assumptions. For example, in this setting, the assessment would be completely uninformative about the possibility of correlations across clusters. Moreover, the assessment provides the size of a test for a given distribution for the errors considered in the simulations. Of course, different choices for this distribution might potentially lead to different assessments, which would likely be different from the actual size of the test in the specific empirical application. We do not see that as a crucial problem for our assessment. Overall, this assessment should be considered as a first screening to evaluate whether an inference method is reliable. On the one hand, if we find large distortions when we consider simulations with, for example, simple iid $N(0,1)$ variables for the errors, then this should be a strong indicative that the inference method should not be used. Moreover, the fact that more complex structures for the errors could potentially give an assessment closer to $\alpha\%$ should not provide a good excuse to rely on such inference method in this case. On the other hand, if we do not find significant distortions, then we should still be aware that there may be potential problems with the inference method that would not be detected by such assessment.
In this particular example of stratified experiments, we assumed so far that treatment effect is homogeneous. If treatment effects are heterogeneous, then [@NBERw24003] and [@Azeem_pairs] show that t-tests may be conservative. Importantly, if we consider a distribution for the errors as we did in our simulations, then our assessment would not be able to detect this problem with the inference method. This is because we are implicitly assuming homogeneous treatment effects in our simulations. Assuming other distributions for the errors would allow us to detect that the test may be conservative. However, we would not necessarily recommend that one should try our assessment with a wide variety of distributions for the errors. We stress that our assessment should be seen as a first screening for inference methods, and that it will generally not be able to detect all potential problems that inference methods may have.
Other applications and other ways to use the assessment {#Sec_other}
=======================================================
While we present in Section \[body\] the ideas behind our assessment procedure in a specific setting with stratified field experiments, our assessment is applicable to a much wider range of applications. We present now a couple of other examples in which our assessment can be used.
*Shift-share designs:* [@ADAO] propose an interesting way to estimate the standard errors in shift-share designs (e.g., [@Autor]), that allows for states with similar shares to have correlated errors. They show that their standard errors are asymptotically valid when the number of sectors (shifters) goes to infinity, if the size of each sector becomes asymptotically negligible. However, it may not be trivial to determine whether such asymptotic theory — which depends not only on the number of sectors, but also on the relevance of each sector — provides a good approximation or not in a specific empirical application. Differently from the case of clustered standard errors, there is no assessment — such as the number of effective clusters proposed by [@doug] — to inform whether such asymptotic approximation is reliable in specific empirical applications. Our assessment can be informative about whether the inference method proposed by [@ADAO] is reliable in this case.
*Wild-cluster bootstrap:* [@Wild] consider the properties of the wild bootstrap in an asymptotic framework such that the number of clusters is fixed, but the number of observations within clusters goes to infinity. They show that the method is asymptotically valid under assumptions on the errors and on the structure of the covariates, which include a kind of “cluster-homogeneity” assumption. In this setting, our assessment would be informative about whether the assumptions on the structure of the covariates — including such cluster-homogeneity assumption — are reasonable, although it would not be informative about the assumptions on the errors.
*Matching estimators with few treated observations:* [@Ferman_matching] considers the properties of matching estimators when the number of treated observations is small, but the number of control observations is large. He proposes two alternative inference methods based on the theory of randomization tests under approximate symmetry, that are asymptotically valid when the number of treated observations is fixed, and the number of control observations goes to infinity. One test is based on permutations, while the other one is based on sign changes. He shows that these tests may be too conservative if there are few group transformations. The number of group transformations will depend on the number of treated observations, the number of nearest neighbors used in the estimation, and the number of shared nearest neighbors across treated observations. If we consider a distribution for the outcome variable independent from the distribution of covariates, then these tests will always have size lower or equal than $\alpha\%$. In this case, however, our assessment simulating such draws for the outcome variable (and holding constant the structure of the covariates) would be informative about whether these tests are conservative. Additionally, our assessment can be informative about whether the number of treated observations is large enough so that one could rely on the results from [@AI_2006] for inference.
In addition to using our assessment to check whether different inference methods provide correct test size, our assessment can also be used to check the power of different tests against specific alternative hypotheses. [In this case, one would first estimate the model imposing the *alternative* hypothesis, and then run simulations testing the null hypothesis. ]{} An important caveat is that, unless we consider in the simulations the true distribution for the errors, our assessment will generally *not* approximate the true power of the test against this alternative. However, in a setting in which a researcher has more than one reliable method for inference, such assessment may be informative about which test should be used taking the power of the tests in our assessments into account.
Finally, in case our assessment detects a relevant over-rejection for a given inference method, it might be tempting to use the simulations to adjust the test so that it controls for size. For example, for the application considered in Section \[body\], one could use the $\mathcal{B}$ simulations to determine a new critical value so that the assessment would give a 5% rejection rate. We consider this strategy with caution. By construction, this strategy would generate a test with correct size *if the distribution for the errors used in the simulations were correct.* However, we will generally not be able to say anything about the true size of the test, as we have no guarantee that the distribution of the errors chosen for the simulations is the correct one.[^10] In particular, it would not be possible to guarantee that the inference method in the empirical application would control for size even if we set the critical value so that it controls for size for a given distribution for the errors considered in the simulations.
Concluding remarks {#conclusion}
==================
We propose a simple way to assess whether inference methods are reliable in specific applications. Our assessment may detect whether the structure of empirical applications is well approximated by the asymptotic theory that justifies specific inference methods. If widely used by applied researchers, our assessment has the potential of substantially reducing the number of papers that are published based on misleading inference. As an example, the widespread use of our assessment could have prevented the large number of significant results that failed to prove significant in field experiments if we considered randomization tests, as uncovered by [@Young].
Our assessment can also detect cases in which the asymptotic theory is invalid. Therefore, we recommend that the use of our assessment should not be restricted to settings where the researcher believes the sample may not be large enough to justify the asymptotic approximation (e.g., when there are few clusters when we consider the use of CRVE). Rather, it should be used even when one has an arguably large sample, given that it can potentially detect problems in inference methods that remain even asymptotically. As an example, a widespread use of our procedure in paired experiments with a very large number of pairs could have detected the problem uncovered by [@clement] decades earlier, preventing a large numbers of published papers with misleading inference.
[lccccc]{}
& & &\
& School cluster & Strata cluster & & School cluster & Strata cluster\
\# of schools & (1) & (2) & & (3) & (4)\
\
$N=12$ & 0.231 & 0.102 & & 1.000 & 1.000\
\
$N=20$ & 0.196 & 0.074 & & 0.427 & 0.273\
\
$N=40$ & 0.179 & 0.067 & & 0.248 & 0.115\
\
$N=100$ & 0.165 & 0.060 & & 0.188 & 0.072\
\
$N=400$ & 0.154 & 0.051 & & 0.164 & 0.054\
\
$N=12$ & 0.129 & 0.192 & & 0.359 & 0.483\
\
$N=20$ & 0.118 & 0.126 & & 0.218 & 0.196\
\
$N=40$ & 0.102 & 0.091 & & 0.136 & 0.111\
\
$N=100$ & 0.090 & 0.063 & & 0.098 & 0.065\
\
$N=400$ & 0.083 & 0.050 & & 0.084 & 0.052\
\
$N=12$ & 0.109 & 0.305 & & 0.368 & 0.469\
\
$N=20$ & 0.079 & 0.304 & & 0.149 & 0.326\
\
$N=40$ & 0.057 & 0.302 & & 0.084 & 0.299\
\
$N=100$ & 0.053 & 0.298 & & 0.058 & 0.300\
\
$N=400$ & 0.050 & 0.298 & & 0.052 & 0.298\
\
![[**Distribution of assessment**]{}[]{data-label="Fig"}](Fig.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[Scatter\].A: 40 schools Figure \[Scatter\].B: 400 schools
![[**Assessment vs effective number of clusters**]{}[]{data-label="Scatter"}](Scatter1.pdf "fig:") ![[**Assessment vs effective number of clusters**]{}[]{data-label="Scatter"}](Scatter2.pdf "fig:")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[^1]: email: [email protected]; address: Sao Paulo School of Economics, FGV, Rua Itapeva no. 474, Sao Paulo - Brazil, 01332-000; telephone number: +55 11 3799-3350
[^2]: I would like to thank Andres Santos, Marcelo Fernandes, Marcelo Medeiros, and Rodrigo Soares for excellent comments and suggestions. Luis Alvarez provided exceptional research assistance. I also thank Pedro Ogeda for discussing with me an application that led me to think about this assessment for the first time.
[^3]: See, for example, [@Arellano], [@doug], [@cameron2015practitioner], [@Hansen], [@liang], [@RePEc:qed:wpaper:1421], and [@Wooldridge_cluster].
[^4]: Such random draws may simply be iid normal random variables. Another alternative is to sample with replacement from the distribution of the residuals.
[^5]: [@Leamer] refers to “Asymptopia” as a place where “data are unlimited and estimates are consistent, where the laws of large numbers apply perfectly and where the full intricacies of the economy are completely revealed.”
[^6]: CRVE may also be asymptotically valid under alternative sets of assumptions. For example, [@IK] show that such procedure remains valid when there is between cluster correlations if the independent variable of interest is randomly assigned at the cluster level.
[^7]: We consider here a model-based approach to clustering. See [@NBERw24003] for a design-based approach.
[^8]: For example, we can simply consider random draws from iid $N(0,1)$ random variables. Alternatively, we could resample with replacement from the estimated residuals.
[^9]: Since we consider iid random draws for the vector of errors across simulations, it is straightforward to calculate the standard error for the assessment. In this case, the standard error is 0.004. We can set such standard error as low as we want by increasing the number of simulations.
[^10]: Since the idea of the assessment is to check whether the inference method is reliable for a given sample size, it would generally not be possible to consistently estimate the distribution of the errors.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Generative models are widely used for unsupervised learning with various applications, including data compression and signal restoration. Training methods for such systems focus on the generality of the network given limited amount of training data. A less researched type of techniques concerns generation of only a single type of input. This is useful for applications such as constraint handling, noise reduction and anomaly detection. In this paper we present a technique to limit the generative capability of the network using negative learning. The proposed method searches the solution in the gradient direction for the desired input and in the opposite direction for the undesired input. One of the application can be anomaly detection where the undesired inputs are the anomalous data. In the results section we demonstrate the features of the algorithm using MNIST handwritten digit dataset and latter apply the technique to a real-world obstacle detection problem. The results clearly show that the proposed learning technique can significantly improve the performance for anomaly detection.'
address: 'IBM Research - Tokyo'
title: Limiting the Reconstruction Capability of Generative Neural Network using Negative Learning
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Generative networks can learn to generate high-dimensional data from lower dimensional embeddings. Most of the applications require the generative models to generalize given a limited amount of training data. As a consequence, even the signals that are far from the training data distribution can be generated fairly well. Controlling this generalization property of the generative networks can increase their efficiency in the domains where we need to separate one kind of data from the other. Some of the applications of system with limited generative ability include noise reduction and anomaly detection.
In this paper, we present a method to control the generative capabilities of a system in such a way that it can only reconstruct a limited range of input signal space. The technique can be used with different network structures and training algorithms. We will explain the proposed method by focusing on anomaly detection in higher dimensional spaces (e.g. images etc.) using a kind of generative neural networks called autoencoder. Using the proposed technique, generative models can be trained in a way to learn a latent representation that can only encode the input distributions of non-anomalous data. After decoding the latent space back to the signal space, the reconstruction similarity can be used to judge if the input signal contains an anomaly or not.
Anomaly detection is a key and usually the first requirement in many signal-processing applications pipeline [@forslundIV2014; @munawar2017]. Generative models have previously been applied to anomaly detection [@sakurada_2014; @clement2015] and noise reduction [@VincentPLarochelleH2008]. In anomaly detection the task is to find if the input distribution is normal or has an anomaly. It is a one-class classification problem where the training data consists mostly of the non-anomalous class. We argue that due to the generalization property the classic training methods are not ideal for anomaly detection using generative models (as shown in Section \[sec:results\]). The main contribution of this paper is a new approach to limit the reconstruction capability of the generative networks by learning conflicting objectives for the normal and anomaly data. The technique can use the limited real or synthetic anomalous data by using a negative learning phase in the training. For example, in case of anomaly detection on the road [@clement2015], any non-road object (e.g. vehicles, bushes etc.) can be treated as the anomalous data. Some anomaly data is available in most of the anomaly detection applications. The anomaly data might be gathered over time automatically or by human intervention. For instance, in case of a misclassification by a radar based target detection system, the human operator can label the sample correctly for future use. Instead of ignoring this anomaly data, the proposed method uses this data to improve the future detections.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Related work is given in Section \[sec:relatedwork\]. We formally define the problem in Section \[sec:ps\]. The specificities of our approach are detailed in Section \[sec:details\]. Quantitative analysis of the technique are presented in Section \[sec:results\]. Finally, we conclude the paper with some directions for future work in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
There are a large number of literatures on noise reduction and anomaly detection using generative models. M.N. Schmidt et al. [@schmidt2007] uses non-negative sparse coding to reduce the wind noise in speech data. They rely on a system that have the source model for the wind noise but not for the speech to reduce the noise. The work done on denoising autoencoder by V. Pascal et al. [@pascal2010] is also very important in this area. L. Gondara [@gondara2016] presents an application of such denoising system to remove noise from medical images. These techniques can reduce the noise the input data but they do not limit the generative capabilities of the network. Due to the generalization property of such networks, they can also generate the data that is very different from the data shown during training.
Similar to the method proposed in this paper, for anomaly detection, the machine learns a model to represent normality and then use the model to detect anomalous data. B. Saleh et al. [@SalehCVPR2013] proposed a method to model a normality of a particular class of object using visual attributes. The attributes [@FarhadiCVPR2009] are handcrafted and mainly based on the appearance of the input data, i.e. shape, texture and color. A generative model is then trained and used to reason about normal and anomalous data. Recent trend tends to replace these handcrafted attributes with a deep feature representation. W. Lawson et al. [@Lawson_2016_CVPR_Workshops] uses deep visual features obtained from AlexNet [@alexnet] to represent objects and associated them with a scene to define type of objects that can be found in the certain environment. D. Xu et al. [@xu2015bmvc] used stacked denoising autoencoders to learn the deep features in an unsupervised fashion and use them to represent both appearance and motion of the scene. Anomalous data is in turn detected by a multiple one-class SVM classifiers. These approaches are more likely to suffer from the imbalance between normal and anomalous data which are the common characteristic of an anomaly detection problem, The proposed method try to solve this problem by effectively using the anomaly data.
Our proposed method uses a similar approach to C. Creusot and A. Munawar [@clement2015]. They use an extremely compressive Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) to form a deep feature representation. But rather than training a classifier in the feature space, anomaly detection is performed by reconstructing the data back to the original image space and use conventional image difference as a metric. The extreme compression in autoencoders can severely effect the reconstruction of input appearance in case the non-anomalous data have a non-trivial appearance.
Problem Statement {#sec:ps}
=================
In this section, we will formally describe the problem of limiting the generative network to learn a single type of input distribution. Consider two random variables $\textbf{X}$ and $\textbf{Y}$ representing instances of two input distributions in same signal space (e.g. image space). Lets assume we have $K$ and $J$ number of samples from each distribution, $\textbf{X}=\{\textbf{x}_1,...,\textbf{x}_K\}$ and $\textbf{Y}=\{\textbf{y}_1,...,\textbf{y}_J\}$. $\textbf{X}$ is the input distribution we want the network to reconstruct as well as possible, let the reconstruction be called $\hat{\textbf{X}}$. On the other hand, $\textbf{Y}$ is the distribution that we do not want to the network to reconstruct. Let its reconstructed space be represented by $\hat{\textbf{Y}}$. In order to achieve this objective, we need to maximize
$$\label{eq:x}
p_{\theta }(\hat{\textbf{X}}|\textbf{X})-p_{\theta }(\hat{\textbf{Y}}|\textbf{Y}) = \sum_{i=1}^K \log{p_{\theta}(\hat{\textbf{x}}_i|\textbf{x}_i)}-\sum_{i=1}^J \log{p_{\theta}(\hat{\textbf{y}}_i|\textbf{y}_i)}$$
By maximizing the probability of reconstruction for $\textbf{X}$ and minimizing it for $\textbf{Y}$, the generative properties of the model can be controlled in the desired way. It is important to note that usually the data for the distribution $\textbf{X}$ is available in plenty while the data for $\textbf{Y}$ is available scarcely ($K\gg J$).
Proposed Method {#sec:details}
===============
In this section we discuss the proposed approach to maximize Equation \[eq:x\]. Generative models can be used in a variety of settings and configurations. In this paper we deal with the generative models that encode the input distribution into a latent feature space $L$ and then reconstruct it back in the original signal space. Such generative systems are also known as autoencoders. We use the word “autoencoder” for any kind of generative neural network structure including but not limited to RBM, variational autoencoders and Convolutional Neural Network based autoencoders.
The problem is to learn latent representation $\textbf{L}$ such that it can learn to encode and decode $\textbf{X}$ fairly well but fails to do the same for $\textbf{Y}$ distribution. In order to formally define the autoencoder like generative models, let us consider a network with input vector of size $N$, a latent space or hidden layer of size $H$. As the network will learn to reconstruct the input the output of the network will also be of size $N$. Given the training data $\textbf{X}$, a function $\textbf{F}$ can transform this input signal to the hidden layer while a function $\textbf{G}$ can reconstruct the image from the latent space. The network parameters for encoder and decoder are represented by $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively. We want to find the optimal parameters $\theta=\{\alpha, \beta\}$ to minimize the reconstruction error. When presented with an input vector $\textbf{x}$, the network produces a hidden vector $\ell=\textbf{F}(\textbf{x};\alpha)$ and an output vector $\hat{\textbf{x}}=\textbf{G}(\ell;\beta)$. The goal of the learning is to minimize an error or energy function $E$ $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{min }E(\textbf{F},\textbf{G}) &= \underset{\textbf{F},\textbf{G}}{\textup{min}}\sum_{i=1}^{K}\Delta(\hat{\textbf{x}}_i,\textbf{x}_i) \\
&= \underset{\textbf{F},\textbf{G}}{\textup{min}}\sum_{i=1}^{K}\Delta(\textbf{G}(\textbf{F}(\textbf{x}_i;\alpha);\beta)), \textbf{x}_i)
\end{aligned}$$
where, $\Delta$ is a distance or dissimilarity measure. We can use any dissimilarity measure, in this paper we use mean square error: $\Delta=\sum_{i=1}^K{(\hat{\textbf{x}_i} - \textbf{x}_i)}^2$. Optimum set of parameters $\theta^*$ can be found by
$$\label{eq:pos}
\theta^*=\underset{\theta}{\textup{arg min}} \sum_{i=1}^K{(\hat{\textbf{x}_i} - \textbf{x}_i)}^2$$
In order to create an interesting representation of the data, usually the size of hidden layer is kept smaller then the input size $H<N$. However, $H\geq N$ can also be used with additional sparsity constraints to see very interesting behaviors for some applications.
|||START||| ($\textbf{X}$) |||END|||
In this paper, we propose using any real or synthetic anomalous data $\textbf{Y}$ to limit the reconstruction capability of the autoencoder. This is done by incorporating a negative learning phase in the training. System parameters learned during the training allow reconstructing a wide variety of input patterns. Negative training adjusts the system parameters in a way that the anomalous patterns cannot be reconstructed well. In terms of neural networks, the connections that are used to reconstruct anomalies are weakened during the negative learning. The negative learning can formally be defined as
$$\label{eq:neg}
\theta^*=\underset{\theta}{\textup{arg max}} \sum_{i=1}^J{(\hat{\textbf{y}_i} - \textbf{y}_i)}^2$$
Using Equation \[eq:pos\] and Equation \[eq:neg\], the model can be controlled to reconstruct non-anomalous data better than the anomalies. It is important to note that both the equations are optimizing the same set of parameters $\theta$ with conflicting objectives. Going along the gradient for non-anomalous data and against the gradient for negative makes the system go towards a minimum where it can reconstruct only non-anomalous data.
Algorithm \[alg:flow\] introduces the negative learning phase. The strategy is to use all the non-anomalous data and finish one epoch of positive learning in which the system learns to reconstruct the non-anomalous training data $\textbf{X}$. Then in the negative learning step the available anomalous data $\textbf{Y}$ is used to make the system unlearn the reconstruction capability of the anomalies. Positive and negative learning steps are repeated until the termination criteria is met. This enables the system to learn only the reconstruction of non-anomalous signals. We show that the benefits of using the negative learning approach are significant even when the size of anomalous training samples is much smaller than the non-anomalous signal data.
It is important to keep a balance between the negative and the positive learning. If the size of anomalous data is very small compared to non-anomalous data, a single positive learning iteration should be followed by multiple iterations of negative learning. An adaptive approach can be used to compute optimal number of iterations for the negative learning. This adaptive algorithm is out of the scope of this paper.
Experimental Results {#sec:results}
====================
In order to explain the working of the algorithm, the initial experiments are conducted with the MNIST digits dataset. The later part of this section uses actual highway data to show the validity of the approach for real world problems.
![Conventional autoencoder can reconstruct any input, but the proposed system fails to reconstruct anomalies (digits $3$ and $5$).[]{data-label="fig:our_rec"}](figures/recv.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Evaluation using MNIST
----------------------
For this experiment we have used a single layer RBM based autoencoder. $28\times28$ gray-scale images of MNIST digit dataset are used to train a fully connected autoencoder of size 784$-$500$-$784. Sigmoid was used as the activation function. Termination criteria, maximum number of epochs was set to $200$. Batch size was $50$. The network was trained by using single-step contrastive divergence (CD-1) [@Hinton2012].
$$\label{eq:cd}
\Delta w_{ij}=\zeta \left [ \epsilon(\left \langle {v_i}{h_j} \right \rangle_{data}-\left \langle {v_i}{h_j} \right \rangle_{recon}) \right ]$$
where $\mathbf{v}$ represents visible layer, $\mathbf{h}$ is the hidden layer, $\epsilon$ represents the expected value and $\zeta$ is the sign. For positive learning stage the change in weights are updated by Equation \[eq:cd\] with $\zeta=1$, and for negative stage (going against the gradient) the same equation is used with $\zeta=-1$. Figure \[fig:our\_rec\](a) shows images from MNIST test dataset. Digit $3$ and $5$ are considered to be the anomalies; hence, the autoencoder trained with the proposed method should not be able to reconstruct these digits well.
Figure \[fig:our\_rec\](b) shows the results of reconstruction using a conventional autoencoder, trained using CD-1 with $200$ epochs and batch size of $50$. The training data for conventional training method contains all the digits except the images of digit $3$ and $5$. It can be clearly seen that that even though the system knows nothing about digits $3$ and $5$, it is able to reconstruct them fairly accurately. This property of autoencoders is not desirable for anomaly detection.
Figure \[fig:our\_rec\](c) shows the reconstruction results using the proposed approach. Digits $3$ and $5$ are no more reconstructed properly; rather they are converted to the closest point in the non-anomalous signal space. From the shapes point of view, digits $3$ can be thought of as a part of digit $8$ and similarly digit $5$ is a part of digit $6$. Yet the system trained with the proposed approach was able to reconstruct digits $8$ and $6$ but failed to reconstruct $3$ and $5$.
Figure \[fig:freq\] shows the frequency distribution of dissimilarity measure for normal and anomaly data. For the conventional autoencoder, we can observe a huge overlap between the curves, making it difficult to select a suitable threshold to decide anomalies. The proposed autoencoder shifts and spreads the curve of the anomaly data horizontally while the curve for the non-anomalous data largely remain unaffected.
To simulate the case where the anomaly data is much smaller than the non-anomalous data, another experiment is conducted using only $1,000$ anomalous images (the first $500$ images of $3$ and $5$), and roughly $50,000$ non-anomalous images for training. In order to create a balance between the positive and negative learning phase, five iterations of negative learning are performed after each positive learning phase (number of iterations for negative learning can be computed adaptively, this however is out of the scope of current paper). As shown in Figure \[fig:freq\](c), even for this experiment where the anomalous data size is $50$ times smaller then regular data, there is still a major improvement as compared to the results of conventional autoencoder given in Figure \[fig:freq\](a). Similar results were achieved using other digits as anomaly.
Another very interesting results are shown in Figure \[fig:randrec\]. Figure \[fig:randrec\](b) shows that a conventional autoencoder trained solely using the images of digits in MNIST dataset can also reconstruct random shapes. However, as visible in Figure \[fig:randrec\](c), even though only digit $3$ and $5$ were used as anomalous images during the training process, the system failed to reconstruct anomalies that it has never seen before. This proves that knowing the appearance of all the anomalies is not important.
![Conventionally trained network can encode and reconstruct signals that are very different from the training data (MNIST). The proposed autoencoder failed to reconstruct random shapes even though they were never shown as anomaly data during training.[]{data-label="fig:randrec"}](figures/randrech.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Evaluation on obstacle detection
--------------------------------
In the second experiment, we used the 4K highway video on Japan highways [@youtube1]. It consists in a 1h40m sequence of Japan highway recorded from the car dashboard with a Panasonic GH4 camera in 4K resolution ($3840\times2160$). We considered the video between frame 105360 to frame 114360.
![Non-anomalous images are reconstructed well with both autoencoders. On the other hands, anomalous images are only reconstructed better on the conventionally trained autoencoders.[]{data-label="fig:reconstruction_roadcifar"}](figures/reconstruction_roadcifar.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
These frames were selected as they have a good view of the road without any vehicle occluding the road. The images were converted to gray-scale and then resized to $25\%$ of the original size. We then selected a fix mask of $170\times170$ in the center road area. $24,800$ gray-scale road patches images of size $32\times32$ were extracted with random strides from the rescaled video as non-anomalous data. During the dataset creating all featureless road patches were ignored. In this experiment we used just $500$ gray-scale CIFAR-10 images [@krizhevsky2009learning] as anomaly data (as shown in Figure \[fig:reconstruction\_roadcifar\]). Randomly selected $70\%$ of the data was used for training while the remaining data was used for testing. Mean and standard deviation is computed for all the images in the training data. Training and test data is then normalized by subtracting this mean from each image and dividing each image by the computed standard deviation. The network was of size 1024$-$512$-$1024 in size. Adam [@adam2014] was used as the optimizer to verify the validity of the proposed technique for different learning methods. Parameters used for Adam were, $\alpha=0.001$, $\beta_1=0.9$, $\beta_2=0.999$ and $\epsilon=10^{-8}$. The termination criteria was number of epochs that was set at $100$. Batch size was selected as $32$.
{width="1.0\linewidth"} \[fig:auroc\]
{width="1.0\linewidth"} \[fig:roc\]
Area under the receivers operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was used for quantitative measure. Figure \[fig:auroc\] shows that with conventional training of autoencoder using only the road data can still reconstruct the CIFAR images fairly well. The value of AUROC for conventional autoencoders stays around $0.875$. As the system learns to reconstruct the road better it becomes equally good at reconstructing the CIFAR data. For the proposed technique the AUROC tends to reach $0.96$ as the number of epochs increases (for the proposed method one epoch means one iteration of positive and negative learning). For this experiment the amount of negative learning to perform was computed adaptively by observing the maximum gain in AUROC by increasing or decreasing the size of data and iterations for negative learning. Details on adaptive control of negative learning are out of the scope of this paper. Figure \[fig:reconstruction\_roadcifar\] shows the reconstruction quality for the road and CIFAR images by the conventional and the proposed approach. It is clear that after $100$ epochs the conventional method can reconstruct the anomaly images much better then the proposed approach. This results in lowering the AUROC for the conventional approach.
In Figure \[fig:roc\] we have compared the ROC of our system with classical two class classifiers. In this case a mask was used to locate the road in the video and anything outside the mask was treated as anomaly. We captured a video on Japan highways in similar conditions to [@youtube1]. However, while [@youtube1] use a relative wide angle 12-35mm lens, we used 70-150mm lens. $50,000$ road patches of size $16\times16$ were extracted, while only $1,000$ patches were extracted for anomaly data. The size of anomaly data was $50$ times less than that of the road data. $70\%$ data was used as training and the remaining for testing. The data was normalized in a manner similar to the previous experiment. The AUROC for SVM and LDA classifier is $0.8326$ and $0.7526$ respectively. The AUROC for the anomaly detection technique proposed in this paper reaches $0.9636$ in $100$ epochs. The network was of size 256$-$200$-$256. The batch size was kept at $32$. Vanilla stochastic gradient descent algorithm was used with a learning rate of $0.001$. A significant improvement in AUROC clearly shows the benefit of the proposed approach.
Limitations
-----------
This technique works for the cases where non-anomalous data compared to anomaly data is confined in the input space. In the above experiment treating CIFAR as normal and road as anomaly will not produce expected results. This assumption is generally true for anomaly detection applications where normal operation is more or less predictable and uniform.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We proposed a novel method to train generative models namely autoencoders for anomaly detection. Anomaly is determined by considering the similarity measure of the input and the reconstructed signal. Conventional training methods allow the reconstruction of the signal space far beyond the training data. The proposed method ensures that the autoencoder only learns to reconstruct the signals that are similar to the training distribution. This makes it easier to separate a normal signal from an anomalous signal. The core idea of this research is the introduction of a negative learning phase, in which the system unlearns the reconstruction of anomalous signals. The balance of positive learning with negative learning phases help to move the frequency distribution curves for dissimilarity of regular and anomalous data away from each other.
As for a future direction, we are currently working on adding the notion of time to this approach. In this case the system will only be able to predict the road feature that should appear next. By matching prediction with the actual observation we can reveal anomalies.
[10]{}=-1pt
C. Creusot and A. Munawar. Real-time small obstacle detection on highways using compressive rbm road reconstruction. In [*IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium*]{}, Seoul, Korea, 2015.
A. Farhadi, I. Endres, D. Hoiem, and D. Forsyth. Describing objects by their attributes. In [*Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009. CVPR 2009. IEEE Conference on*]{}, pages 1778–1785, June 2009.
D. Forslund and J. Bjärkefur. Night vision animal detection. In [*2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings*]{}, pages 737–742, June 2014.
L. Gondara. Medical image denoising using convolutional denoising autoencoders. In [*2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW)*]{}, pages 241–246, Dec 2016.
G. E. Hinton. , pages 599–619. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012.
D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: [A]{} method for stochastic optimization. , abs/1412.6980, 2014.
A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009.
A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25*]{}, pages 1097–1105. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012.
W. Lawson, L. Hiatt, and K. Sullivan. Detecting anomalous objects on mobile platforms. In [*The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops*]{}, June 2016.
A. Munawar, P. Vinayavekhin, and G. D. Magistris. Spatio-temporal anomaly detection for industrial robots through prediction in unsupervised feature space. In [*IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)*]{}, Santa Rosa, USA, 2017.
M. Sakurada and T. Yairi. Anomaly detection using autoencoders with nonlinear dimensionality reduction. In [*Proceedings of the MLSDA 2014 2Nd Workshop on Machine Learning for Sensory Data Analysis*]{}, MLSDA’14, pages 4:4–4:11, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
B. Saleh, A. Farhadi, and A. Elgammal. Object-centric anomaly detection by attribute-based reasoning. In [*Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*]{}, CVPR ’13, pages 787–794, Washington, DC, USA, 2013. IEEE Computer Society.
M. N. Schmidt, J. Larsen, and F. T. Hsiao. Wind noise reduction using non-negative sparse coding. In [*2007 IEEE Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing*]{}, pages 431–436, Aug 2007.
P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, and P.-A. Manzagol. Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. In W. W. Cohen, A. McCallum, and S. T. Roweis, editors, [ *Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’08)*]{}, pages 1096–1103. ACM, 2008.
P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, I. Lajoie, Y. Bengio, and P.-A. Manzagol. Stacked denoising autoencoders: Learning useful representations in a deep network with a local denoising criterion. , 11:3371–3408, Dec. 2010.
Wataken777. Youtube. tokyo express way gh4 4k. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQgj3zkh8zk. (3840 x 2160), 2014.
D. Xu, E. Ricci, Y. Yan, J. Song, and N. Sebe. Learning deep representations of appearance and motion for anomalous event detection. In X. Xie, M. W. Jones, and G. K. L. Tam, editors, [*Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2015, [BMVC]{} 2015, Swansea, UK, September 7-10, 2015*]{}, pages 8.1–8.12. [BMVA]{} Press, 2015.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
VPI-IPNAS-08-02
[**Recent developments in heterotic compactifications**]{}
Eric Sharpe\
$\,$
Physics Department\
Robeson Hall (0435)\
Virginia Tech\
Blacksburg, VA 24061\
[[email protected]]{}
$\,$
In this short review, we outline three sets of developments in understanding heterotic string compactifications. First, we outline recent progress in heterotic analogues of quantum cohomology computations. Second, we discuss a potential swampland issue in heterotic strings, and new heterotic string constructions that can be used to fill in the naively missing theories. Third, we discuss recent developments in string compactifications on stacks and their applications, concluding with an outline of work-in-progress on heterotic string compactifications on gerbes.
Contribution to the proceedings of the Virginia Tech Sowers workshop, May 2007.
January 2008
Introduction
============
Over the last several years, heterotic strings have been undergoing something of a revival. There has been a lot of interest in heterotic strings on non-Kähler manifolds (see [*e.g.*]{} [@b2a; @b2b; @b2c; @b2d; @allan1; @allan2]), on MSSM derivations from string theory [@penn1; @penn2], as well as many other matters related to heterotic strings, as reflected in Volker Braun’s, Savdeep Sethi’s, and Li-Sheng Tseng’s talks at this workshop[^1].
In this talk, we shall outline three other recent developments in heterotic strings.
First, we shall discuss recent progress on understanding nonperturbative corrections in heterotic strings, the heterotic analogue of curve corrections and quantum cohomology. These will be computed by a heterotic analogue of the two-dimensional topological field theory known as the A model. We will briefly review the A model at the same time as we present its heterotic generalization. This work was motivated by efforts to understand the heterotic generalization of mirror symmetry.
Second, we shall discuss a potential heterotic swampland, referring to the fact that many $E_8$ bundles with connection cannot be described by the standard heterotic worldsheet construction. We will outline new heterotic worldsheet CFT constructions which will make it possible to describe all the $E_8$ bundles with connection. Although there will not be a heterotic swampland of this form, this does serve as a warning on the dangers of performing statistical computations within fixed worldsheet constructions.
Finally, we shall discuss the recent understanding of string compactifications on stacks. We shall also outline descriptions of some of those compactifications with gauged linear sigma models. Understanding string compactifications on stacks not only makes predictions for [*e.g.*]{} certain Gromov-Witten invariants, but it also yields insight into ordinary-seeming gauged linear sigma models. We shall briefly outline the analysis of the GLSM for the complete intersection Calabi-Yau ${\bf P}^7[2,2,2,2]$, which has at its Landau-Ginzburg point another Calabi-Yau given by a branched double cover of ${\bf P}^3$. The branched double cover appears physically in a novel way, and furthermore is not birational to the original complete intersection ${\bf P}^7[2,2,2,2]$, contradicting some of the lore on gauged linear sigma models. Finally, we shall outline how heterotic string compactifications on special stacks known as gerbes appear to provide new examples of CFT’s.
Nonperturbative corrections in heterotic strings
================================================
In this section, we shall outline the results of [@sharpe02a; @sharpe02c] on nonperturbative corrections to heterotic string compactifications. See [@sharpe02b] for another review, and [@ade; @kg; @ilarion1; @ilarion2; @gs1; @gs2] for more recent results.
Roughly, there are two sources of nonperturbative corrections in heterotic strings:
- gauge instantons and five-branes, and
- worldsheet instantons – from strings wrapping minimal area 2-cycles (“holomorphic curves”) in spacetime.
In this talk, we shall focus on the latter class, in perturbative worldsheet theories.
Worldsheet instantons generate superpotential terms in the target-space effective field theory. For example, for a heterotic theory with a rank three bundle, breaking an $E_8$ to $E_6$, there are
- ${\bf \overline{27} }^3$ couplings – on the (2,2) locus, [*i.e.*]{} when the gauge bundle is the same as the tangent bundle, these are computed by A model correlation functions.
- ${\bf 27}^3$ couplings – on the (2,2) locus, these are computed by B model correlation functions.
- Singlet couplings, such as potential terms lifting moduli – these are not computed on the (2,2) locus by any topological field theory, and so in principle are harder to compute directly. See [@evaed; @candelasetal; @bw] for some (vanishing) results concerning such singlet couplings.
In this talk, we will focus on the first two classes of superpotential terms. Off the (2,2) locus, [*i.e.*]{} when the gauge bundle is not the same as the tangent bundle, there exist analogues of the A and B models. These are no longer strictly topological field theories, though they become topological field theories on the (2,2) locus. Nevertheless, although they are not quite the same as topological field theories, they have many of the same properties as topological field theories, and in particular some correlation functions still have a mathematical understanding.
These quasi-topological field theories also have some unusual symmetries; in particular, the (0,2) A model on a space $X$ with gauge bundle ${\cal E}$ is isomorphic to the (0,2) B model on $X$ with gauge bundle ${\cal E}^{\vee}$. (For example, this means the (2,2) A model on $X$ is the same as the (0,2) B model on $X$ with gauge bundle $T^*X$ instead of $TX$.)
In addition to computing superpotential terms, these quasi-topological field theories also have applications to understanding the (0,2) generalization of mirror symmetry. Recall that ordinary mirror symmetry exchanges pairs of topologically-distinct spaces, dualizing quantum-corrected computations into classical computations, and exchanging cohomology, in the sense that if $X$ and $Y$ are mirror, then $h^{p,q}(X) = h^{d-p,q}(Y)$ where $d$ is the dimension of $X$.
In principle, (0,2) mirror symmetry exchanges spaces together with bundles. Instead of swapping ordinary cohomology classes, it exchanges sheaf cohomology groups: if $(X_1, {\cal E}_1)$ is exchanged with $(X_2, {\cal E}_2)$, then $H^1(X_1,{\cal E}_1)$ is exchanged with $H^1(X_2, {\cal E}_2^{\vee})$. In the special case that ${\cal E}_i = TX_i$, (0,2) mirror symmetry reduces to ordinary mirror symmetry.
At the present time, (0,2) mirror symmetry is not well-understood. One example of evidence for (0,2) mirror symmetry is numerical computations [@rsw], in which sheaf cohomology classes of a large number of examples were computed. When one graphs the set of dimensions of sheaf cohomology groups, the graph is symmetric. Other work on the subject can be found in [@rsw; @rs; @r2; @r3; @abs].
In particular, [@abs] proposed that there should exist a (0,2) analogue of ‘quantum cohomology’ computations, encoding worldsheet instanton corrections, as would be computed ordinarily in the A model topological field theory. The papers [@sharpe02a; @sharpe02c; @sharpe02b] and others since ([*e.g.*]{} [@ade; @kg; @ilarion1; @ilarion2; @gs2]) have begun building the details of those proposed (0,2) quantum cohomology computations, and that is what we shall discuss in this section.
Since ordinary quantum cohomology rings are operator product rings in the A model topological field theory, we shall discuss the (0,2) analogue of the A model. First, let us first review the ordinary A model. This is a two-dimensional quantum field theory with lagrangian $$g_{i \overline{\jmath}} \overline{\partial} \phi^i \partial
\phi^{\overline{\jmath}} \: + \:
i g_{i \overline{\jmath}} \psi_-^{\overline{\jmath}} D_z \psi_-^i \: + \:
i g_{i \overline{\jmath}} \psi_+^{\overline{\jmath}}
D_{\overline{z}} \psi_+^i \: + \:
R_{i \overline{\jmath} k \overline{l}} \psi_+^i \psi_+^{\overline{\jmath}}
\psi_-^k
\psi_-^{\overline{l}}$$ where the $\phi$ are maps from the worldsheet $\Sigma$ into a target space $X$, and the Grassmann field $\psi$ couple to bundles as follows: $$\begin{array}{cc}
\psi_-^i ( \equiv \chi^i ) \: \in \: \Gamma( ( \phi^* T^{0,1} X)^{\vee}) &
\psi_+^i ( \equiv \psi_z^i) \: \in \: \Gamma( K \otimes \phi^* T^{1,0} X) \\
\psi_-^{\overline{\imath}} ( \equiv \psi_{\overline{z}}^{\overline{\imath}} ) \:
\in \:
\Gamma( \overline{K} \otimes \phi^* T^{0,1} X ) &
\psi_+^{\overline{\imath}} ( \equiv \chi^{\overline{\imath}} ) \: \in \:
\Gamma( (\phi^* T^{1,0} X)^{\vee}).
\end{array}$$ These fields are not worldsheet fermions, but rather are worldsheet vectors and scalars – a result of the topological twisting. Half of the original supersymmetries between worldsheet scalars, forming the scalar supercharge or BRST operator, and under the action of that supercharge, $$\begin{array}{cc}
\delta \phi^i \: \propto \: \chi^i, &
\delta \phi^{\overline{\imath}} \: \propto \: \chi^{\overline{\imath}} \\
\delta \chi^i \: = \: 0, & \delta \chi^{\overline{\imath}} \: = \: 0 \\
\delta \psi_z^i \: \neq \: 0, & \delta \psi_{\overline{z}}^{\overline{\imath}}
\: \neq \: 0.
\end{array}$$ As a result, the BRST-invariant worldsheet scalar states are built from products of $\chi$’s, and there is a well-known isomorphism to cohomology given by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\cal O} \: \sim \: b_{i_1 \cdots i_p \overline{\imath}_1 \cdots \overline{\imath}_q }
\chi^{\overline{\imath}_1} \cdots \chi^{\overline{\imath}_q} \chi^{i_1} \cdots \chi^{i_p}
& \leftrightarrow & H^{p,q}(X), \\
Q & \leftrightarrow & d.
\end{array}$$
Next, let us examine comparable facts about the (0,2) analogue of the A model. This is based on the heterotic lagrangian $$g_{i \overline{\jmath}} \overline{\partial} \phi^i \partial \phi^{\overline{\jmath}} \: + \:
i h_{a \overline{b}} \lambda_-^{\overline{b}} D_z \lambda_-^a \: + \:
i g_{i \overline{\jmath}} \psi_+^{\overline{\jmath}} D_{\overline{z}} \psi_+^i \: + \:
F_{i \overline{\jmath} a \overline{b}} \psi_+^i \psi_+^{\overline{\jmath}} \lambda_-^a
\lambda_-^{\overline{b}}$$ describing a heterotic string propagating on a space $X$ with left-movers coupling to a holomorphic vector bundle ${\cal E}$, in which the Grassmann fields $\psi$, $\lambda$ couple to bundles as follows: $$\begin{array}{cc}
\lambda_-^a \: \in \: \Gamma( \phi^* \overline{\cal E}) &
\psi_+^i \: \in \: \Gamma( K \otimes \phi^* T^{1,0} X) \\
\lambda_-^{\overline{b}} \: \in \:
\Gamma( \overline{K} \otimes \phi^* \overline{\cal E} ) &
\psi_+^{\overline{\imath}} \: \in \:
\Gamma( (\phi^* T^{1,0} X)^{\vee}).
\end{array}$$ As before, the $\psi$ and $\lambda$ are no longer worldsheet fermions, but rather are scalars and vectors. Because of the asymmetry between left- and right-moving fields, this theory must satisfy the conditions $$\Lambda^{top} {\cal E}^{\vee} \cong K_X, \: \: \:
\mbox{ch}_2({\cal E}) = \mbox{ch}_2(TX).$$ The second of these is the well-known anomaly cancellation condition of perturbative heterotic strings, the first is another condition present only in the twisted theory – a close analogue of the anomaly in the closed string B model that makes it well-defined only for complex Kähler manifolds obeying $K_X^{\otimes 2}$ trivial [@sharpe02c].
Here, the BRST-invariant worldsheet scalar states that one considers are products of $\psi$’s, $\lambda$’s, and are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of sheaf cohomology groups $${\cal O} \: \sim \:
b_{\overline{\imath}_1 \cdots \overline{\imath}_n a_1 \cdots a_p}
\psi_+^{\overline{\imath}_1} \cdots \psi_+^{\overline{\imath}_n}
\lambda_-^{a_1} \cdots \lambda_-^{a_p}
\: \leftrightarrow \:
H^n(X, \Lambda^p {\cal E}^{\vee} ).$$
In the special case that ${\cal E} = TX$, this pseudo-topological field theory becomes the A model, a true topological field theory. (For example, $$H^q(X, \Lambda^p(TX)^{\vee})
= H^{p,q}(X)$$ so the state counting specializes in the desired fashion.)
Next, let us turn to correlation function computations in these theories.
In the A model, the classical contributions to correlation functions are computed as follows. For $X$ compact and of dimension $n$, there are $n$ $\chi^i$, $\chi^{\overline{\imath}}$ zero modes, plus bosonic zero modes whose moduli space is $X$ itself, so the correlation function reduces to $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m > \: = \:
\int_X H^{p_1, q_1}(X) \wedge \cdots \wedge H^{p_m, q_m}(X).$$ (In our notation, we schematically indicate representatives of cohomology classes by writing the cohomology groups themselves.) In addition, there is a selection rule from the left and right $U(1)_R$ symmetries that says the classical contributions to correlation functions are only nonzero when $$\sum_i p_i = \sum_i q_i = n.$$ Putting this together, we see that the classical contribution has the form $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m > \: \sim \:
\int_X (\mbox{top-form} ).$$
Next, let us consider the analogous computation in the (0,2) analogue of the A model. For $X$ compact of dimension $n$, and ${\cal E}$ of rank $r$, there are $n$ $\psi_+^{\overline{\imath}}$ zero modes and $r$ $\lambda_-^a$ zero modes, so the classical contribution to a correlation function is of the form $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m > \: = \:
\int_X H^{q_1}(X, \Lambda^{p_1} {\cal E}^{\vee} ) \wedge \cdots \wedge
H^{q_m}(X, \Lambda^{p_m} {\cal E}^{\vee} ).$$
As before, there is a selection rule, which now enforces $$\sum_i q_i = n, \: \: \:
\sum_i p_i = r$$ for classical contributions. Therefore, the classical contributions have the form $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m > \: \sim \:
\int_X H^{top} (X, \Lambda^{top} {\cal E}^{\vee} ).$$ The constraint $\Lambda^{top} {\cal E}^{\vee} \cong K_X$ makes the integrand a top-form.
Next, let us turn to a non-classical contribution to a correlation function. Again let us first consider the original A model before studying the (0,2) analogue. In the standard A model, the moduli space of bosonic zero modes in some non-classical sector will be a moduli space ${\cal M}$ of worldsheet instantons. If there are no $\psi_z^i$ or $\psi_{\overline{z}}^{\overline{\imath}}$ zero modes, then the contribution to a correlation function is of the form $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m >
\: \sim \:
\int_{ {\cal M} }
H^{p_1,q_1}({\cal M}) \wedge \cdots
\wedge H^{p_m,q_m}({\cal M}).$$ More generally, taking into account the possibility of $\psi_z^i$ or $\psi_{\overline{z}}^{\overline{\imath}}$ zero modes, the contribution to a correlation function will be of the form $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m >
\: \sim \:
\int_{ {\cal M} }
H^{p_1,q_1}({\cal M}) \wedge \cdots
\wedge H^{p_m,q_m}({\cal M})
\wedge c_{top}(\mbox{Obs}).$$ In all cases, the contribution has the form $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m >
\: \sim \:
\int_{ {\cal M} }
(\mbox{top form}).$$
Next, let us consider the analogous computations to the (0,2) analogue of the A model. Here, the bundle ${\cal E}$ on $X$ induces a holomorphic vector bundle[^2] ${\cal F}$ of $\lambda$ zero modes on the moduli space ${\cal M}$. Mathematically, $${\cal F} \equiv R^0 \pi_* \alpha^* {\cal E}$$ where $$\pi: \Sigma \times {\cal M} \rightarrow {\cal M}, \: \: \:
\alpha: \Sigma \times {\cal M} \rightarrow X.$$ On the (2,2) locus, where ${\cal E} = TX$, one has ${\cal F} = T {\cal M}$. When there are no ‘excess’ (worldsheet vector) zero modes, the contribution to the correlation function is of the form $$< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m > \: \sim \: \int_{ {\cal M} } H^{top}(
{\cal M}, \Lambda^{top} {\cal F}^{\vee} ).$$ When we apply the physical consistency conditions and the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem, we find $$\left. \begin{array}{c}
\Lambda^{top} {\cal E}^{\vee} \cong K_X \\
\mbox{ch}_2({\cal E}) = \mbox{ch}_2(TX)
\end{array} \right\} \: \stackrel{GRR}{\Longrightarrow} \:
\Lambda^{top} {\cal F}^{\vee} \cong K_{ {\cal M} }$$ so again the integrand is a top-form. In the general case, one has $$\begin{array}{rcl}
< {\cal O}_1 \cdots {\cal O}_m > & \sim &
\int_{ {\cal M} } H^{\sum q_i}\left(
{\cal M}, \Lambda^{\sum p_i} {\cal F}^{\vee} \right) \wedge \\
& & \hspace*{0.5in}
H^n\left( {\cal M}, \Lambda^n {\cal F}^{\vee} \otimes \Lambda^n {\cal F}_1
\otimes \Lambda^n (\mbox{Obs})^{\vee} \right)
\end{array}$$ where $$\begin{array}{cc}
\psi_+^{\overline{\jmath}} \sim T {\cal M} = R^0 \pi_* \alpha^* TX &
\lambda_-^a \sim {\cal F} = R^0 \pi_* \alpha^* {\cal E} \\
\psi_+^i \sim \mbox{Obs} = R^1 \pi_* \alpha^* TX &
\lambda_-^{\overline{b}} \sim {\cal F}_1 \equiv R^1 \pi_* \alpha^* {\cal E}.
\end{array}$$ Applying anomaly constraints as before, we find $$\left.
\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda^{top} {\cal E}^{\vee} \cong K_X \\
\mbox{ch}_2 ({\cal E}) = \mbox{ch}_2(TX)
\end{array} \right\}
\: \stackrel{GRR}{\Longrightarrow} \:
\Lambda^{top} {\cal F}^{\vee} \otimes \Lambda^{top} {\cal F}_1
\otimes \Lambda^{top} ( \mbox{Obs} )^{\vee} \: \cong \: K_{ {\cal M} }$$ so, again, the integrand is a top-form. On the (2,2) locus, this reduces to the previous result via Atiyah classes [@atiyah].
To do any computations with these general formulas, we need explicit expressions for the space ${\cal M}$ and bundle ${\cal F}$. Luckily, the gauged linear sigma model naturally provides such expressions. Gauged linear sigma models are two-dimensional gauge theories, generalizations of the ${\bf C} {\bf P}^n$ model, which are important in string compactifications. They renormalization-group flow to nonlinear sigma models and other conformal field theories, and technical questions about the CFT’s will (often) become easier questions about the gauged linear sigma model. For example, the worldsheet instantons of the IR nonlinear sigma model are the two-dimensional gauge instantons of the gauge theory.
To be specific, let us consider the example of ${\bf C} {\bf P}^{N-1}$. Physically, this is described by $N$ chiral superfields $x_1, \cdots, x_N$, each of charge 1. For degree $d$ maps, and a genus zero worldsheet, we expand in a basis of zero modes: $$x_i \: = \: x_{i0} u^d \: + \:
x_{i1}u^{d-1}v \: + \: \cdots \: + \:
x_{id} v^d$$ where $u, v$ are homogeneous coordinates on the worldsheet ${\bf P}^1$. Taking the $(x_{ij})$ to be homogeneous coordinates on ${\cal M}$ [@daveronen], we find ${\cal M} = {\bf P}^{N(d+1)=1}$.
We can do something very similar to build ${\cal F}$. For example, suppose ${\cal E}$ is a completely reducible bundle: $${\cal E} \: = \: \oplus_a {\cal O}(
\vec{n}_a).$$ Expanding the left-moving fermions in a basis of zero modes, on a genus zero worldsheet, we find: $$\lambda_-^a \: = \:
\lambda_-^{a0} u^{\vec{n}_a \cdot \vec{d} + 1} \: + \:
\lambda_-^{a1} u^{\vec{n}_a \cdot d} v
\: + \: \cdots.$$ We then identify each $\lambda_-^{ai}$ with ${\cal O}(\vec{n}_a)$ on ${\cal M}$. Thus, in this case, $${\cal F} \: = \:
\oplus_a H^0\left({\bf P}^1,
{\cal O}(\vec{n}_a \cdot \vec{d}) \right)
\otimes_{ {\bf C} } {\cal O}(\vec{n}_a).$$
There are analogous expressions for more general constructions appearing in (0,2) gauged linear sigma models, see [@sharpe02a].
Next, let us quickly review ordinary quantum cohomology, before describing the (0,2) analogue. Quantum cohomology encodes the OPE ring of the A model. Such ideas appear elsewhere in physics, for example there is a close analogy with results on four-dimensional gauge theories of Cachazo-Douglas-Seiberg-Witten [@cdsw]:
4d ${\cal N}=1$ $SU(N)$ SYM 2d susy ${\bf C} {\bf P}^{N-1}$
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
$S^N = \Lambda^{3N}$ $x^N = q$
$W = S(1 \: + \: \log( \Lambda^{3N}/S^N) )$ $W = \Sigma( 1 \: + \: \log( \Lambda^N/\Sigma^N) )$
In the two-dimensional case, the OPE ring looks like a modification of the classical cohomology ring relation, hence the term “quantum cohomology.”
In the case of the ${\bf C} {\bf P}^n$ model, the quantum cohomology ring corresponds to correlation functions of the form $$< x^k > \: = \: \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
q^m & \mbox{ if }k = mN + N-1 \\
0 & \mbox{else}.
\end{array} \right.$$ Now, ordinarily for a well-behaved OPE ring, it is assumed that one needs (2,2) supersymmetry, but it has been found that that condition can be relaxed to (0,2) supersymmetry. This was first conjectured by [@abs], and then [@sharpe02a] found strong evidence for this conjecture in our computations of correlation functions. Later [@ade] found a CFT argument explaining why a well-behaved OPE ring should exist with only (0,2) supersymmetry.
In particular, the paper [@abs] studied a (0,2) theory describing ${\bf P}^1 \times {\bf P}^1$ with gauge bundle given by a deformation of the tangent bundle. Using a duality argument, they argued that the quantum cohomology ring of this theory should be given by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{X}^2 & = & \exp(it_2) \\
X^2 \: - \: (\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2) X \tilde{X} & = &
\exp(i t_1)
\end{array}$$ (where $\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2$ parametrizes the distance from the tangent bundle), which is a deformation of the quantum cohomology ring of ${\bf P}^1 \times {\bf P}^1$.
In [@sharpe02a] we directly computed correlation functions in this theory, using the technology outlined so far, and we found that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
<\tilde{X}^4> & = & < 1 > \exp(2 i t_2) \: = \: 0, \\
< X \tilde{X}^3 > & = & < ( X \tilde{X} ) \tilde{X}^2 >, \\
& = & < X \tilde{X} > \exp(i t_2) \: = \: \exp(i t_2), \\
<X^2 \tilde{X}^2 > & = & < X^2> \exp(i t_2) \: = \:
(\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2) \exp(i t_2), \\
<X^3 \tilde{X}> & = & \exp(i t_1) \: + \: ( \epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2 )^2
\exp(i t_2), \\
< X^4 > & = &
2 (\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2) \exp(i t_1) \: + \:
( \epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2 )^3 \exp(i t_2 ),
\end{array}$$ verifying the prediction of [@abs].
More recently, [@kg] extended the computation of [@sharpe02a] to include all the bundle moduli. A comparison of their results to the work of [@abs] showed that to obtain agreement between the Landau-Ginzburg description and the gauged linear sigma model would require finding a set of potentially complicated field redefinitions [@kg; @ilarion1]. The work of [@ilarion2] pointed out that these correlators may be efficiently computed on the Coulomb branch of the GLSM. Besides proving an efficient route to the quantum cohomology ring and explicit correlators, these techniques should be helpful in elucidating the details of the field redefinitions relating the GLSM to the dual theory of [@abs]. More recently still, in [@gs2] A-twists of heterotic Landau-Ginzburg models in the same universality classes as the heterotic nonlinear sigma models studied in other work were studied. These provide alternative approaches to the same computations, which often make mathematical tricks manifest.
So far we have discussed the (0,2) analogue of the A model. There is also a (0,2) analogue of the B model. The ordinary (2,2) B model gets no nonperturbative corrections at all, whereas the (0,2) B model does get nonperturbative corrections off the (2,2) locus. These two twists are related in a simple way: the (0,2) A twist of the theory with bundle ${\cal E}$ on space $X$ is the same, for trivial field-redefinition reasons, as the (0,2) B twist of the theory with bundle ${\cal E}^{\vee}$ on space $X$. This is discussed in more detail in [@sharpe02c; @ade].
A potential heterotic swampland and new heterotic CFT constructions
===================================================================
This section is a summary of the paper [@DS], concerning a potential heterotic swampland and new heterotic worldsheet CFT constructions.
There has recently been a lot of interest in the landscape program, which for those readers not already aware is an attempt to extract phenomenological predictions by doing statistics on the set of string vacua.
One of the technical challenges in the landscape program is that those string vacua are counted by low-energy effective field theories, and it is not clear that all of those have consistent UV completions – not all of them may come from an underlying quantum gravity [@bankstalk; @vafaswamp].
One potential such problem arises in heterotic $E_8 \times E_8$ strings. The conventional worldsheet construction builds each $E_8$ using a ( ${\bf Z}_2$ orbifold of a ) set of fermions $\lambda_-$. $$L \: = \: g_{\mu \nu} \partial \phi^{\mu} \partial \phi^{\nu} \: + \: i g_{i
\overline{\jmath}} \overline{\psi}_+^{\overline{\jmath}} D_- \psi_+^i
\: + \: h_{a \overline{b}} \overline{\lambda}^{\overline{b}}_-
D_+ \lambda_-^a \: + \: \cdots.$$ The fermions realize a Spin(16) current algebra at level 1, and the ${\bf Z}_2$ orbifold makes the current algebra Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$. The group Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$ is a subgroup of $E_8$, and we use it to realize the $E_8$.
In more detail, the adjoint representation ${\bf 248}$ of $E_8$ decomposes into the adjoint representation ${\bf 120}$ of Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$ plus a spinor representation ${\bf 128}$: $${\bf 248} \: = \: {\bf 120} \: + \: {\bf 128}.$$ The ${\bf 120}$ arises from the left NS sector and the ${\bf 128}$ from the left R sector of the ${\bf Z}_2$ orbifold. We take currents transforming in the adjoint and spinor representations of Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$, and form $E_8$ via commutation relations. More, in fact: all $E_8$ degrees of freedom, the entire level 1 Kac-Moody algebra, are realized in this fashion by Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$.
This construction has served us well for many years, but, in order to describe an $E_8$ bundle with connection, that bundle and connection must be reducible to Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$. After all, all information is buried in the kinetic term $h_{\alpha \beta} \lambda_-^{\alpha} D_+ \lambda_-^{\beta}$, and since the $\lambda_-$ transform as a vector representation of Spin(16), the connection is necessarily only an adjoint of Spin(16).
So, can an $E_8$ bundle with connection always be reduced to Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$ ? Very briefly:
- Bundles: in dimension 9 or less, an $E_8$ bundle can be reduced to a Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$ bundle.
- Connections: just because the bundle can be reduced does not mean the connection on the bundle can be reduced. We shall find that connections are not always so reducible – in fact, this is the generic case.
So, is there a heterotic swampland, populated by theories with $E_8$ bundles with connection which cannot be described in the standard construction?
Let us review the technical issue with connections[^3]; readers interested in learning about reducibility of bundles are referred to [@DS].
On a principal $G$ bundle, even a trivial principal $G$ bundle, one can find connections with holonomy that fill out all of $G$, and so cannot be understood as connections on a principal $H$ bundle for $H$ a subgroup of $G$: just take a connection whose curvature generates the Lie algebra of $G$.
Now, in heterotic strings, we cannot work with arbitrary connections, but rather we want gauge fields satisfying both the anomaly-cancellation condition $\mbox{ch}_2({\cal E}) = \mbox{ch}_2(TX)$ as well as the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau condition $g^{i \overline{\jmath}}
F_{i \overline{\jmath}} = 0$. We shall see that even after imposing these constraints, there are still examples of $E_8$ bundles with connection that cannot be reduced to Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$.
To build such an example, we shall use the fact that $E_8$ has an $(SU(5)\times SU(5))/{\bf Z}_5$ subgroup that does not sit inside Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$ (see figure \[fig:e8sub\]). In particular, $SU(n)$ connections are easy to build (using holomorphic vector bundles), so we shall construct an $( SU(5) \times SU(5) )/{\bf Z}_5$ connection that is anomaly-free and satisfies Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau.
![The $\mbox{Spin}(16)/{\bf Z}_2$ and $(SU(5) \times SU(5))/{\bf Z}_5$ subgroups of $E_8$. \[fig:e8sub\]](pic1.eps){width="5.5in" height="4.5in"}
For simplicity, we shall work on an elliptically-fibered $K3$ surface, and we shall build a stable $SU(5)$ bundle using Friedman-Morgan-Witten [@fmw] technology. A rank 5 bundle with $c_1=0$, $c_2=12$ has a spectral cover in the lienar system $|5\sigma + 12 f|$ ($\sigma$ the class of the base, $f$ the class of the fiber in the elliptically-fibered surface), describing a curve of genus $g = 5c_2 - 5^2 + 1 = 36$, together with a line bundle of degree $-(5+g-1) = -40$. The result is a (72-parameter) family of stable $SU(5)$ bundles with $c_2=12$ on $K3$, whose holonomy generically fills out all of $SU(5)$. If we put two together, and project to the ${\bf Z}_5$ quotient, the result is an $(SU(5)\times SU(5))/{\bf Z}_5$ bundle with connection that satisfies both anomaly cancellation and Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau.
Moreover, this example is not unique – this describes a 144-dimensional family of examples. The lesson here is that such examples are not exotic special cases, but rather are very common, even generic.
![Low-energy gauge groups that can be described by the standard heterotic worldsheet construction. \[fig:land\]](pic2.eps){width="5.5in" height="4.5in"}
Now that we have set up a problem, we shall see that in fact there is no swampland, by describing alternative worldsheet constructions that can describe more general $E_8$ bundles with connection. It should be emphasized, however, that even though these more general $E_8$ gauge fields can be described by some conformal field theory, there is a danger here for anyone doing statistics on standard worldsheet constructions – they do not capture all string vacua, only a misleading subset, as indicated schematically in figure \[fig:land\].
We shall begin by describing more general ten-dimensional flat-space constructions. The basic idea is to replace Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$ with other subgroups of $E_8$, realized as orbifolds of abstract current algebras (since only $U(n)$ and Spin$(n)$ have level 1 free field representations).
To be specific, we shall describe $( SU(5) \times SU(5) )/{\bf Z}_5$.
As a first check, let us consider the central charge. The central charge of a current algebra for an ADE group at level 1 is the same as the rank, so, the central charge of each $SU(5)$ is 4, hence the central charge of an $SU(5) \times SU(5)$ algebra at level 1 is 8, which will be unchanged by the ${\bf Z}_5$ orbifold. This is exactly right to match the central charge of $E_8$.
A more convincing test is to study the characters used to build a (hopefully modular-invariant) partition function. In the case of Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$, corresponding to the decomposition $${\bf 248} \: = \: {\bf 120} \: + \: {\bf 128}$$ of the adjoint representation of $E_8$, there is a decomposition of characters $$\chi_{E_8}({\bf 1},q) \: = \:
\chi_{Spin(16)}({\bf 1},q) \: + \:
\chi_{Spin(16)}({\bf 128},q)$$ which build the left-moving part of the heterotic partition function. (The adjoint representations are descendants of the identity operator in level 1 current algebras, and so are buried in the characters for ${\bf 1}$.)
In the case of $SU(5)^2/{\bf Z}_5$, from the decomposition $${\bf 248} \: = \:
({\bf 1}, {\bf 24}) \: + \: ({\bf 24}, {\bf 1}) \: + \:
( {\bf 5}, {\bf \overline{10} }) \: + \:
( {\bf \overline{5}}, {\bf 10}) \: + \:
( {\bf 10}, {\bf 5}) \: + \:
( {\bf \overline{10}}, {\bf \overline{5}})$$ of the adjoint representation of $E_8$, we get a prediction for the characters: $$\chi_{E_8}({\bf 1},q) \: = \:
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 1},q)^2 \: + \: 4
\, \chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 5},q) \,
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 10},q).$$ The $SU(5)$ characters can be shown to be $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 1},q) & = & \frac{1}{ \eta(\tau)^4}
\sum_{\vec{m} \in {\bf Z}^4 } q^{ \left( \sum m_i^2 + (\sum m_i)^2 \right)/2}
\\
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 5},q) & = & \frac{1}{ \eta(\tau)^4}
\sum_{\vec{m} \in {\bf Z}^4, \sum m_i \equiv 1 \: mod \: 5 }
q^{ \left( \sum m_i^2 - \frac{1}{5} (\sum m_i)^2 \right)/2}
\\
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 10},q) & = & \frac{1}{ \eta(\tau)^4}
\sum_{\vec{m} \in {\bf Z}^4, \sum m_i \equiv 2 \: mod \: 5 }
q^{ \left( \sum m_i^2 - \frac{1}{5} (\sum m_i)^2 \right)/2}.\end{aligned}$$
It can be shown [@scheidpriv; @kacsan] that $$\chi_{E_8}({\bf 1},q) \: = \:
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 1},q)^2 \: + \: 4
\, \chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 5},q) \,
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 10},q),$$ which is exactly the desired character identity.
Let us go back and re-examine these statements more carefully. In the character decomposition for Spin(16)/${\bf Z}_2$, namely $$\chi_{E_8}({\bf 1},q) \: = \:
\chi_{Spin(16)}({\bf 1},q) \: + \:
\chi_{Spin(16)}({\bf 128},q),$$ there is a ${\bf Z}_2$ orbifold implicit – the ${\bf 1}$ is from the untwisted sector, the ${\bf 128}$ from the twisted sector. Similarly, in the expression $$\chi_{E_8}({\bf 1},q) \: = \:
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 1},q)^2 \: + \: 4
\, \chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 5},q) \,
\chi_{SU(5)}({\bf 10},q),$$ there is a ${\bf Z}_5$ orbifold implicit – the ${\bf 1}$ is from the untwisted sector, the other four pieces are from four twisted sectors. This is exactly what we should find – the correct subgroup of $E_8$ is $SU(5)^2/{\bf Z}_5$, not $SU(5)^2$; there is a ${\bf Z}_5$ that should replace the left-moving ${\bf Z}_2$ GSO-analogue of the ordinary heterotic string construction.
It is straightforward to repeat this analysis for other subgroups of $E_8$. For example, let us next consider $SU(9)/{\bf Z}_3$. Again, the central charge of the current algebra at level 1 is 8, which matches that of the $E_8$ current algebra. From the decomposition of the $E_8$ conformal family $$[{\bf 1}] \: = \: [{\bf 1}] \: + \: [ {\bf 84} ] \: + \:
[ {\bf \overline{84}} ]$$ one predicts a character identity $$\chi_{E_8}({\bf 1},q) \: = \:
\chi_{SU(9)}({\bf 1},q) \: + \:
2 \, \chi_{SU(9)}({\bf 84},q)$$ and it can be shown that this is correct. Furthermore, note that in the expression above, there is a ${\bf Z}_3$ orbifold implicit, exactly as desired since the correct subgroup is $SU(9)/{\bf Z}_3$. So, we can also describe the $E_8$ degrees of freedom with $SU(9)/{\bf Z}_3$, with a ${\bf Z}_3$ orbifold replacing the left-moving ${\bf Z}_2$ GSO-analogue of the ordinary heterotic string construction.
For many other maximal-rank subgroups, there is an analogous story. For at least one non-maximal-rank, non-simply-laced subgroup, however, matters are more complicated. $E_8$ has a $G_2 \times F_4$ subgroup, and one can check that the central charge of the $G_2 \times F_4$ current algebra at level 1 is 8, exactly right to match that of $E_8$, and furthermore there is a character identity relating $\chi_{E_8}({\bf 1},q)$ to a sum over $G_2 \times F_4$ characters, as needed. However, that character sum includes more terms that just characters of identity representations, terms which ordinarily would arise in twisted sectors of orbifolds, but there is no group-theoretic orbifold to perform: $G_2\times F_4$ has no finite center or indeed a finite normal subgroup that one could orbifold, and correspondingly the subgroup of $E_8$ is $G_2 \times F_4$, not any quotient thereof. Therefore, although there exists formally a character decomposition, we do not understand how to realize it physically.
Next, in order to make this useful, we must describe how one fibers more general current algebras over spaces, in order to describe a compactified theory. To do this, we will outline fibered WZW models, first introduced by [@gates1; @gates2; @gates3; @gates4; @gates5] under the name ‘lefton, righton Thirring models,’’ which we specialize to (0,2) theories.
Before describing fibered WZW models, let us first recall ordinary WZW models. An ordinary WZW model looks like a sigma model on the group manifold of a group $G$ together with $H$ flux: $$S \: = \: - \frac{k}{2 \pi} \int_{\Sigma}
\mbox{Tr }\left[ g^{-1} \partial g g^{-1}
\overline{\partial} g \right]
\: - \: \frac{i k }{2 \pi} \int_B d^3 y \epsilon^{ijk}\mbox{Tr }\left[ g^{-1}
\partial_i g g^{-1} \partial_j g
g^{-1} \partial_k g \right].$$ The first term is the usual sigma model, the second or ‘Wess-Zumino’ term describes $H$ flux. This theory has a $G_L \times G_R$ symmetry, with currents $$J(z) \: = \: g^{-1} \partial g, \: \: \:
\overline{J}(\overline{z}) \: = \:
\overline{\partial} g \, g^{-1}$$ which (thanks to the Wess-Zumino term) obey $$\overline{\partial} J(z) \: = \:
\partial \overline{J}(\overline{z})
\: = \: 0.$$ These currents each realize a chiral $G$-Kac-Moody or current algebra at level $k$.
Next, let us describe how to fiber these WZW models. Let $P$ be a principal $G$ bundle over $X$, with connection $A$. Given an ordinary heterotic string worldsheet theory, the idea is that we shall replace the left-moving fermions $\lambda_-$ with a WZW model with left-multiplication gauged with the pullback of $A$. Schematically, the action has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\frac{1}{\alpha'} \int_{\Sigma} \left(
g_{i \overline{\jmath}} \partial_{\alpha}
\phi^i \partial^{\alpha} \phi^{\overline{\jmath}} \: + \: \cdots \right)
} \\ \\
& & \: \: - \: \frac{k}{4 \pi} \int_{\Sigma}
\mbox{Tr }\left( g^{-1} \partial g g^{-1} \overline{\partial} g \right)
\: - \: \frac{i k}{12 \pi} \int_B d^3 y \epsilon^{ijk} \mbox{Tr }
\left( g^{-1} \partial_i g g^{-1} \partial_j g g^{-1} \partial_k g \right) \\
& & \: \: - \: \frac{k}{2 \pi} \mbox{Tr }\left( ( \partial \phi^{\mu})
A_{\mu} \overline{\partial} g g^{-1} \: + \: \frac{1}{2} (
\partial \phi^{\mu} \overline{\partial} \phi^{\nu} ) A_{\mu} A_{\nu} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The first line describes a nonlinear sigma model on $X$; the second line describes a WZW model; the third line describes the operation of gauging left-multiplication. The third line will look very familiar to readers acquainted with gauged WZW models; the differences here are that we only gauge a chiral multiplication, and that the gauge field is the pullback of a gauge field on the target space, rather than a worldsheet gauge field.
Now, a WZW model action is invariant under gauging symmetric group multiplications, but not under the chiral group multiplications that we have here. Under $$\begin{aligned}
g & \mapsto & h g \\
A_{\mu} & \mapsto & h A_{\mu} h^{-1} \: + \: h \partial_{\mu} h^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ the classical action is not invariant.
On the one hand, this lack of invariance is expected – this is the bosonization of the chiral anomaly. On the other hand, this lack of invariance creates a potential well-definedness issue in the fibered WZW construction.
The fix is a quantum correction which cancels the classical non-invariance. In particular, the classical action picks up a quantum correction across coordinate patches, due to the right-moving chiral fermion anomaly.
To make the action gauge-invariant, we proceed in the usual form, by assigning a transformation law to the $B$ field. To be able to do this globally implies that $$k \, \mbox{ch}_2({\cal E}) \: = \: \mbox{ch}_2(TX)$$ which is the analogue of the usual anomaly-cancellation condition for left-movers at level $k$. If this condition is obeyed, the action is well-defined globally.
Proceeding in the usual fashion for heterotic strings, the right-moving fermion kinetic terms on the worldsheet couple to $H$ flux: $$\frac{i}{2} g_{\mu \nu} \psi_+^{\mu} D_{\overline{z}} \psi_+^{\nu}$$ where $$D_{\overline{z}} \psi_+^{\mu} \: = \: \overline{\partial} \psi_+^{\mu} \: + \: \overline{\partial} \phi^{\mu} \left( \Gamma^{\nu}_{\: \: \sigma \mu} \: - \:
H^{\nu}_{\: \: \sigma \mu} \right) \psi_+^{\sigma}.$$ To make the fermion kinetic terms gauge-invariant under the transformation of the $B$ field, we must redefine $H$ to be $$H \: = \: dB \: + \: (\alpha')\left(
k CS(A) \: - \: CS(\omega) \right)$$ so that $H$ is a well-defined 3-form globally. This implies that $$k \, \mbox{ch}_2({\cal E}) \: = \: \mbox{ch}_2(TX)$$ which is, again, the anomaly cancellation condition.
Next, let us demand (0,2) supersymmetry. One discovers an old faux-supersymmetry-anomaly in subleading terms in $\alpha'$ in the heterotic string, one originally discussed by [@sen1; @sen2]. The supersymmetry transformations in the ordinary heterotic string worldsheet are: $$\delta \lambda_- \: = \: - i \epsilon \psi_+^{\mu} A_{\mu} \lambda_-.$$ Note that this is the same as a chiral gauge transformation with parameter $ - i \epsilon \psi_+^{\mu} A_{\mu} $. Because of the chiral anomaly in the ordinary heterotic worldsheet, this means there is a quantum contribution to the supersymmetry transformations at order $\alpha'$. In our bosonized description, this quantum effect appears at leading order.
The one-fermi terms in the supersymmetry transformations of the various components of the action are as follows. The nonlinear sigma model on the base contributes $$\frac{1}{\alpha'} \int_{\Sigma} (i \alpha \psi^{\overline{\imath}} ) \overline{\partial} \phi^{\mu} \partial \phi^{\nu}
\left( H
\: - \: d B \right)_{\overline{\imath} \mu \nu}.$$ The WZW fibers contribute $$- k\int_{\Sigma} (i \alpha \psi^{\overline{\imath}}) \overline{\partial} \phi^{\mu} \partial \phi^{\nu}
CS(A)_{\overline{\imath} \mu \nu}.$$ This is the bosonization of the faux-supersymmetry-anomaly discussed above. Finally, there is an additional quantum contribution, a faux-supersymmetry-anomaly arising from the right-moving fermions, which contributes $$\int_{\Sigma} (i \alpha \psi^{\overline{\imath}}) \overline{\partial} \phi^{\mu} \partial \phi^{\nu}
CS(\omega)_{\overline{\imath} \mu \nu}.$$ In order for the one-fermi terms to cancel out, we see that $$H \: = \: dB \: + \: \alpha'\left( k CS(A) \: - \: CS(\omega) \right)$$ which is, again, the anomaly cancellation condition, the third time now that we have derived it. The three-fermi terms behave similarly.
Next, let us turn to the massless spectrum, or more properly the spectrum of chiral primaries. In an ordinary WZW model, the WZW primaries are associated to integrable representations of the group $G$. Here, for each integrable representation $R$ of the principal $G$ bundle $P$, we get an associated vector bundle ${\cal E}_R$. The chiral primaries are then easily checked to be given by $H^*(X, {\cal E}_R)$ for each integrable representation $R$.
For an example, consider $G=SU(n)$ at level 1. Here, the integrable representations are the fundamental ${\bf n}$ and its exterior powers, hence the chiral primaries are counted by $H^*(X, \Lambda^* {\cal E})$, in agreement with old results [@dg].
These fibered WZW constructions realize the ‘new’ elliptic genera of Ando and Liu [@kliu; @ando1]. Ordinary elliptic genera describe left-movers coupled to a level 1 current algebra; these elliptic genera, on the other hand, have left-moving level $k$ current algebras.
It would be very interesting if these elliptic genera could be applied to understand, for example, black hole entropy computations.
String compactifications on stacks
==================================
In this section we will review results in [@PS0; @PS1; @PS2; @PS3; @ESDCStx; @glsmhpd], describing string compactifications on stacks and applications to gauged linear sigma models.
Stacks are a mild generalization of spaces, on which there exist functions, metrics, spinors, and all the other machinery one needs to make sense of strings.
One would like to understand string compactifications on stacks, not only to understand the most general possible string compactifications, but also because they often appear physically inside various constructions.
So, what is a stack? We can cover a stack with coordinate charts, just like a manifold. So, locally, a stack looks just like a space. Globally, on a manifold, across triple overlaps, the coordinate charts close to the identity. On a stack, across triple overlaps, the coordinate charts need only close up to an automorphism. In other words, locally a stack is just like a space – the difference is global.
How does one make sense of string compactifications on stacks concretely? Every[^4] smooth, Deligne-Mumford stack can be presented as a global quotient $[X/G]$ for $X$ a space and $G$ a group. To such a presentation, we associate a $G$-gauged sigma model on $X$.
Following that program, we quickly run into a potential problem. If to $[X/G]$ we associate a $G$-gauged sigma model, then
- $[{\bf C}^2/{\bf Z}_2]$ defines a two-dimensional conformal field theory,
- $[X/{\bf C}^{\times}]$ for $X = \left( {\bf C}^2 \times {\bf C}^{\times}
\right)/{\bf Z}_2$ is an isomorphic stack, but $[X/{\bf C}^{\times}]$ defines a two-dimensional theory without conformal invariance.
Thus, there is a potential presentation-dependence problem: the same stack, presented in two different ways, is associated with distinct quantum field theories. Just like in the physical realization of derived categories, wehre an analogous problem arises, our proposal is that this presentation-dependence is fixed by renormalization-group flow. In other words, stacks classify endpoints of renormalization-group flow.
There are some potential problems with this program, reasons to believe that presentation-independence fails. One example involves deformation theory. The first check of a geometrical interpretation of any physical structure is to compare physical deformations to mathematical deformations, and in all previously-known cases, they match. For stacks, on the other hand, there is a mismatch: deformations of physical theories do not match mathematical deformations of stacks. Another example of a potential problem with the program outlined above involves cluster decomposition, or rather lack thereof, in the theories one associates to special kinds of stacks known as gerbes.
These potential problems can be fixed [@PS0; @PS1; @PS2; @PS3; @ESDCStx]. The results include: mirror symmetry for stacks, new Landau-Ginzburg models, physical calculations of quantum cohomology for stacks, and an understanding of noneffective quotients in physics.
For example, let us consider quantum cohomology. As outlined earlier, the quantum cohomology ring of ${\bf C} {\bf P}^N$ is ${\bf C}[x]/(x^{N+1} - q)$, a deformation of the classical cohomology ring ${\bf C}[x]/(x^{N+1})$. The quantum cohomology ring of a ${\bf Z}_k$ gerbe over ${\bf C}{\bf P}^N$ with characteristic class $-n \mbox{ mod }k$ is $${\bf C}[x,y]/\left( y^k - q_2, x^{N+1} - y^n q_1 \right).$$ In particular, even though the gerbe is not a space, one can still make sense of notions familiar from ordinary spaces.
For another example, the Toda dual of ${\bf C} {\bf P}^N$ is described by the holomorphic function $$W \: = \: \exp(-Y_1) \: + \cdots \:
+ \: \exp(-Y_N) \: + \: \exp(Y_1 \: +
\: \cdots \: + Y_N).$$ The analogous duals to ${\bf Z}_k$ gerbes over ${\bf C} {\bf P}^N$ are described by $$W \: = \: \exp(-Y_1) \: + \cdots \:
+ \: \exp(-Y_N) \: + \: \Upsilon^n \exp(Y_1 \: +
\: \cdots \: + Y_N)$$ where $\Upsilon$ is a character-valued field [@PS0; @PS1; @PS2].
More generally, there exists a notion of toric stacks [@bcs] which allows us to realize sigma models on many stacks in terms of simple two-dimensional gauge theories. Standard mirror constructions now produce discrete-valued fields [@PS0; @PS1; @PS2], a new effect, which ties into the stacky fan description of [@bcs].
We now believe that for banded, abelian $G$-gerbes on spaces $X$, (2,2) supersymmetric strings cannot distinguish between
- the gerbe itself,
- disjoint union of copies of $X$ (one for each character of $G$), with flat $B$ fields, determined by the image of the map $$H^2(X,G) \: \stackrel{ G \rightarrow U(1) }{ \longrightarrow } \:
H^2(X, U(1)).$$
In other words, these are described by the same conformal field theory. This fact comes up in mirror constructions, and the meaning of discrete-valued fields, and has impliciations for quantum cohomology computations [@PS3].
This result can also be applied to understand gauged linear sigma models. For example, let us consider the GLSM for the complete intersection ${\bf P}^7[2,2,2,2]$. At the Landau-Ginzburg point, onehas a superpotential of the form $$\sum_a p_a G_a(\phi) \: = \:
\sum_{ij} \phi_i A^{ij}(p) \phi_j$$ where the $G_a$ are quadric polynomials, and the $A^{ij}(p)$ is an $8 \times 8$ matrix with entries linear in the $p$’s, and the $\phi_i$ are the homogeneous coordinates on ${\bf P}^7$. In particular, this superpotential describes mass terms for the $\phi_i$, away from the locus $\{ \det A = 0 \}$, leaving just the $p$ fields. Since the $p$ fields have charge $-2$, this describes a ${\bf Z}_2$ gerbe, which physics sees as a double cover. Altogether, the Landau-Ginzburg point describes a branched double cover of ${\bf P}^3$. This is a non-birational twisted derived equivalence, and a physical realization of Kuznetsov’s homological projective duality [@glsmhpd].
Although (2,2) models on gerbes decompose into a disjoint union, (0,2) models do not in general. Heterotic strings on gerbes with twisted bundles do not factorize into a disjoint union of target spaces. The prototype for such bundles is the “${\cal O}(1/k)$” line bundle over the ${\bf Z}_k$ gerbe ${\bf P}^N_{[k, k, \cdots, k]}$ on ${\bf P}^N$, defined by a Fermi superfield of (minimal) charge 1. More generally, heterotic strings on gerbes give an understanding of some of the two-dimensional (0,4) theories appearing in the geometric Langlands program. Implicit here is a lesson for the landscape program: many more string vacua may exist than previously enumerated.
Conclusions
===========
In this talk we have outlined three recent developments pertinent to heterotic strings. First, we discussed recent progress in understanding nonperturbative corrections in heterotic strings. Second, we discussed a potential heterotic swampland – the inability of ordinary heterotic worldsheet constructions to describe most $E_8$ bundles with connection – and its resolution via the construction of new heterotic worldsheet CFT’s. Finally, we outlined string compactifications on stacks. These compactifications give new insight into many gauged linear sigma models, ranging from exotic-seeming GLSM’s with nonminimal charges, to seemingly ordinary GLSM’s which have novel geometries appearing at various limits of their Kähler moduli spaces, physically realizing Kuznetsov’s homological projective duality and Kontsevich’s noncommutative spaces. Heterotic string compactifications on special stacks known as gerbes appear to provide a new class of string compactifications.
[199]{}
M. Becker, L-S. Tseng, S-T. Yau, “Heterotic Kähler/non-Kähler transitions,” [arXiv: 0706.4290]{}.
K. Becker, M. Becker, J-X. Fu, L-S. Tseng, S-T. Yau, “Anomaly cancellation and smooth non-Kähler solutions in heterotic string theory,” Nucl. Phys. [**B751**]{} (2006) 108-128, [hep-th/0604137]{}.
K. Becker, L-S. Tseng, “Heterotic flux compactifications and their moduli,” Nucl. Phys. [**B741**]{} (2006) 162-179, [hep-th/0509131]{}.
K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, R. Tatar, “Geometric transitions, non-Kähler geometries and string vacua,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A20**]{} (2005) 3442-3448, [hep-th/0411039]{}.
A. Adams, M. Ernebjerg, J. Lapan, “Linear models for flux vacua,” [hep-th/0611084]{}.
A. Adams, “Conformal field theory and the Reid conjecture,” [hep-th/0703048]{}.
V. Braun, Y-H. He, B. Ovrut, T. Pantev, “The exact MSSM spectrum from string theory,” JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 043, [hep-th/0512177]{}.
V. Bouchard, M. Cvetic, R. Donagi, “Tri-linear couplings in a heterotic minimal supersymmetric standard model,” Nucl. Phys. [**B745**]{} (2006) 62-83, [hep-th/0602096]{}.
S. Katz, E. Sharpe, “Notes on certain (0,2) correlation functions,” Comm. Math. Phys. [**262**]{} (2006) 611-644, [hep-th/0406226]{}.
E. Sharpe, “Notes on certain other (0,2) correlation functions,” [hep-th/0605005]{}.
E. Sharpe, “Notes on correlation functions in (0,2) theories,” [hep-th/0502064]{}.
A. Adams, J. Distler, M. Ernebjerg, “Topological heterotic rings,” [hep-th/0506263]{}.
J. Guffin, S. Katz, “Deformed quantum cohomology and (0,2) mirror symmetry,” [arXiv: 0710.2354]{}.
I. Melnikov, S. Sethi, “Half-twisted (0,2) Landau-Ginzburg models,” [arXiv: 0712.1058]{}.
J. McOrist, I. Melnikov, “Half-twisted correlators from the Coulomb branch,” [arXiv: 0712.3272]{}.
J. Guffin, E. Sharpe, “A-twisted Landau-Ginzburg models,” [arXiv: 0801.3836]{}.
J. Guffin, E. Sharpe, “A-twisted heterotic Landau-Ginzburg models,” [arXiv: 0801.3955]{}.
E. Silverstein and E. Witten, “Criteria for conformal invariance of $(0,2)$ models,” Nucl. Phys. [**B444**]{} (1995) 161-190, [hep-th/9503212]{}.
P. Berglund, P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, E. Derrick, J. Distler, and T. Hubsch, “On the instanton contributions to the masses and couplings of $E_6$ singlets,” Nucl. Phys. [**B454**]{} (1995) 127-163, [hep-th/9505164]{}.
C. Beasley and E. Witten, “Residues and worldsheet instantons,” JHEP [**0310**]{} (2003) 065, [hep-th/0304115]{}.
R. Blumenhagen, R. Schimmrigk, A. Wisskirchen, “(0,2) mirror symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. [**B486**]{} (1997) 598-628, [hep-th/9609167]{}.
R. Blumenhagen, S. Sethi, “On orbifolds of (0,2) models,” Nucl. Phys. [**B491**]{} (1997) 263-278, [hep-th/9611172]{}.
R. Blumenhagen, “Target space duality for (0,2) compactifications,” Nucl. Phys. [**B513**]{} (1998) 573-590, [hep-th/9707198]{}.
R. Blumenhagen, “(0,2) target space duality, CICY’s, and reflexive sheaves,” Nucl. Phys. [**B514**]{} (1998) 688-704, [hep-th/9710021]{}.
A. Adams. A. Basu, and S. Sethi, “$(0,2)$ duality,” [hep-th/0309226]{}.
M. Atiyah, “Complex analytic connections in fibre bundles,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**85**]{} (1957) 181-207.
D. Morrison and R. Plesser, “Summing the instantons: quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry in toric varieties,” Nucl. Phys. [**B440**]{} (1995) 279-354, [hep-th/9412236]{}.
F. Cachazo, M. Douglas, N. Seiberg, E. Witten, “Chiral rings and anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theory,” JHEP [**0212**]{} (2002) 071, [hep-th/0211170]{}.
J. Distler, E. Sharpe, “Heterotic compactifications with principal bundles for general groups and general levels,” [hep-th/0701244]{}.
T. Banks, talk given at “String vacuum workshop” at Max-Planck Institute, Munich, November 2004, and elsewhere.
C. Vafa, “The string landscape and the swampland,” [hep-th/0509212]{}.
R. Friedman, J. Morgan, and E. Witten, “Vector bundles and F theory,” Comm. Math. Phys. [**187**]{} (1997) 679-743, [hep-th/9701162]{}.
E. Scheidegger, private communication.
V. Kac, M. N. Sanielevici, “Decompositions of representations of exceptional affine algebras with respect to conformal subalgebras,” Phys. Rev. [**D37**]{} (1988) 2231-2237.
S. J. Gates, Jr., W. Siegel, “Leftons, rightons, nonlinear sigma models, and superstrings,” Phys. Lett. [**B206**]{} (1988) 631-638.
D. Depireux, S. J. Gates, Jr., Q-H. Park, “Lefton-righton formulation of massless Thirring models,” Phys. Lett. [**B224**]{} (1989) 364-372.
S. Bellucci, D. Depireux, S. J. Gates, Jr., “(1,0) Thirring models and the coupling of spin-zero fields to the heterotic string,” Phys. Lett. [**B232**]{} (1989) 67-74.
S. J. Gates, Jr., S. Ketov, S. Kuzenko, O. Soloviev, “Lagrangian chiral coset constructions of heterotic string theories in (1,0) superspace,” Nucl. Phys. [**B362**]{} (1991) 199-231.
S. J. Gates, Jr., “Strings, superstrings, and two-dimensional lagrangian field theory,” pp. 140-184 in [*Functional integration, geometry, and strings*]{}, proceedings of the XXV Winter School of Theoretical Physics, Karpacz, Poland (Feb. 1989), ed. Z. Haba, J. Sobczyk, Birkhauser, 1989.
A. Sen, “Local gauge and Lorentz invariance of the heterotic string theory,” Phys. Lett. [**B166**]{} (1986) 300-304.
A. Sen, “Superspace analysis of local Lorentz and gauge anomalies in the heterotic string theory,” Phys. Lett. [**B174**]{} (1986) 277-279.
J. Distler, B. Greene, “Aspects of (2,0) string compactifications,” Nucl. Phys. [**B304**]{} (1988) 1-62.
K. Liu, “On modular invariance and rigidity theorems,” J. Diff. Geom. [**41**]{} (1995) 343-396.
M. Ando, “The sigma orientation for analytic circle-equivariant elliptic cohomology,” [math.AT/0201092]{}.
T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “Notes on gauging noneffective group actions,” [hep-th/0502027]{}.
T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “String compactifications on Calabi-Yau stacks,” Nucl. Phys. [**B733**]{} (2006) 233-296, [hep-th/0502044]{}.
T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “GLSM’s for gerbes (and other toric stacks),” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**10**]{} (2006) 77-121, [hep-th/0502053]{}.
S. Hellerman, A. Henriques, T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, M. Ando, “Cluster decomposition, T-duality, and gerby CFT’s,” [hep-th/0606034]{}.
E. Sharpe, “Derived categories and stacks in physics,” contribution to proceedings of Vienna homological mirror symmetry conference, June 2006, [hep-th/0608056]{}.
A. Caldararu, J. Distler, S. Hellerman, T. Pantev, E. Sharpe, “Non-birational twisted derived equivalences in abelian GLSM’s,” [arXiv: 0709.3855]{}.
L. Borisov, L. Chen, and G. Smith, “The orbifold Chow ring of toric Deligne-Mumford stacks,” [math.AG/0309229]{}.
[^1]: Presented at the Virginia Tech Sowers workshop, May 2007.
[^2]: In general, this will only be a sheaf. However, for the bundle constructions under consideration, over toric varieties, the induced sheaf will always be locally free.
[^3]: The work on reducibility of connections was done in collaboration with R. Thomas.
[^4]: With minor caveats.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'W50 remains the only supernova remnant (SNR) confirmed to harbor a microquasar: the powerful enigmatic source SS 433. Our past study of this fascinating SNR revealed two X-ray lobes distorting the radio shell as well as non-thermal X-rays at the site of interaction between the SS 433 eastern jet and the eastern lobe of W50. In this paper we present the results of a 75 ksec ACIS-I observation of the peak of W50-west targeted to 1) determine the nature of the X-ray emission and 2) correlate the X-ray emission with that in the radio and infrared domains. We have confirmed that at the site of interaction between the western jet of SS 433 and dense interstellar gas the X-ray emission is non-thermal in nature. The helical pattern observed in radio is also seen with . No correlation was found between the infrared and X-ray emission.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada, [email protected], [email protected]'
- 'Service d’Astrophysique, CEA/Saclay, France, [email protected]'
- 'IAFE, Institute of Astronomy and Space Physics, Buenos Aires, Argentina, [email protected]'
author:
- 'A. Moldowan'
- 'S. Safi-Harb'
- 'Y. Fuchs'
- 'G. Dubner'
title: 'A Multi-Wavelength Study of the Western Lobe of W50 Powered by the Galactic Microquasar SS 433'
---
,
,
,
binaries: close ,ISM: individual (W50) ,X-rays: stars ,stars: individual (SS 433) ,radiation mechanisms: non-thermal ,supernova remnants
Introduction
============
SS 433 is a peculiar binary system, consisting of a black hole (as proposed by Lopez et al., 2005) and a massive companion. This system is accreting at a super-Eddington rate, and is expelling two-sided relativistic jets at a velocity of 0.26c. These jets precess in a cone of half-opening angle of 20$^{\circ}$ [@M84].
SS 433 is near the center of W50, a large 2$^{\circ}\times$1$^{\circ}$ nebula stretched in the east-west direction, and catalogued as an SNR [@G05].The SS 433/W50 system is the only Galactic object known of its kind, giving rise to a unique laboratory to study the association between SNRs and black holes as well as the interaction between relativistic jets and the surrounding medium.
This system has been studied extensively in radio continuum and HI [@D1998], millimetre wavelengths [@D2000], and in X-rays with and [@SO1997 and references therein] and with *RXTE* (Safi-Harb & Kotani, 2002, Safi-Harb & Petre, 1999). From this multi-wavelength study, it was concluded that the morphology and energetics of W50 are consistent with the picture of the jets interacting with an inhomogeneous medium and likely hitting a denser cloud in the west.
The observation presented here provides the highest resolution X-ray image obtained to date of the bright region of the western lobe of W50. This region was chosen because it coincides with IR emission and can probe the jet-cloud interaction site. We performed a spatially resolved spectroscopy of this region to primarily determine the nature of the emission and correlate the X-ray emission with radio and IR observations. The paper is organized as follows. In §2, we summarize the observation imaging and spectral results and compare them to the and data. In §3, we study the X-ray emission in correlation with the infrared and radio emission, and finally present our conclusions in §4.
*[Chandra]{} Data Reduction and Analysis*
=========================================
The western lobe of W50 was observed with the ACIS-I chips on board on 2003 August 21 at a CCD temperature of -120$^{\circ}$C. The charge transfer inefficiency was corrected using the APPLY\_CTI tool on the level 1 raw data. A new level 2 file was then obtained using the standard CIAO 3.0 routines. The final exposure time was 71 ksec.
Imaging
-------
To illustrate the W50 region covered by , we show in Fig. 1 the the radio image of W50 (grey scale), and the regions covered by observations in infrared (large box) and X-ray (small box). The projection on the sky of the precession cone axes of the SS 433 jets is also overlayed. The radio image shows that the eastern wing of W50 exhibits a corkscrew pattern, which mimics the precession of the arcseconds-scale jets from SS 433 (Dubner et al., 1998, Hjellming & Johnston, 1981). Interestingly, there is a hint of a corkscrew pattern visible in the Chandra image (Fig. 2 and 3), supporting the conclusion that the SS 433 subarcsecond-scale relativistic jets are affecting the large scale radio and X-ray emission from W50.
In Fig. 2, we show the energy image in which red corresponds to the soft energy band (0.3-2.4 keV) and blue corresponds to the hard energy band (2.4-10 keV). In Fig. 3, we show the intensity image in the 0.3-10 keV energy range. We resolve many point sources in the field (a list of which will be provided elsewhere) and note the knotty structure of the nebula. The X-ray emission peaks at $\alpha$ (J2000) = 19$^h$ 09$^m$ 42$^s$.86, $\delta$ (J2000) = 05$^{\circ}$ 03$^{\prime}$ 38$^{\prime\prime}$.8.
{width="4in"}
.\
Spectroscopy
------------
To perform spatially resolved spectroscopy of the remnant, we excluded the point sources in the field, and extracted spectra from the diffuse emission for 11 regions shown in Fig. 3. The w2 and IRknot2 regions correspond to the X-ray w2 region presented in @SO1997 and the infrared knot2 region presented by @B1987, respectively. These regions will be the focus of this paper and are selected in order to compare the results with those found in X-rays with and and in infrared with *ISOCAM*.
The proximity of the western lobe to the Galactic plane complicates the spectral analysis because of contamination by the Galactic ridge. To minimize this contamination, we extracted several background regions from source-free regions around the diffuse emission from W50 and from the same ACIS chip. We subsequently determined the spectral parameters using the resulting average background. Spectra were extracted in the 0.5-10.0 keV range. The background subtracted count rate for the w2 and IRknot2 regions are $\sim(2.3\pm0.05)\times10^{-1}$ counts s$^{-1}$ and $\sim(6.9\pm0.3)\times10^{-2}$ counts s$^{-1}$ respectively.
To determine whether the emission is thermal or not, we fitted the spectra with thermal bremsstrahlung and power-law models [following @SO1997]. The bremsstrahlung model is characterized by the shock temperature, $kT$, and the power-law model is characterized by the photon index, $\Gamma$.
\[h\]
{width="5.5in"} ****
{width="4in"}
Both models give adequate fits in each region. However, we find that the power-law models give slightly lower reduced $\chi^2$ values, and that the temperatures derived from the thermal bremsstrahlung models are high (unrealistically high for even the youngest SNRs). This, together with the absence of line emission in the spectra, leads us to favor the non-thermal interpretation for the X-ray emission. Table \[tab1\] summarizes the results for the w2 region in comparison to the and results. A distance of 3 kpc (scaled by $D_3$) is used in the luminosity calculations [as in @D1998], and the errors are at the 90% confidence level.
The spectroscopic results of the other regions are beyond the scope of this paper and will be presented elsewhere; we note here that the spectrum softens with increasing distance from SS 433 except for regions 3, 6 and 8. This is consistent with the energy-color image shown in Fig 2.
--------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------
Data Set/ $N_H$ $\Gamma$ $L_x$ Reduced $\chi^2$
Model ($10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) or $kT$ (keV) ($10^{33}$ $D^2_3$ erg/s) (DOF)
*Chandra*
PL........... $7.1_{-0.9}^{+1.1}$ $1.88_{-0.11}^{+0.14}$ 5.45 1.21 (137)
BREMS... $5.8_{-0.7}^{+0.7}$ $6.07_{-1.13}^{+1.60}$ 4.56 1.21 (137)
*ROSAT/ASCA*
PL........... $5.9_{-1.9}^{+2.3}$ $2.41_{-0.26}^{+0.34}$ 5.45 1.41 (95)
BREMS... $3.5_{-1.5}^{+1.6}$ $3.27_{-0.77}^{+1.18}$ 4.23 1.28 (95)
--------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------
: Thermal Bremsstrahlung and Power-law Model Results for the w2 region[]{data-label="tab1"}
We subsequently use the power-law fits to derive the synchrotron emission parameters. Assuming equipartition between particles and fields and integrating from radio to X-ray frequencies, the equipartition magnetic field ($B_{eq}$), the magnetic energy density ($B_{eq}^2/8\pi$), the total synchrotron electron energy ($U_e$) and the lifetime of the electrons ($\tau$) can be determined. For the w2 region, we derive $B_{eq}\sim(2.6-9.8)\times10^{-6}$ G, $B_{eq}^2/8\pi\sim(0.28-3.8)\times10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-3}$, $U_e\sim(0.11-1.6)\times10^{46}$ ergs, and $\tau\sim630-4,515$ years. The range of values corresponds to a=1-100 (the ratio of baryon energy to electron energy). The derived values of the synchrotron parameters as well as $N_H$ (Table \[tab1\]) agree with those found using and for the w2 region, within error. However, the spectra appear harder with the observation.
Correlation With Radio & Infrared
=================================
To probe the interaction between the western jet of SS 433 and the ambient medium, we study the X-ray emission in correlation with radio continuum and HI data obtained with the NRAO[^1] VLA and Green-Bank radio telescope and infrared data obtained with *ISOCAM*. Fig. 1 shows the radio, infrared, and X-ray regions and Fig. 4 shows the X-ray emission with the infrared contours.
The average value of $N_H$ found on the basis of the HI observations is $\sim(4-4.4)\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. This is slightly lower than the average found using the data, which is to be expected.
The energetics in the western lobe found with the X-ray data can then be compared to that found in @D1998. We found the total synchrotron electron energy in X-rays to be $\sim2\times10^{45}-3\times10^{46}$ ergs, which is in good agreement with the energy found from radio observations.
As seen in Fig. 4, there is no correlation between the infrared emission and the peak of X-ray emission. This, along with the high value of $N_H$ (N$_H$$\geq$2$\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) derived for the IRknot2 region, suggests that the infrared emission is not associated with the western lobe of W50. The derived value of $kT\ge4.4$ keV is higher than the expected temperatures for SNRs, indicating that the X-ray emission in IRknot2 is non-thermal.
Conclusions
===========
We favor a non-thermal interpretation for the emission of the western lobe of W50. The derived values of $N_H$, equipartition magnetic field, synchrotron electron energies and lifetimes agree with those derived previously with and *[ASCA]{}.*
The infrared emission is not correlated with the peak of X-ray emission. This, in addition to the high value of $N_H$ derived for this region, suggests that the infrared emission is not originating from W50, and could be associated with a star forming region (work in progress).
The corkscrew pattern seen in both the radio and X-ray images provides strong support to the hypothesis that the relativistic jets from SS 433 are causing the morphology of the W50 nebula.
Acknowledgments
===============
S. Safi-Harb acknowledges support by an NSERC UFA Fellowship and an NSERC Discovery Grant (Canada). Y. Fuchs is supported by a CNES (France) fellowship. G. Dubner is a Member of the Carrera del Investigador Científico, CONICET (Argentina).
This research made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System. We thank the two anonymous referees for their useful comments.
Band, D. *IRAS* observations of SS 433 and W50. PASP, 99, 1269-1276, 1987.
Dubner, G., Holdaway, M., Goss, M., et al. A high-resolution radio study of the W50-SS 433 system and the surrounding medium. AJ, 116, 1842-1855, 1998.
Durouchoux, P., Sood, R., Oka, T., et al. Jet interaction of SS 433 with the ambient medium. AdSpR, 25, 703-708, 2000.
Green, D.A. 2005, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 32, in press (Astro-ph/0411083).
Hjellming, R., Johnston, K. An analysis of the proper motions of SS 433 radio jets. ApJ, 246, L141-L145, 1981.
Lopez, L., Marshall, H., Canizares, C., et al. Determining the nature of the SS 433 binary from an X-ray spectrum during eclipse. These proceedings.
Margon, B. Observations of SS 433. ARAA, 22, 507-536, 1984.
Safi-Harb, S., & Ögelman, H. and observations of W50 associated with the peculiar source SS 433. ApJ, 483, 868-881, 1997.
Safi-Harb, S., & Petre, R. *Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer* observations of the eastern lobe of W50 Associated with SS 433. ApJ, 512, 784-792, 1999.
Safi-Harb, S., & Kotani, T. SS 433: Radio/X-ray anti-correlation and fast-time variability. Astro-ph/0210396, 2002.
[^1]: The NRAO is a facility of the NSF operated under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities Inc.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'LiteratureSquashedS3.bib'
---
=10000
[**The NUTs and Bolts of Squashed Holography**]{}
[**Nikolay Bobev, Thomas Hertog, and Yannick Vreys\
**]{} Institute for Theoretical Physics, KU Leuven\
Celestijnenlaan 200D, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
`nikolay.bobev, thomas.hertog, yannick.vreys @kuleuven.be `\
We evaluate the partition function of the free $O(N)$ model on a two-parameter family of squashed three spheres. We also find new solutions of general relativity with negative cosmological constant and the same double squashed boundary geometry and analyse their thermodynamic properties. Remarkably, both systems exhibit a qualitatively similar behaviour over the entire configuration space of boundary geometries. Recent formulations of dS/CFT enable one to interpret the field theory partition function as a function of the two squashing parameters as the Hartle-Hawking wave function in a minisuperspace model of anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space. The resulting probability distribution is normalisable and globally peaked at the round three sphere, with a low amplitude of boundary geometries with negative scalar curvature.
Introduction
============
Studying conformal field theories (CFTs) on curved Euclidean manifolds is a fruitful enterprise that has led to many interesting insights into the structure of quantum field theory. The metric of the manifold on which the CFT is defined can be viewed as a background field which naturally couples to the energy momentum tensor operator of the CFT. From this point of view deformations away from the flat metric have the potential to reveal universal properties in CFTs.
A different vantage point to CFTs on curved manifolds is offered by AdS/CFT. The boundary of AdS can be flat Euclidean space or the round sphere since the two are related by a conformal transformation. Any deformation of the boundary metric which takes it away from this conformally flat class gives rise to a new bulk geometry which differs from AdS. Gauge/gravity duality thus allows one to use classical general relativity in asymptotically locally AdS spaces to study CFTs on a range of curved backgrounds or, alternatively, to study aspects of quantum gravity by using dual CFTs defined on curved spaces.
A third application of field theories on curved manifolds arises from dS/CFT. The dS/CFT correspondence [@Balasubramanian2001; @Strominger2001; @Maldacena2002] relates the Hartle-Hawking wave function of the universe [@Hartle:1983ai] in asymptotically de Sitter (dS) space to the partition function of deformations of Euclidean CFTs defined on the future boundary. In this context, the values of the sources in the deformation of the CFT correspond to the argument of the asymptotic wave function. Partition functions of CFTs defined on deformed, i.e. non-conformally flat, boundary geometries can thus be used to evaluate the wave function on histories that differ from dS, including histories that are initially singular.
In this paper we consider CFTs and their holographic duals on a two-parameter family of squashed three spheres whose metric can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= \frac{r_0^2}{4} \left((\sigma_1)^2 +\frac{1}{1+\beta} (\sigma_2)^2 + \frac{1}{1+\alpha}(\sigma_3)^2 \right)
\label{eqn:metric}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0$ is an overall radius for which we choose the normalisation $r_0=1$, and $\sigma_i$, with $i=1,2,3$, are the left-invariant one-forms of $SU(2)$ given by $$\label{eqn:left1forms}
\sigma_1=-\sin\psi d\theta+\cos\psi \sin \theta d\phi \ , \qquad
\sigma_2=\cos\psi d\theta+\sin\psi \sin \theta d\phi \ ,\qquad
\sigma_3=d\psi+\cos \theta d\phi \ ,$$ with $0\leq \theta\leq \pi$, $0\leq \phi \leq 2\pi$ and $0\leq \psi \leq 4\pi$. In particular we evaluate the partition function of the free $O(N)$ vector model as a function of the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in . In the limit when one of the squashing parameters vanishes we recover the results of [@Anninos:2012ft].
An interesting CFT to study is the three-dimensional $O(N)$ vector model, for which it is well-known that it is dual to Vasiliev higher-spin gravity in $AdS_4$ [@Sezgin:2002rt; @Klebanov:2002ja; @Giombi:2009wh]. It was further conjectured in [@Anninos2011] that the dual of higher-spin gravity in $dS_4$ is given by the non-unitarity $Sp(N)$ vector model which can be thought of as being obtained from the $O(N)$ model via an analytic continuation in $N$. Here we will not consider higher-spin gravitational theories directly. Instead we will aim for a qualitative comparison between the physics of the $O(N)$ model on the squashed sphere in and Einstein gravity with either AdS or dS boundary conditions. To do so we first numerically construct new solutions of general relativity with a negative cosmological constant that are everywhere regular and have a double squashed sphere of the form as their boundary. Our solutions are generalisations of the well known AdS Taub-NUT and Taub-Bolt solutions [@Taub1951; @Newman1963]. Comparing the thermodynamic properties of these new solutions with the partition function of the free $O(N)$ model as a function of the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we find that both systems exhibit a qualitatively similar behaviour over the entire configuration space of boundary geometries. On the other hand they differ in specific features such as the NUT to Bolt transition at large positive values of the squashing parameters, which is evidently absent in the free dual theory.
In the context of dS/CFT the squashed spheres enter as the future boundary of homogeneous but anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space. Through dS/CFT the partition function of the free $O(N)$ model as a function of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ provides a toy model calculation of the Hartle-Hawking wave function in a minisuperspace model consisting of this set of anisotropic cosmologies. We compute the probability distribution over histories in this model, which turns out to be normalisable and globally peaked at the round three sphere.
The region of superspace where the Ricci scalar on the boundary is negative is particularly intriguing. In general the Ricci scalar of a double squashed three sphere of the form is given by $$\begin{aligned}
R=\frac{6+8\alpha+8\beta+2\alpha \beta (6-\alpha \beta)}{(1+\alpha)(1+\beta)},
\label{Ricci}\end{aligned}$$ which is symmetric in $\alpha$ and $\beta$. For $\beta=0$ there is a single region $\alpha < -3/4$ where $R$ is negative. Adding a second squashing, however, leads to an additional $R<0$ region associated with large positive values of both $\alpha$ and $\beta$. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:ricci\]. In the minisuperspace model we consider in this paper the overall amplitude of boundary geometries with a negative scalar curvature is exponentially small. However this dramatically changes when other directions in superspace are included, raising new questions about the normalisability of the wave function. We return to this point below in Section \[sec:Cosmology\].
![The shaded blue region is where the Ricci scalar, $R$, becomes negative. For one squashing there is only one place where $R$ changes sign, but away from these points there are for given $\alpha$ or $\beta$ two regions where $R$ is negative.[]{data-label="fig:ricci"}](RicciRegionPlot.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Before we proceed with the details of our analysis, it is worth mentioning that supersymmetric CFTs on the squashed $S^3$ have been studied recently in the context of supersymmetric localisation [@Hama:2011ea; @Imamura:2011uw; @Imamura:2011wg] (see also [@Closset:2012ru; @Nishioka:2013gza] for some applications of these results as well as [@Martelli:2011fu; @Martelli:2011fw; @Martelli:2012sz] for holographic studies in this context). We emphasize that in this approach, in order to preserve supersymmetry, one has to turn on background gauge fields for the R-symmetry in addition to the curved metric. This differs from our construction here since we are not concerned with supersymmetric theories and thus in general we do not have an R-symmetry at our disposal and the curved metric in is the only background field. In particular our gravitational solutions are different from the supergravity backgrounds constructed in [@Martelli:2013aqa], since those solutions are supersymmetric and have non-trivial electromagnetic fields.
Our paper is organised as follows. After a brief review of the class of known solutions of general relativity with a single squashed $S^3$ boundary we find new solutions with a double squashed $S^3$ boundary in Section \[sec:AdS\]. In Section \[sec:TBTD\] we study the thermodynamic properties of these new solutions. In Section \[sec:CFT\] we switch gears and analyse the free $O(N)$ model on the double squashed $S^3$ and compare its behaviour with the thermodynamics of our new gravity solutions. By a simple analytic continuation in $N$ our results also apply to the non-unitary $Sp(N)$ model and are therefore applicable in the context of dS/CFT. Using this we compute the Hartle-Hawking wave function in anisotropic minisuperspace in Section \[sec:Cosmology\]. We conclude with a discussion and some avenues for future work in Section \[sec:discussion\]. The two appendices are devoted to a summary of the technical aspects of the calculation leading to the spectrum of the Laplacian on the squashed $S^3$ and to some results on the linearised expansion of the equations of motion of general relativity.
Double squashed AdS Taub-NUT/Bolt {#sec:AdS}
=================================
In this section we discuss four-dimensional solutions of general relativity with a negative cosmological constant with the action $$\label{eqn:GRaction}
S=-\frac{1}{16\pi G} \int_{\mathcal{M}}d^4x \sqrt{g} (R-2\Lambda)\;,$$ that have a squashed sphere as their asymptotic boundary. We work exclusively with Euclidean signature. In the case of one squashing, i.e. $\beta = 0$ in , these backgrounds are well-known and can be thought of as extensions of the usual asymptotically flat Taub-NUT and Taub-Bolt solutions [@Taub1951; @Newman1963]. We review these backgrounds in Section \[subsec:AdSTNB\] and present their generalisation in Section \[subsec:AdS2squash\].
Single squashed AdS Taub-NUT/Bolt {#subsec:AdSTNB}
---------------------------------
The AdS Taub-NUT/Bolt solutions are a family of solutions that are asymptotically AdS for which the metric is given by [@Emparan:1999pm] (see also [@Stephani:2003tm]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:metricTaubNUTBolt}
ds^2 = 4n^2V(\rho) (\sigma_3)^2 + \frac{d\rho^2}{V(\rho)} +(\rho^2 -n^2)(\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2) \ , \end{aligned}$$ where the one-forms $\sigma_i$ are defined in and $V$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V\equiv \frac{ (\rho^2+n^2)- 2m \rho + l^{-2} (\rho^4-6n^2\rho^2-3n^4)}{\rho^2-n^2} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $n$ denoting the NUT charge, $m$ the generalised mass and $l$ the AdS length scale ($l^2=-\Lambda/3$). The asymptotic behaviour for $\rho \to \infty$ of the metric in is locally the same as the one for $AdS_4$. The only difference being that the boundary is a squashed $S^3$ with a single squashing parameter. Comparing the boundary metric with the metric on the squashed sphere in one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4(1+\alpha)}= \frac{ n^2}{l^2}\;, \qquad\qquad \beta = 0\, .\end{aligned}$$
There are now two subclasses of topologically distinct solutions. The first set consists of the NUT solutions, which are defined by requiring that there is a zero dimensional fixed point set. Furthermore the Dirac-Misner string should be unobservable and there should be no conical defect around $\rho=n$. These requirements restrict the mass parameter $m$ to be [@Misner1963; @Emparan:1999pm] $$\label{eqn:mNUT}
m_n=n-\frac{4 n^3}{l^2} \ .$$ This mass parameter makes the space around $\rho=n$ look like the origin of a smooth $\mathbb{R}^4$. Notice that there is a special case when we put $n=l/2$, the squashing at the boundary disappears and we recover the usual $AdS_4$ space. Appropriately in this case we find that the mass $m_n$ in vanishes.
The second set of solutions is called the Bolt solutions, these are characterised by a two dimensional fixed point set. This is achieved by requiring that there is a Bolt, i.e. a topological $S^2$, at $\rho=\rho_b >n$, and no conical singularities. These two conditions lead to the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
V(\rho_b)=0, \qquad V'(\rho_b)= \frac{1}{2n} \ .
\label{eqn:Boltcond}\end{aligned}$$ From the first condition in one finds that the mass of the Bolt should satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
m_b= \frac{\rho_b^2+n^2}{2\rho_b} + \frac{1}{2l^2} \left( \rho_b^3-6n^2 \rho_b- 3\frac{n^4}{\rho_b} \right) \ . \label{eqn:massBolt}\end{aligned}$$ The second condition in yields a relation between $\rho_b$ and $n$ and $l$: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{b\pm} =\frac{l^2}{12n} \left(1\pm \sqrt{1-48 \frac{n^2}{l^2}+144\frac{n^4}{l^4}}\right)\ . \label{eqn:radiusBolt}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore there are two branches of real solutions, if the discriminant is positive. This positiviy condition combined with the requirement that $\rho_b>n$ restricts the existence of the Bolt solutions to the region of parameter space where [^1] $$0< \frac{n^2}{l^2} \leq \left(\frac{n^2}{l^2}\right)_{\text{crit}} = \frac{2-\sqrt{3}}{12}\approx 0.089\;.$$ In particular this implies that the AdS Taub-Bolt solutions do not exist in the same region of parameter space with Euclidean $AdS_4$ which is obtained by setting $n=l/2$.
There is a Hawking-Page-type topology changing phase transition which occurs at[^2] $$\left(\frac{n^2}{l^2}\right)_{\text{HP}} =\frac{1}{28+8\sqrt{10}}\approx 0.0188\;.$$ For values of $n^2/l^2$ lower than this critical value the Taub-Bolt solution is the dominant one, whereas for larger values of $n^2/l^2$ the Taub-NUT solution is thermodynamically preferred. The thermodynamic properties of these solutions are reviewed in more detail in Section \[subsec:AdSTNB-therom\] below.
Double squashings {#subsec:AdS2squash}
-----------------
Having reviewed the well-known AdS-Taub-NUT and Taub-Bolt solutions we are ready to tackle the more serious problem of finding asymptotically locally $AdS_4$ backgrounds which have the same NUT/Bolt topology but asymptote to the squashed sphere in with two non-vanishing squashing parameters.
We start by imposing a metric Ansatz compatible with the isometries of the sphere at the asymptotic boundary[^3] $$\label{eqn:Ansatz2sq}
ds^2= l_0(r)dr^2 +l_1(r) \sigma_1^2+ l_2(r) \sigma_2^2+l_3(r) \sigma_3^2 \ .$$ We then plug this Ansatz into the equations of motion derived from the action in and derive a system of non-linear second order differential equations for the metric functions $l_a(r)$. Since we were not able to solve these equations analytically we resorted to a perturbative analysis near the asymptotic boundary and near the NUT/Bolt locus. In addition to that we exhibit numerical solutions which interpolate between these two asymptotic regions. Some technical details pertaining to this analysis are presented in Appendix \[App:AdSexpansions\].
To avoid confusion we emphasize that in order to construct numerical solutions to the equations of motion we have found it easier to choose a different gauge, $l_0(r)=1$, for the radial coordinate as compared to the analytic solution in . We adopt this gauge for most of the following discussion.
### UV expansion
We start by considering an expansion at large values of $r$ which, employing holographic terminology, we call UV expansion. The UV expansion will be the same for both the NUT and Bolt solutions since in both cases the non-trivial information is encoded in the interior of the solutions, i.e. the IR. The UV expansion is of the standard Fefferman-Graham type and thus we are dealing with asymptotically locally $AdS_4$ solutions. The leading order terms in the metric for large $r$ are given by $$ds^2= dr^2 + e^{2r} \left(A_0 \sigma_1^2+ B_0 \sigma_2^2+ C_0 \sigma_3^2 \right) \label{eqn:UVmetric} \ .$$ Notice that we have implemented the gauge $l_0(r)=1$ and from now on we fix the cosmological constant to be $\Lambda=-3$ or alternatively the $AdS_4$ length scale $l=1$. Taking this as the starting point the UV expansion at large $r$ of the metric functions takes the form $$\label{eqn:genUV}
\begin{split}
l_1(r)=A_0 e^{2r} + A_k e^{(2-k) r} \;, \qquad
l_2(r)=B_0 e^{2r} + B_k e^{(2-k) r} \;, \qquad
l_3(r)=C_0 e^{2r} + C_k e^{(2-k) r} \;,
\end{split}$$ where the sum over $k$ goes over all positive integers.
With this Ansatz at hand one can plug the series expansion into the Einstein equations and solve them order by order in powers of $e^r$. The results of this procedure are summarised in Appendix \[App:AdSexpansions\], see Equation . The important upshot of this analysis is that the UV expansion is controlled by five independent parameters $\{A_0,B_0,C_0,A_3,B_3\}$. It turns out that the Einstein equations are invariant under constant shifts of $r$ and we can use this freedom to eliminate one of the five parameters. We make the choice $$A_0=\frac{1}{4} \ .$$ Comparing the asymptotic form of the metric with the metric on the double squashed sphere one can find the following relation between the squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and the leading order coefficients $B_0$ and $C_0$ $$\label{eqn:abBC}
\alpha = \frac{1}{4C_0} - 1\;, \qquad\qquad \beta = \frac{1}{4B_0} - 1\;.$$ The remaining independent subleading coefficients, $A_3$ and $B_3$, remain undetermined. As we discuss in Appendix \[App:AdSexpansions\] their values are ultimately fixed by imposing regularity conditions (either a NUT or a Bolt) in the bulk of the full solution of the nonlinear equations of motion. To understand how to do this we now move on to the analysis of the two possible regular IR expansions.
### NUTs {#subsubsec:NUTs}
From the analytic AdS-Taub-NUT solution presented in Section \[subsec:AdSTNB\] we know that close to the NUT locus the space should look like the origin of $\mathbb{R}^4$ without any conical singularity. We will impose the same condition when looking for new solutions. However in our IR expansion we will not impose any other restrictions on the metric functions $l_i(r)$, i.e. we will look for solutions where all $l_i$ are distinct. If we take $r^*$ to indicate the location of the NUT, the metric around this point, to leading order in $(r-r^*)$, should be $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= dr^2+\frac{(r-r^*)^2}{4}(\sigma_1^2+\sigma^2_2+\sigma_3^2)\ .\end{aligned}$$ This defines the first order terms of the IR expansion. The gauge choice, $l_0(r)=1$, that we used in the UV expansion is globally well-defined and is already implemented in the above metric. The Ansatz for the IR expansion then becomes $$\label{eqn:genIRNUT}
\begin{split}
l_1(r)&=\frac{1}{4}( r-r^*)^2 + \beta_{k+2} ( r-r^*)^{k+2}\;, \\
l_2(r)&=\frac{1}{4}( r-r^*)^2 + \gamma_{k+2} ( r-r^*)^{k+2} \;, \\
l_3(r)&=\frac{1}{4}( r-r^*)^2 + \delta_{k+2} ( r-r^*)^{k+2}\;,
\end{split}$$ where $k$ runs from $1$ to $\infty$. Plugging this into the Einstein equations and solving them order by order in $(r-r^*)$ leads to a consistent series solution which is controlled by two real constants $\gamma_4$ and $\beta_4$. All other constants $\beta_k$, $\gamma_k$ and $\delta_k$, can be expressed in terms of these two parameters. In particular we find that all coefficients of odd powers of $(r-r^*)$ vanish. The parameter $r^*$ is spurious since it can be shifted to any value by a constant shift of the radial variable $r$.
The IR expansion in can be used as an initial condition to integrate the equations of motion numerically to the UV. We will thus get a two-parameter family of solutions that are controlled by $\gamma_4$ and $\beta_4$. There are two distinct classes of solutions. The first class consists of regular solutions for which the metric functions $l_{1,2,3}(r)$ grow exponentially and the boundary metric is a sphere with two non-trivial squashing parameters as in . We also find a class of singular solutions for which one or more of the metric functions $l_{1,2,3}(r)$ vanish at some finite value of $r$ which leads to a curvature singularity. We will ignore the second class of solutions since they do not seem to be of physical relevance.
Two representative examples of these classes of solutions are shown in Figure \[fig:genericSolutions\]. In the right panel of the figure we present an example of a singular solution. In the left panel of the figure is an example of a regular AdS-Taub-NUT solution with two different squashing parameters of the boundary $S^3$. We have constructed numerous such numerical solutions and we will analyse their properties in Section \[sec:TBTD\] and Section \[sec:CFT\]. For more details on the construction of these solutions we refer to Appendix \[App:AdSexpansions\].
![Two typical solutions with a NUT in the IR. Left: a solution with $\beta_4=1/12$ and $\gamma_4=1/6$ for which all the $l_i$ keep on growing exponentially. This is an AdS-Taub-NUT solution with a double squashed sphere boundary geometry. Right: a solution with $\beta_4=1/12$ and $\gamma_4 = 3/14$, for which there is a singularity where $l_1(r)=l_3(r)=0$ at a finite value of $r$. Here we have chosen $r^*=0$.[]{data-label="fig:genericSolutions"}](solution1.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Two typical solutions with a NUT in the IR. Left: a solution with $\beta_4=1/12$ and $\gamma_4=1/6$ for which all the $l_i$ keep on growing exponentially. This is an AdS-Taub-NUT solution with a double squashed sphere boundary geometry. Right: a solution with $\beta_4=1/12$ and $\gamma_4 = 3/14$, for which there is a singularity where $l_1(r)=l_3(r)=0$ at a finite value of $r$. Here we have chosen $r^*=0$.[]{data-label="fig:genericSolutions"}](solutionSingularity.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
### Bolts
To find generalisations of the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions from Section \[subsec:AdSTNB\] we have to impose that there is a two dimensional fixed point set of the Killing vector $\partial_{\psi}$. We take this locus to be at $r=r^*$. The geometry in the neighbourhood of $r^*$ is determined by a metric on $\mathbb{R}^2\times S^2$. Therefore the metric around $r^*$ should take the form $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2= dr^2+\frac{(r-r^*)^2}{4}\sigma_3^2 +\beta_0\sigma_1^2+\gamma_0 \sigma^2_2\ .\end{aligned}$$ We have again implemented the gauge choice $l_0(r)=1$. Our Ansatz for the IR expansion of the Bolt solutions thus becomes $$\label{eqn:genIRBolt}
\begin{split}
l_1(r)&=\beta_0 + \beta_k ( r-r^*)^k \;, \\
l_2(r)&=\gamma_0 + \gamma_k ( r-r^*)^k\;, \\
l_3(r)&=\frac{1}{4}(r-r^*)^2 + \delta_{k+2} ( r-r^*)^{k+2} \;,
\end{split}$$ where the integer $k$ goes from $1$ to $\infty$. With this at hand we proceed as before. We substitute the expansion in the Einstein equations and solve them order by order in $(r-r^*)$. The details of this procedure are summarised in Appendix \[App:AdSexpansions\], see in particular equation . The leading order analysis leads to $\beta_0=\gamma_0$ and one finds non-vanishing coefficients only for the even powers of $(r-r^*)$. The rest of the expansion coefficients in are determined in terms of two parameters which can be chosen to be $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$.
Constructing numerical AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions of the nonlinear equations of motion is very similar to the NUT solutions discussed in Section \[subsubsec:NUTs\]. One has to use the series expansion in with $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ as independent integration parameters. One again finds two classes of solutions. The regular ones are the generalisations of the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions we are after and one can read off the squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from the UV expansion of the numerical solutions after using the relations . A typical regular AdS-Taub-Bolt solution with two non-vanishing squashing parameters is presented in the left panel of Figure \[fig:genericSolutionsBolt\]. There are also singular solutions which we ignore from now on. An example of the latter is shown in the right panel of Figure \[fig:genericSolutionsBolt\].
![Two representative solutions with a Bolt in the IR. Left: a solution with $\gamma_0=1/20$ and $\gamma_4=0.382281$ for which all the $l_i$ keep on growing exponentially. This is an AdS-Taub-Bolt solution. Right: a solution with $\gamma_0= 1/20$ and $\gamma_4 = 0.380208$, for which there is a singularity where $l_2(r)=l_3(r)=0$ at a finite value of $r$. We have chosen $r^*=0$.[]{data-label="fig:genericSolutionsBolt"}](solution1Bolt.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Two representative solutions with a Bolt in the IR. Left: a solution with $\gamma_0=1/20$ and $\gamma_4=0.382281$ for which all the $l_i$ keep on growing exponentially. This is an AdS-Taub-Bolt solution. Right: a solution with $\gamma_0= 1/20$ and $\gamma_4 = 0.380208$, for which there is a singularity where $l_2(r)=l_3(r)=0$ at a finite value of $r$. We have chosen $r^*=0$.[]{data-label="fig:genericSolutionsBolt"}](solutionSingularityBolt.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Despite their similarity with the NUT solutions, the regular AdS-Taub-Bolt backgrounds are more subtle because there are two branches of such solutions. To understand these branches better it is worthwhile to focus briefly on the solutions with a single squashing parameter by setting $\beta=0$. This condition imposes the following relation between the two independent IR parameters $$\label{eqn:gam0gam4}
\gamma_4=\frac{1+48\gamma_0 +108 \gamma_0^2}{192 \gamma_0} \ .$$ Since we have an analytic solution for $\beta=0$, namely the AdS-Taub-Bolt background of Section \[subsec:AdSTNB\], we can also express the squashing parameter $\alpha$ as a function of $\gamma_0$. $$\label{eqn:agam0}
\alpha = 9\gamma_0 + \frac{3}{4\gamma_0} +5\;.$$ It is now clear that for every positive value of $\alpha$ there are two different values of $\gamma_0$. This is illustrated in the left panel of Figure \[fig:oneSquashingBolt\]. At the critical value $\gamma_0=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\approx0.288676$ one finds a minimum of the function in and the value $\alpha=5+ 3\sqrt{3}\approx 10.1962 $ at this point is precisely the minimum value of $\alpha$ below which there are no AdS-Taub-Bolt with a single squashing parameter. The branch of solutions with a value of $\gamma_0$ greater/smaller than the critical value will be dubbed “positive"/“negative" respectively. To construct numerical solutions with non-vanishing $\beta$ we proceed as follows. We choose values of $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ that lie on the analytic curve characterising solutions with $\beta=0$ and we change $\gamma_4$ to explore the full parameter space in the $(\gamma_0,\gamma_4)$ plane. In this manner we can always keep track of which branch of solutions the resulting numerical solution belongs to. In the right panel of Figure \[fig:oneSquashingBolt\] we show part of the region in the $(\gamma_0,\gamma_4)$ plane where there are regular AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions. The “negative" branch solutions are depicted in red while the “positive" branch is in blue.
![Left: The squashing parameter $\alpha$ as a function of $\gamma_0$ for the single squashed AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions; the solid curve is the analytic result in . Right: the range of values of $(\gamma_0,\gamma_4)$ for which there is a regular AdS-Taub-Bolt solution with two nontrivial squashing parameters; the solid curve is the relationship in .[]{data-label="fig:oneSquashingBolt"}](alphavsgamma0OnesquashingBolt.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Left: The squashing parameter $\alpha$ as a function of $\gamma_0$ for the single squashed AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions; the solid curve is the analytic result in . Right: the range of values of $(\gamma_0,\gamma_4)$ for which there is a regular AdS-Taub-Bolt solution with two nontrivial squashing parameters; the solid curve is the relationship in .[]{data-label="fig:oneSquashingBolt"}](gamma0gamma4NUT.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
From NUTs to Bolts: Thermodynamics and phase transitions {#sec:TBTD}
=========================================================
In Section \[sec:AdS\] we found a new class of solutions of the Einstein equations which extends the known AdS-Taub-NUT/Bolt solutions. In this section we study their thermodynamic behaviour by evaluating their regularised Euclidean on-shell action. This also sets the stage for a holographic comparison with the field theory results for the free energy in Section \[sec:CFT\].
Renormalising the action {#subsec:Renormaction}
------------------------
The Euclidean gravitational action in has to be supplemented with the Gibbons-Hawking boundary term in order to have a well-defined variational principle [@Gibbons:1976ue]. The resulting action is $$S=-\frac{1}{16\pi G} \int_{\mathcal{M}}d^4x \sqrt{g} (R-2\Lambda)- \frac{1}{8\pi G} \int_{\partial \mathcal{M}} d^3 \sqrt{h} K \ ,\label{eqn:EHactionGH}$$ where $h$ is the determinant of the induced metric on the boundary, $h_{ij}$, and $K$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature.
As usual for asymptotically locally AdS space, the value of the on-shell action diverges, and one needs to implement a regularisation procedure. We apply the usual tools of holographic renormalisation which were used for the NUT/Bolt solutions of Section \[subsec:AdSTNB\] in [@Emparan:1999pm] (see also [@Mann:1999pc] and [@Skenderis:2002wp] for a review). This procedure amounts to adding infinite counterterms to the action in that make it finite on-shell. These counterterms are universal for a given gravitational theory and thus we can simply apply the results of [@Emparan:1999pm] to our setup. The counterterms are given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_{ct}=\frac{1}{8\pi G} \int_{\partial \mathcal{M}} d^3x \sqrt{h}\left(2+\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2} \right) \ , \label{eqn:actionct}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{R}$ is the scalar curvature of the boundary metric $h_{ij}$. Evaluating this counterterm action with the Ansatz in (with $l_0=1$) yields $$\begin{aligned}
S_{ct}=\pi\frac{2(l_1l_2+l_2l_3+l_1l_3)+8l_1l_2l_3-l_1^2-l_2^2-l_3^2}{2G \sqrt{l_1 l_2 l_3}}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting our asymptotic expansions of the functions $l_i(r)$, eq. , gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Scter}
S_{ct}= \frac{\pi}{G}\left(4\sqrt{A_0 B_0 C_0} e^{3 r} -(3+2\Lambda)\frac{A_0^2+B_0^2+C_0^2-2B_0 C_0 -2A_0 B_0 -2A_0 C_0}{4\Lambda \sqrt{A_0B_0C_0}}e^{r}+\mathcal{O}(e^{-r})\right)\;.\end{aligned}$$ The asymptotic form of the original on-shell gravitational action in reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Ser}
S= -\frac{\pi}{G}\left(4\sqrt{A_0 B_0 C_0} e^{3r}-(3+2\Lambda)\frac{A_0^2+B_0^2+C_0^2-2B_0 C_0 -2A_0 B_0 -2A_0 C_0}{4\Lambda\sqrt{A_0B_0C_0}}e^{r}+\mathcal{O}(1)\right)\;.\end{aligned}$$ As expected the sum $$S_{ren} = S+S_{ct}\;,$$ remains finite in the $r\to \infty $ limit and thus this sum can serve as a good regularised on-shell action.
Since our gravitational solutions are constructed numerically, evaluating the regularised on-shell action $S_{ren}$ is tricky. The difficulty comes from the fact that one has to add a large positive and a large negative number and this could lead to numerical instabilities. To remedy this we found it useful to employ the following strategy. From we know how the on-shell action diverges at large values of $r$. We can thus evaluate numerically this on-shell action at large but finite values of $r$ and fit the resulting values to the function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:fitfun}
f= A e^{3r_c} + B e^{2r_c}+ C e^{r_c} + D + E e^{-r_c} + F e^{-2r_c} \ .\end{aligned}$$ We can then read of the coefficients $A$, $B$, and $C$ and use the first three terms in as our numerical counterterm action that should be added to $S$ to produce a finite result.
As a consistency check of our numerical results we should find that the coefficient $B$ in is approximately $0$. In addition the coefficients $A$ and $C$ should agree with the coefficients of the first two terms in . In Table \[tbl:action\] we provide some representative values emerging from our numerical analysis which convincingly show that the numerical regularisation procedure described above is very accurate.
$\beta_4$ $\gamma_4$ $A$ $B$ $C$ [$A_{\textrm{analytic}}$]{} [$C_{\textrm{analytic}}$]{}
-------------- -------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
[$-0.011$]{} $0.131$ $-0.192952$ [$3.10 \times 10^{-11} $]{} [$-0.535429$]{} [$-0.192952$]{} $-0.5354289 $
$0.182 $ $0.212$ [$-0.127241 $]{} [$-2.09 \times 10^{-6}$]{} [$151.219$]{} [$ -0.1272407$]{} $151.1883$
$ 0.76$ $0.7600015$ [$-0.149134$]{} [$-3.14\times 10^{-10}$]{} [$-0.27225$]{} [$-0.149134$]{} $-0.272254$
$1.18$ $1.18000523$ [$-0.0823926$]{} [$4.3 \times 10^{-4}$]{} [$1682.7 $]{} [$-0.0823926$]{} $1687.5$
$-0.109$ $0.186$ [$-0.185742 $]{} [$-5.74 \times 10^{-10} $]{} [$-0.298644$]{} [$ -0.185742$]{} $-0.298349$
: For different values of the initial conditions we present the first three coefficients of the numerical fit of the action in and compare them with the “analytically" obtained equivalent values from . As discussed in the text the “analytic" value of the coefficient $B$ is 0. We fixed $G=1$ and $\Lambda=-3$.[]{data-label="tbl:action"}
Single squashed NUTs and Bolts {#subsec:AdSTNB-therom}
------------------------------
To test our numerical methods further, we compare them with the known, analytic results for the regularised on-shell action of the AdS-Taub-NUT and Bolt solutions with a single squashed $S^3$ on the boundary [@Emparan:1999pm].
The regularised on-shell action for the Taub-NUT/Bolt solutions of Section \[subsec:AdSTNB\] can be found by plugging the metric into the action and adding the counterterms given in . This yields the following result [@Emparan:1999pm]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{on-shell}}= \frac{4\pi n }{Gl^2}(l^2 m + 3n^2 \rho_+ -\rho^3_+) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ In this formula one has to plug in the value of $m$ corresponding to the NUT or Bolt solution. The value for $\rho_+$ corresponds to the minimum possible value of $\rho$, i.e. the location of the fixed point of the Killing vector $\partial_{\psi}$.
For the NUT solutions we have to substitute $\rho_+=n$ and $m=m_n$ . This gives a general expression for the NUT actions which we, from now on, write as a function of $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{NUT}}=\frac{\pi(1+2 \alpha)}{2(1+\alpha)^2} \ .\end{aligned}$$ We have set $G=1$ and $l=1$ in the formula above. In the left plot of Figure \[fig:NUTAction\] we compare the analytic single squashed, Taub-NUT action (in red) as a function of $\alpha$ with the action, in blue dots, we obtain from our methods described in Section \[subsec:Renormaction\] above. It is clear from this figure that the numerical procedure reproduces the analytical results with a very good accuracy.
![Left: The analytic Taub-NUT action for a single squashing at the boundary in red compared with the results from our numerical techniques in blue. Rght: Idem for the Taub-Bolt action.[]{data-label="fig:NUTAction"}](Comparisonwanalytic.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Left: The analytic Taub-NUT action for a single squashing at the boundary in red compared with the results from our numerical techniques in blue. Rght: Idem for the Taub-Bolt action.[]{data-label="fig:NUTAction"}](ActiononesquashingBoltwNUT.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We can repeat this comparison for the Bolt solutions. To find the analytic results we just have to plug in the Bolt mass parameter $m_b$ from and the positive or negative Bolt radius $\rho_{b\pm}$ from into $m$ and $\rho_+$ respectively. This gives two different values for the Bolt action $$S_{\pm}=\frac{\pi \left(17-\left(1\pm\sqrt{\frac{(\alpha -10) \alpha -2}{(\alpha +1)^2}}\right) \alpha ^2+2 \left(8\pm5 \sqrt{\frac{(\alpha -10) \alpha -2}{(\alpha +1)^2}}\right) \alpha \pm2 \sqrt{\frac{(\alpha -10) \alpha
-2}{(\alpha +1)^2}}\right)}{54 (\alpha +1)} \ ,$$ where $S_+$ corresponds to the positive branch and $S_-$ to the negative branch of solutions. For both of these branches, the analytic (full red line) and the numerical results (blue dots), are shown in the right plot of Figure \[fig:NUTAction\]. In the same figure we also plot the on-shell action of the NUT solution (dashed green curve) for comparison. Again there is excellent agreement between the numerical and analytical calculations, giving us confidence in our numerical techniques.
It is clear from Figure \[fig:NUTAction\] that there is a phase transition from the NUT to the Bolt solutions as one increases the value of $\alpha$. This phase transition is similar to the Hawking-Page one and to find the precise value of the squashing parameter at which it occurs one has to compare the regularised on-shell action for the two types of solutions, i.e. the solution with the lower on-shell action is the thermodynamically preferred one. For $\alpha < \alpha_{\text{crit}} = 5+3\sqrt{3}\approx 10.2$ there are only NUT solutions. The Bolt solutions with higher on-shell action are the ones from the “negative" branch with action $S_-$. They are never thermodynamically preferred. The “positive" branch Bolt solutions with action $S_+$ become thermodynamically preferred for $\alpha > \alpha_{\text{HP}}\equiv 6+2\sqrt{10}\approx 12.3$. The precise value $\alpha_{\text{HP}}$ is obtained by solving the algebraic equation $S_+=S_{\text{NUT}}$.
Double squashed NUTs and Bolts {#subsec:DS}
------------------------------
Having some faith in our numerical techniques, it is time to apply them to the new asymptotically $AdS_4$ solutions with two squashing parameters that we constructed in Section \[subsec:AdS2squash\]. Since we do not have analytic solutions we evaluate the regularised on-shell action numerically as described in Section \[subsec:Renormaction\]. The resulting on-shell action for the AdS-Taub-NUT solutions is plotted in Figure \[fig:actionsAdStwosquashings\]. It is clear from the plot that the on-shell action exhibits a global maximum at $\alpha=\beta=0$. If one considers slices of constant $\beta$ there is a maximum around $\alpha=0$ for positive $\beta$ and at $\alpha=\beta$ for negative $\beta$ and vice versa for slices of constant $\alpha$. A similar analysis can be done for the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions with two squashings. As discussed in Section \[subsec:AdS2squash\] in this case we have two branches of solutions both of which exist only in a limited region in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane. The regularised on-shell action for the two branches of solutions is plotted in Figure \[fig:actionsAdStwosquashingsB\].
![The regularised on-shell action of the AdS-Taub-NUT solutions as a function of the two squashing parameters.[]{data-label="fig:actionsAdStwosquashings"}](ActionNutTwoSquashingsLargerRegion.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
[0.32]{} ![ The regularised on-shell action of the two branches of the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions as a function of the two squashing parameters and the region in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane for which the solutions exist.[]{data-label="fig:actionsAdStwosquashingsB"}](actionBoltpTwoSquashingsLargeRegion.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![ The regularised on-shell action of the two branches of the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions as a function of the two squashing parameters and the region in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane for which the solutions exist.[]{data-label="fig:actionsAdStwosquashingsB"}](actionBoltnTwoSquashingsLargeRegion.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![ The regularised on-shell action of the two branches of the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions as a function of the two squashing parameters and the region in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane for which the solutions exist.[]{data-label="fig:actionsAdStwosquashingsB"}](regionBolt.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![The regularised on-shell action for the NUT and Bolt solutions as a function of $\alpha$ for slices of constant $\beta$. The NUT action is plotted in blue, the negative branch Bolt action is in dashed green while the positive branch is in red. []{data-label="fig:actionsslicesAdS"}](betamin02ActionComparedAdSBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![The regularised on-shell action for the NUT and Bolt solutions as a function of $\alpha$ for slices of constant $\beta$. The NUT action is plotted in blue, the negative branch Bolt action is in dashed green while the positive branch is in red. []{data-label="fig:actionsslicesAdS"}](beta0ActionComparedAdSBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![The regularised on-shell action for the NUT and Bolt solutions as a function of $\alpha$ for slices of constant $\beta$. The NUT action is plotted in blue, the negative branch Bolt action is in dashed green while the positive branch is in red. []{data-label="fig:actionsslicesAdS"}](betaplus08ActionComparedAdSBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Equipped with the regularised on-shell action we can ask which of the solutions is thermodynamically favoured in various regions of parameter space. This is not immediately clear and to illustrate the result better we have compared the on-shell action for the NUT and Bolt solutions by choosing slices of constant $\beta$ and plotted the action as a function of $\alpha$. Some representative results are presented in Figure \[fig:actionsslicesAdS\]. What we find is that for any fixed value of $\beta_0$ the Taub-Bolt solutions exist only for values of $\alpha$ larger than a finite critical value $\alpha_{\text{crit}}(\beta_0)$. In addition there is always a Hawking-Page type phase transition at some $\alpha_{\text{HP}}(\beta_0)> \alpha_{\text{crit}}(\beta_0)$. Thus we conclude that the new AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions exhibit a qualitatively similar behaviour to the analytic Bolt solutions with $\beta=0$ across the entire configuration space of boundary geometries parameterised by $(\alpha,\beta)$. It is useful to note that $\alpha_{\text{HP}}(\beta_0)$ increases for increasing $\beta_0$. Finally, notice that for negative $\beta_0$, the maximum value of the action as a function of $\alpha$ moves away from $\alpha=0$.
The $O(N)$ model on the double squashed sphere {#sec:CFT}
==============================================
Studying the holographic dual field theory description of the gravitational solutions described in the previous two sections is a non-trivial problem. One approach could be to embed these solutions as backgrounds in string or M-theory and identify a dual CFT in which to phrase the question. An example of how this could be achieved is to think of the NUT/Bolt solutions as deformations of the $AdS_4\times S^7$ solution of eleven-dimensional supergravity. In this case the dual field theory is the ABJM SCFT and we are faced with the problem of evaluating the partition function of this theory at strong coupling upon a supersymmetry breaking deformation. This is a formidable problem which we will not attempt to solve here. Instead, we will focus on a simplified model of this setup where we consider a free vector-like theory on the double-squashed sphere in . In particular we focus on evaluating the partition functions, or free energy, of the free $O(N)$ model as a function of the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[^4]
The free $O(N)$ vector model in three dimensions is conjectured to be described holographically by a higher-spin Vassiliev theory in $AdS_4$ with certain specific boundary conditions [@Sezgin:2002rt; @Klebanov:2002ja; @Giombi:2009wh]. This four-dimensional theory is very different from pure Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant. Despite this difference we find that there are many qualitative similarities between the behaviour of the free energy of the free $O(N)$ vector model and the action of the gravitational solutions in Section \[sec:AdS\] as a function of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Similar results were found in [@Hartnoll:2005yc] for the case of $S^3$ boundaries with a single squashing parameter, i.e. $\beta=0$.
The method {#subsec:method}
----------
The action for the free three-dimensional $O(N)$ vector model in Euclidean signature is given by $$\label{eqn:ONaction}
S_{O(N)} = \frac{1}{2}\int d^3x \sqrt{g} \left( \partial_{\mu} \phi_a \partial^{\mu}\phi^a +\frac{ R}{8}\phi_a \phi^a+m^2\phi_a \phi^a \right)\ .$$ Here we are assuming that the $N$ scalar fields $\phi_a$, $a=1,\ldots, N$, are conformally coupled and have mass $m$. We will assume that the metric is given by the squashed sphere metrc in with Ricci scalar $R$ given by . The partition function for this model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Zpart}
Z _{O(N)}= \int \mathcal{D} \phi e^{-S_{O(N)}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ To find the free energy of this theory we have to evaluate the Gaussian integral in . This amounts to computing the following determinant $$\begin{aligned}
F_{O(N)} = - \log Z_{O(N)}=\frac{N}{2}\log \left(\textrm{det}\left[ \frac{-\nabla^2 + m^2+\frac{R}{8}}{r_0^2 \Lambda^2}\right]\right) \ , \label{eqn:LogZGeneral}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0$ is the radius of the sphere (which we set to 1 from now on) and $\Lambda$ is the cutoff used to regularise the UV divergences in this theory. These divergences arise from infinite covariant counterterms written in terms of the metric and curvature scalar of the squashed sphere. Since we are dealing with a CFT in three dimensions there are no conformal anomalies and thus the divergences for large $\Lambda$ can be schematically written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:UVCFTdiv}
\textrm{divergences}\approx A\Lambda^3 + B \Lambda^2 + C \Lambda \ .\end{aligned}$$ It is not accidental that we chose the same notation for the coefficients in and . The role of $\Lambda$ in the CFT is played by the radial cutoff $e^{r_c}$ used in holographic renormalisation. The cubic and linear terms in arise from the covariant counterterms $\Lambda^3\int d^3x \sqrt{g}$ and $\Lambda\int d^3x \sqrt{g} R$ respectively. There is no covariant counterterm that will lead to a quadratic divergence and thus we should have $B=0$ in .
Our goal is to calculate . There are two technical obstacles along the way. One has to first find the spectrum of the scalar Laplacian $\nabla^2$ for the metric in . Since this operator is infinite dimensional, to evaluate the determinant in one has to perform an infinite sum and regularise the divergences described above.
To address the first problem we can use the fact that the metric in is a homogeneous metric on $S^3$ and thus one can use algebraic techniques to find the spectrum of the Laplacian. When one of the squashing parameters vanishes, say $\beta=0$, the spectrum of the scalar Laplacian can be found in closed analytic form, see for example [@PhysRevD.8.1048; @Shen1987]. When both squashing parameters are turned on the problem becomes harder and one has to resort to numerical techniques. The procedure to find the eigenvalues of the scalar Laplacian is outlined in Appendix \[App:eigen\]. The upshot of the analysis is that we are able to determine this spectrum numerically to (in principle) any desired accuracy.
To regularise the infinite sum in one may be tempted to use an analytic approach like $\zeta$-function regularisation [@Dowker:1998pi; @Hartnoll:2005yc; @Klebanov:2011gs]. However this method is not well-adapted to situations where the spectrum of the Laplacian is known only numerically. Therefore we will use a heat-kernel type regularisation which can be implemented numerically and was discussed in some detail in [@Anninos:2012ft]. Here we briefly summarise this approach.
The regularisation we adopt proceeds by rewriting using a heat-kernel[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\log Z_{_{O(N)}}= \frac{N}{2} \sum_n \int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{t} e^{-t\lambda_n} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all eigenvalues, $\lambda_n$, of the operator $-\nabla^2 + m^2+\frac{R}{8}$ in and the $UV$ cutoff is implemented through the parameter $\epsilon=1/\Lambda^2$. The resulting determinant captures all modes with energies lower than the cutoff $\Lambda$. The contributions of modes with eigenvalues above the cutoff is exponentially small. To see this note that for the low lying modes, i.e. $\lambda_n/ \Lambda^2 \ll 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{t} e^{-t\lambda_n}= \Gamma(0,\lambda_n/\Lambda^2) =-\log(\lambda_n /\Lambda^2)+\mathcal{O}(\lambda_n /\Lambda^2) \ ,\label{eqn:upperincompleteGamma}\end{aligned}$$ while for the higher modes, i.e. $\lambda_n /\Lambda^2 \gg 1$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(0,\lambda_n /\Lambda^2) =e^{-\lambda_n/\Lambda^2}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_n /\Lambda^2}+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda_n /\Lambda^2)^2}\right)\right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Using this kernel, it can be shown that the divergences are going to appear when $t$ is integrated over small values. To keep track of the divergences we split the integral over $t$ into an $UV$ and an $IR$ part $$\begin{aligned}
\log Z_{O(N)} = \textrm{det}_{UV} +\textrm{det}_{IR} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{det}_{UV} &\equiv \frac{N}{2} \int_{\epsilon}^{\delta} \frac{dt}{t} \sum_{n}m_n e^{-t \lambda_{n}} \ , \\
\textrm{det}_{IR} &\equiv \frac{N}{2} \sum_{n}m_n \int_{\delta}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t \lambda_{n}}= \frac{N}{2} \sum_{n}m_n \Gamma(0,\lambda_{n}\delta) \ . \label{eqn:detUV}\end{aligned}$$
\[eqn:detUVIR\]
Here $m_n$ is the degeneracy of eigenvalue $\lambda_n$ and $\delta$ is an arbitrarily chosen small number that we can vary in order to get better convergence of the numerical results.
While the sum in det$_{IR}$ converges, in general, quite fast, the sum in det$_{UV}$ contains all the divergences and should be treated with care. The approach we adopt, is to numerically evaluate $ \textrm{det}_{UV}$ for many values of $\Lambda$ and fit the diverging results to the function in . The divergencies obtained in this way are removed by hand and the remaining finite result is added to the finite value of det$_{IR}$ to obtain the desired result for the free energy. As a consistency check we find that there is no dependence of the finite result on $\Lambda$ and that the coefficient $B$ in is vanishing with good numerical accuracy.
To test our numerical method it is instructive to calculate the free energy of the free $O(N)$ model on the round three sphere, i.e. $\alpha=\beta=0$. From now on we also focus on the case of massless scalars so we set $m=0$ in . The eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ of the conformal Laplacian in and their multiplicities $m_n$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_n=n^2-\frac14 \ , \qquad m_n=n^2 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $n \ge 1$. After setting[^6] $N=1$ we can plug this into our numerical machinery and find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Fscalarnum}
F = -(\textrm{det}_{UV} +\textrm{det}_{IR}) \approx 0.0638070552 \ .\end{aligned}$$ The free energy of a conformally coupled scalar field on $S^3$ can be computed analytically by using $\zeta$-function regularisation, see for example [@Klebanov:2011gs]. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
F=\frac{1}{16}\left( 2\log 2 - \frac{3\zeta(3)}{\pi^2}\right)\approx 0.0638070548 \ .\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this analytic results with we see a very good agreement. This gives us confidence in our numerical methods and in the next section we will apply them for the squashed sphere.
The results {#subsec:CFTresults}
-----------
Let us start with the single squashed sphere by setting $\beta=0$. The eigenvalues of the conformal Laplacian for this metric are known analytically, e.g [@PhysRevD.8.1048; @Shen1987] (see also [@BBV] for an extension of this result to squashed spheres in higher dimensions) and are labelled by two integers $n$ and $q$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:deg1sq}
\lambda_{n,q} = \left(n^2+\alpha (n-1-2q)^2 -\frac1{4(1+\alpha)}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $q=0,1,\ldots , n-1$ and $n \ge 1$ and they have a multiplicity of $m_n=n$. Since these eigenvalues are known analytically one can apply the heat-kernel regularisation procedure described above by using an analytic method to approximate the integral in and subtract the UV divergences [@Anninos:2012ft; @Anninos:2013rza]. The results of this procedure are captured by the solid red line in Figure \[fig:onequashingCFT\].
As described in some detail in Appendix \[App:eigen\] the eigenvalues of the conformal Laplacian with $\beta\neq 0$ are not known analytically and we have to resort to numerics. To gain even further confidence in our numerical procedure we applied it to the case of the single squashed sphere with $\beta=0$ and compared the results with the semi-analytic approach of [@Anninos:2012ft; @Anninos:2013rza]. The outcome of this analysis is summarised in Figure \[fig:onequashingCFT\].
![The free energy for the squashed sphere with $\beta=0$ using our numerical techniques (in blue dots), compared with the semi-analytic approach of [@Anninos:2012ft] (in red). []{data-label="fig:onequashingCFT"}](oneSquashingCFT.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
The numerical results for the free energy of double squashed three sphere are presented in Figure \[fig:minusLogZ\]. One immediately recognizes some similarities with the regularised on-shell action of the new AdS-Taub-NUT solutions constructed in Section \[sec:AdS\]. For instance, there is a global maximum around $\alpha=\beta=0$, and away from this point the free energy has a local maximum around $\alpha=0$ or $\beta=0$ for positive squashings. For negative squashings the maxima are around $\alpha=\beta$. In the next subsection we analyse the differences and similarities between the gravitational and field theories more thoroughly.
![The free energy for a free conformally coupled scalar on the double squashed sphere computed using our numerical technique.[]{data-label="fig:minusLogZ"}](LogZLmax2000_CFTON2LargeRegion.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
There is one more feature in Figure \[fig:minusLogZ\] we would like to highlight here. The free energy seems to diverge when the Ricci scalar approaches 0. To visualise this better, we plot in Figure \[fig:RicciandZSquaredLmax1000\] the region where the exponential of the free energy becomes 0 together with the region where $R=0$. To see what happens we have to inspect the IR behaviour of the free energy , which is given by a sum over upper incomplete gamma functions $\Gamma(0,\lambda_{L,k} \delta)$. From the definition of these , one can see that if $\lambda$ approaches $0$ then $\Gamma(0,\lambda_{L,k} \delta)$ diverges. It is not too difficult to see from the discussion in Appendix \[App:eigen\] that the lowest eigenvalue of the Laplacian $\nabla^2$ always vanishes. Therefore the first eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of the conformal Laplacian ($-\nabla^2 +\frac{R}{8}$) becomes zero when the Ricci scalar vanishes. This explains the features in Figure \[fig:RicciandZSquaredLmax1000\]. We should note that there are also “higher order" divergences in Figure \[fig:minusLogZ\] which are less pronounced. These happen when any of the higher eigenvalues of the Laplacian cancels $R\neq0$ to give another zero eigenvalue of the conformal Laplacian. These divergences always appear in the regions of the $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane where the Ricci scalar $R$ in is negative.
![Comparison between the region in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane where $R$ is less than $0$ (in blue) and the region where the regularised path integral $Z$ vanishes (in orange), which corresponds to a divergent free energy.[]{data-label="fig:RicciandZSquaredLmax1000"}](RicciandZLmax2000LargeRegion.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The divergences give rise to sharp features in the function $F(\alpha,\beta)$. To illustrate this we show in Figure \[fig:CFTSlicesBeta\] the free energy as a function of $\alpha$ for a number of different fixed values of $\beta$. We show four plots for a small interval of $\alpha$ around $\alpha=0$. The divergences show up as two sharp negative spikes for small $\beta$ and they both move to the right when $\beta$ is increased. The right spike moves much faster to the right and goes to $\infty$ when $\beta$ becomes $0$ whereas the left spike converges slowly to $\alpha=0$ when $\beta$ diverges. We also show three plots of the behaviour at larger $\alpha$. Here we can only see the right spike, which first moves to $\infty$ when $\beta$ approaches $0$ and then returns for larger $\beta$ eventually going to $\alpha=0$ when $\beta\to\infty$.
[0.32]{} ![ behaviour of the CFT free energy for fixed $\beta$ in the region of small and large $\alpha$. []{data-label="fig:CFTSlicesBeta"}](betamin09ActionCFTONZoomed1.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![ behaviour of the CFT free energy for fixed $\beta$ in the region of small and large $\alpha$. []{data-label="fig:CFTSlicesBeta"}](betamin08ActionCFTONZoomed1.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![ behaviour of the CFT free energy for fixed $\beta$ in the region of small and large $\alpha$. []{data-label="fig:CFTSlicesBeta"}](betamin052ActionCFTONZoomed1.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
\
[0.32]{} ![ behaviour of the CFT free energy for fixed $\beta$ in the region of small and large $\alpha$. []{data-label="fig:CFTSlicesBeta"}](betaplus20ActionCFTONZoomed1.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
\
[0.32]{} ![ behaviour of the CFT free energy for fixed $\beta$ in the region of small and large $\alpha$. []{data-label="fig:CFTSlicesBeta"}](betamin052ActionCFTONZoomed2.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![ behaviour of the CFT free energy for fixed $\beta$ in the region of small and large $\alpha$. []{data-label="fig:CFTSlicesBeta"}](betaplus20ActionCFTONZoomed2.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![ behaviour of the CFT free energy for fixed $\beta$ in the region of small and large $\alpha$. []{data-label="fig:CFTSlicesBeta"}](betaplus50ActionCFTONZoomed2.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Holographic interlude {#sec:AdSCFT}
---------------------
We can now attempt to compare the regularised on-shell action of our new asymptotically $AdS_4$ solutions of gravity with a double squashed sphere at the boundary with the free energy of the $O(N)$ vector model on the same squashed sphere. We should emphasize from the start that there is no a priori reason to expect that there is any duality between these two theories. The free $O(N)$ model should be dual to a higher-spin Vasiliev theory in $AdS_4$ and this theory is very different from pure Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant. Nevertheless the results in [@Hartnoll:2005yc] suggest that there are some qualitative similarities between these models which we further explore here.
First let us focus on the case when there is only one nontrivial squashing parameter, i.e. $\beta=0$. In Figure \[fig:ancomparisonAdSCFT\] we plot the regularised on-shell action of the corresponding gravitational solution and compare it with the free energy of the free $O(N)$ vector model. We chose to normalise both quantities such that for $\alpha=0$ they are equal to 1 and focus on their dependence on the squashing parameter $\alpha$. There are clear similarities between the two functions in the region $\alpha<0$. For $\alpha>0$ the similarity is only qualitative, i.e. both functions decrease as $\alpha$ increases. A notable difference is that the gravitational solutions exhibit a Hawking-Page phase transition for a relatively large positive value of $\alpha$. Such a phase transition is of course absent in a free quantum field theory. Another notable feature is that the free energy of the CFT diverges for $\alpha=-3/4$ due to the simple fact that the lowest eigenvalue of the conformal Laplacian in vanishes at this value of the squashing. There is no corresponding divergence in the gravitational on-shell action. We believe that this discrepancy is entirely due to the fact that we are considering a free CFT. Indeed the large $N$ analysis of the free energy of the interacting three-dimensional $O(N)$ vector model in [@Hartnoll:2005yc] shows that this divergence in the free energy is removed. For large values of $\alpha$ both functions decrease linearly. From our numerical results we can estimate that the ratio of the slopes of these linear functions is approximately $3.7$.
![Comparison between the free energy of the free $O(N)$ model for $\beta=0$ and as a function of $\alpha$(red) and the on-shell action for the analytic AdS-Taub-Nut/Bolt solutions (blue). For the gravitational results we included the phase transition from NUT to Bolt. All results are normalised to give 1 for $\alpha=\beta=0$.[]{data-label="fig:ancomparisonAdSCFT"}](CompareTaubNUTBoltvsCFTONan.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
Let us now compare the gravitational on-shell action and the field theory free energies when both squashing parameters do not vanish. The regularised bulk on-shell action is presented in Figure \[fig:actionsAdStwosquashings\] and the field theory free energy is plotted in Figure \[fig:minusLogZ\]. Some of the similarities between these two figures were already mentioned, the qualitatively similar overall behaviour as well as the global maximum at $\alpha=\beta=0$. However, just like in the case of one squashing parameter, we also have differences between the two quantities: the phase transition in the bulk from NUT to Bolt which doesn’t appear in the free CFT, the diverging free energy in the free field theory when $R$ becomes $0$, and the different asymptotic fall-off behaviour for large values of the squashing parameters.
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betamin060ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betamin040ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betamin025ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
\
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betamin010ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betamin005ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betaplus005ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
\
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betaplus010ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betaplus030ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betaplus050ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
\
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betaplus080ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betaplus115ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Comparison, for different fixed values of $\beta$, between the free energy of the CFT (in red), the Taub-NUT (in blue) and Taub-Bolt (in dashed green) on-shell actions. All functions are normalised to give 1 when both squashings parameters are zero.[]{data-label="fig:compareSlicesBeta"}](betaplus165ActionComparedCFTONBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
To have a better understanding of the similarities and differences between the gravitational and field theory results we provide plots of the free energy and on-shell action as a function of $\alpha$ for fixed values of $\beta$. This is shown in Figure \[fig:compareSlicesBeta\] where the CFT results are plotted in red, the on-shell action of the Taub-NUT solutions is in blue and the one for Taub-Bolt solutions is indicated with a green dashed line. From this figure the conclusions of the previous paragraphs are immediately obvious. We see that for $\beta<0$ the maxima are around $\alpha=\beta$, for positive $\beta$ the maximum is always at $\alpha=\beta=0$. The general behaviour for small and large $\alpha$ is also again comparable, but in general the CFT free energy falls off much faster than the bulk on-shell action.
Finally we would like to comment on how our results fit into the framework of the F-theorem for three-dimensional CFTs and their holographic duals [@Jafferis:2010un; @Jafferis:2011zi; @Klebanov:2011gs]. The F-theorem states that the free energy of a CFT on $S^3$ decreases along an RG flow triggered by a relevant deformation. We can think of the $O(N)$ model defined on the squashed sphere with the metric in as a CFT perturbed by a relevant deformation. To be more precise the deformation is triggered by the coupling of the energy-momentum tensor of the CFT to the curved background metric. From this perspective the fact that we find that the free energy has a global maximum at $\alpha=\beta=0$ is entirely compatible with the F-theorem, namely the squashing deformations decrease the free energy. The same conclusion can be drawn from the on-shell gravitational action that we computed since we can interpret it holographically as the function that should decrease monotonically under RG flows.
Hartle-Hawking wave function in anisotropic minisuperspace {#sec:Cosmology}
==========================================================
The dS/CFT correspondence [@Balasubramanian2001; @Strominger2001; @Maldacena2002] conjectures that the Hartle-Hawking wave function of the universe $\Psi_{HH}$ with future de Sitter boundary conditions is given at late times in terms of the partition functions of deformations of a Euclidean CFT defined on the future boundary.
Euclidean AdS/CFT implies a realisation of dS/CFT that is valid in the semiclassical approximation in Einstein gravity and possibly exact in Vasiliev gravity in dS where the duals are Euclidean $Sp(N)$ vector models [@Anninos2011]. In this context dS/CFT is often understood as an analytic continuation from Euclidean AdS to Lorentzian dS [@Maldacena2002; @Harlow2011; @McFadden2009; @Hartle2012a; @Hartle2012b]. However the duality in dS can also be expressed more generally and directly in terms of the AdS/CFT dual partition functions $Z_{QFT}$, as follows [@Hertog2011], \_[HH]{} \[h\_[ij]{}, \]= Z\^[-1]{}\_[QFT]{}\[h\_[ij]{},\] (iS\_[ct]{}\[h\_[ij]{}, \]/) . \[dSCFT\] where $h_{ij} = a^2 \tilde h_{ij}$ with $\mathrm{Vol}(\tilde h_{ij}) =1$ is the metric on the asymptotic boundary and $a$ is an overall scale factor, and where $\phi$ stands for bulk matter fields, locally related to the sources $\zeta$. We set these to zero in this paper.
In this formulation the connection between AdS/CFT and a cosmological wave function does not involve a continuation. Instead it follows directly from the observation in [@Hertog2011] that all complex saddle points of the Hartle-Hawking wave function have a representation in which their interior geometry consists of a Euclidean AdS domain wall that makes a smooth (but complex) transition to a Lorentzian asymptotically dS universe. Moreover the relative probabilities of different asymptotically locally dS boundary configurations are fully specified by the regularised action of the interior AdS regime of the saddle points. The complex transition region merely accounts for the universal phase factor in , where $S_{ct}$ are the counterterms in . This phase factor plays a physical role in dS: it implies the wave function predicts an ensemble of Lorentzian universes that evolve classically at large volume. The reason the inverse of the AdS/CFT dual partition function enters in can be traced to the fact that the Hartle-Hawking wave function in cosmology is related to the decaying wave function in AdS whereas Euclidean AdS/CFT is usually concerned with the growing branch of the AdS wave function [@Gabriele:2015gca].
Equation shows that dS/CFT relates the argument of the wave function of the universe to external sources in the dual partition functions that turn on deformations of the CFT. The dependence of the partition function on the values of these sources, which include the background geometry, yields a holographic measure on the space of asymptotically locally de Sitter universes. However it has hitherto remained an open question what is the exact configuration space of deformations on which the holographic wave function should be defined. Here we study this question by using and our results on the $O(N)$ model above to explore the qualitative behaviour of $\Psi_{HH}$ in new directions in superspace.
[0.32]{} ![Three constant $\beta$ slices of the Hartle-Hawking probability distribution ${\cal P}(\alpha,\beta) \equiv \vert \Psi_{HH}(\alpha,\beta) \vert^2$ over a two-parameter family of anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space labeled by the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the future boundary geometry, in Einstein gravity (blue) and in Vasiliev gravity (red). The distribution in Vasiliev gravity is computed invoking the duality with the free $O(N)$ model at large $N$. Both distributions exhibit a qualitatively similar behaviour across the entire minisuperspace of boundary configurations and have a global maximum at $\alpha=\beta=0$ corresponding to dS space. The normalisation of the slices shown here is such that the integral of the probability distribution ${\cal P}(\alpha,\beta)$ over the $(\alpha,\beta)$-plane gives $1$. For the CFT we chose $N=10$.[]{data-label="Probslices"}](betamin040ActionComparedCFTSPNBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Three constant $\beta$ slices of the Hartle-Hawking probability distribution ${\cal P}(\alpha,\beta) \equiv \vert \Psi_{HH}(\alpha,\beta) \vert^2$ over a two-parameter family of anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space labeled by the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the future boundary geometry, in Einstein gravity (blue) and in Vasiliev gravity (red). The distribution in Vasiliev gravity is computed invoking the duality with the free $O(N)$ model at large $N$. Both distributions exhibit a qualitatively similar behaviour across the entire minisuperspace of boundary configurations and have a global maximum at $\alpha=\beta=0$ corresponding to dS space. The normalisation of the slices shown here is such that the integral of the probability distribution ${\cal P}(\alpha,\beta)$ over the $(\alpha,\beta)$-plane gives $1$. For the CFT we chose $N=10$.[]{data-label="Probslices"}](betaplus005ActionComparedCFTSPNBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.32]{} ![Three constant $\beta$ slices of the Hartle-Hawking probability distribution ${\cal P}(\alpha,\beta) \equiv \vert \Psi_{HH}(\alpha,\beta) \vert^2$ over a two-parameter family of anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space labeled by the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the future boundary geometry, in Einstein gravity (blue) and in Vasiliev gravity (red). The distribution in Vasiliev gravity is computed invoking the duality with the free $O(N)$ model at large $N$. Both distributions exhibit a qualitatively similar behaviour across the entire minisuperspace of boundary configurations and have a global maximum at $\alpha=\beta=0$ corresponding to dS space. The normalisation of the slices shown here is such that the integral of the probability distribution ${\cal P}(\alpha,\beta)$ over the $(\alpha,\beta)$-plane gives $1$. For the CFT we chose $N=10$.[]{data-label="Probslices"}](betaplus115ActionComparedCFTSPNBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
The partition functions of $O(N)$ vector models have previously been evaluated in what corresponds in the bulk to a number of minisuperspace models. These include homogeneous isotropic minisuperspace with scalar matter [@Anninos:2012ft], perturbations of this preserving $SO(3)$ invariance [@Anninos:2013rza], and models with a round $S^1 \times S^2$ future boundary [@Anninos:2012ft; @Conti:2014uda]. Our calculation of the partition function of the free $O(N)$ vector model on boundary geometries that are a two-parameter family of squashed three spheres yields $\Psi_{HH}$ in another kind of minisuperspace model that consists of homogeneous but anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space. In this context Figure \[fig:minusLogZ\] can be interpreted as the logarithm of the probability distribution ${\cal P}(\alpha,\beta)\equiv \vert \Psi_{HH}(\alpha,\beta) \vert^2$ as a function of the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The distribution is normalisable and has a global maximum at the round sphere. The corresponding distribution in Einstein gravity computed via bulk methods follows from our results in Section \[subsec:DS\] and is shown in Figure \[fig:actionsAdStwosquashings\] for small values of the squashing parameters and in Figure \[fig:actionsAdStwosquashingsB\] for the large squashings where the Bolt solutions dominate the probabilities. It is striking that both distributions exhibit a qualitatively similar behaviour across the entire configuration space. This is made more explicit in Figure \[Probslices\] where we show and compare three slices of these distributions for three different values of $\beta$. This also shows the distributions are significantly broader when $\beta$ (or $\alpha$) is small. On the other hand both distributions differ in specific features such as the NUT to Bolt transition at large positive values of the squashing parameters, which is evidently absent in the dual free theory.
A particularly interesting region of superspace is the regime of boundary configurations for which the Ricci scalar is negative. The Ricci scalar of a double squashed three sphere of the form is given by in terms of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. If one of the squashings is zero then $R<0$ if the remaining squashing parameter is less than $-3/4$. As mentioned earlier, however, adding a second squashing leads to an additional $R<0$ region associated with large positive values of both $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Figure \[fig:RicciandZSquaredLmax1000\] shows that along all curves in the $(\alpha,\beta)$-plane where $R=0$ the holographic wave function vanishes. This is expected since the Ricci scalar enters as a mass term in the dual theory. When $R \rightarrow 0$ one of the eigenvalues of the scalar Laplacian on the squashed $S^3$ goes to zero, see , and since the partition function is proportional to the product of all these eigenvalues it vanishes. This in turn leads to a diverging free energy, and hence the prediction that $\Psi_{HH} \rightarrow 0$ when $R \rightarrow 0$.
In the region of superspace corresponding to negative curvature boundaries the free boundary theory is unstable. This suggests this region should be excised from the configuration space in order for the wave function to be well-defined and normalisable. In the minisuperspace model we consider here the implications of this instability are nevertheless limited: The overall amplitude of boundary geometries with a negative scalar curvature is exponentially small. This is clear from Figure \[Probslices\] and Figure \[Probsingle\] that show representative slices of the probability distribution. However the instability of the boundary theory leads to pathologies when one extends the minisuperspace model to include e.g. a bulk scalar field, both in Einstein gravity and in Vasiliev gravity. In this context it leads to a non-normalisable probability distribution rendering the wave function ill-defined. Evidence for this in Vasiliev gravity was found in [@Anninos:2012ft] in homogeneous isotropic minisuperspace with scalar matter. In future work we will show that the instability leads to divergences in other directions in superspace as well, by evaluating the wave function on anisotropic boundary configurations with scalar matter turned on [@CHV]. This provides further evidence that the configuration space of boundary geometries on which the wave functional is defined in quantum gravity must be appropriately constrained in order for the resulting probabilities to be well defined and normalisable.
![A constant $\beta=1.15$ slice of the Hartle-Hawking probability distribution over anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space, in Einstein gravity (blue) and in Vasiliev gravity (red), and details of these distributions in the regime where the curvature of the boundary geometry is negative. The second squashing introduces a second regime where $R(\alpha,\beta) <0$ corresponding to large positive values of both squashing parameters. The overall amplitude of boundary geometries with a negative scalar curvature is exponentially small in this minisuperspace model. The normalisation and $N$ are chosen to be the same as in Figure \[Probslices\].[]{data-label="Probsingle"}](betaplus115ActionComparedCFTSPNBulk.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![A constant $\beta=1.15$ slice of the Hartle-Hawking probability distribution over anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space, in Einstein gravity (blue) and in Vasiliev gravity (red), and details of these distributions in the regime where the curvature of the boundary geometry is negative. The second squashing introduces a second regime where $R(\alpha,\beta) <0$ corresponding to large positive values of both squashing parameters. The overall amplitude of boundary geometries with a negative scalar curvature is exponentially small in this minisuperspace model. The normalisation and $N$ are chosen to be the same as in Figure \[Probslices\].[]{data-label="Probsingle"}](betaplus115ActionComparedCFTSPNBulkZoomedLeft.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![A constant $\beta=1.15$ slice of the Hartle-Hawking probability distribution over anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space, in Einstein gravity (blue) and in Vasiliev gravity (red), and details of these distributions in the regime where the curvature of the boundary geometry is negative. The second squashing introduces a second regime where $R(\alpha,\beta) <0$ corresponding to large positive values of both squashing parameters. The overall amplitude of boundary geometries with a negative scalar curvature is exponentially small in this minisuperspace model. The normalisation and $N$ are chosen to be the same as in Figure \[Probslices\].[]{data-label="Probsingle"}](betaplus115ActionComparedCFTSPNBulkZoomedRight.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have shown that the partition function of the free $O(N)$ model on the double squashed three sphere, as a function of the two squashing parameters, qualitatively reproduces the thermodynamical properties of a new set of Euclidean asymptotically locally $AdS_4$ solutions of Einstein gravity. Using a recent formulation of semiclassical dS/CFT we derived the Hartle-Hawking wave function of the universe in homogeneous but anisotropic minisuperspace from the above partition functions. In this application, the two squashing parameters specify a two parameter set of anisotropic deformations of de Sitter space. We found the resulting probability distribution over cosmological histories is normalisable and globally peaked at isotropic de Sitter space. Strong squashings lead to boundary geometries with negative scalar curvature and the boundary theory becomes manifestly unstable. In this minisuperspace model the overall amplitude of universes with a negative curvature future boundary is nevertheless exponentially small. However, as we discussed in Section \[sec:Cosmology\], this does not remain true when other directions in superspace are taken in account, We defer a detailed analysis of this to future work [@CHV].
There are some clear avenues for generalisation of our work. First, it would be interesting to extend our results to higher dimensions. On the gravitational side it should be fairly straightforward to generalise the metric Ansatz in and find new solutions of general relativity in higher dimensions. Based on our experience in four dimensions we expect that these backgrounds can be found only numerically. Extending the results of Section \[sec:CFT\] to higher dimensions should also be possible. The technical problem here is to find the spectrum of the Laplacian on higher-dimensional squashed spheres. This has been addressed in [@BBV] for a generalisation of the metric in with $\beta=0$ to higher odd dimensions. Adding additional squashing parameters to the problem will probably be technically cumbersome. Another extension of our work could be to compute the squashed sphere partition function with two nontrivial squashing parameters for the interacting $O(N)$ model along the lines of the approach in [@Hartnoll:2005yc]. This will probably necessitate the use of the large $N$ limit.
We should emphasize again that the free $O(N)$ vector models are not dual to Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant. The proper dual theory is the higher-spin Vasiliev theory. In view of the field theory results in Section \[sec:CFT\] it will therefore be very interesting to construct new solutions of Vasiliev theory which have a squashed $S^3$ metric on the asymptotic boundary. This will provide new opportunities for quantitative checks of the higher-spin/vector model duality. Conversely it will be desirable to construct proper holographic duals to the gravitational solutions we constructed in Section \[sec:AdS\]. To do this one has to overcome the technical difficulty in dealing with strongly coupled three-dimensional CFTs, like the ABJM theory, on curved manifolds without resorting to the power of supersymmetry.
**Acknowledgements**
We would like to thank Pablo Bueno, Gabriele Conti, Frederik Denef, Ruben Monten and Balt van Rees for useful discussions. The work of NB is supported in part by the starting grant BOF/STG/14/032 from KU Leuven and by an Odysseus grant G0F9516N from the FWO. The work of TH and YV is supported in part by the FWO grant G.001.12 Odysseus and by the European Research Council grant no. ERC-2013-CoG 616732 HoloQosmos. We are also supported by the KU Lueven C1 grant ZKD1118 C16/16/005, the COST Action MP1210 The String Theory Universe, and by the European Science Foundation Holograv Network.
UV and IR expansions {#App:AdSexpansions}
====================
Here we collect some details on the IR and UV asymptotic expansion for the numerical solutions discussed in Section \[subsec:AdS2squash\] as well as a short discussion on the procedure to construct numerical solutions.
The equations of motion for the Ansatz in arising from the action in are given by $$\label{eqn:eom}
\begin{split}
\frac{ { l_0} { l_3} }{ { l_1} { l_2} } & +\frac{ { l_0} { l_2} }{ { l_1} { l_3} }+\frac{ { l_0} { l_1} }{ { l_2} {l_3} }-\frac{2
{l_0} }{ {l_1} }-\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_2} }-\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_3} }+4 \Lambda {l_0} +\frac{ {l_1}' {l_2}' }{ {l_1} {l_2} }+\frac{ {l_1}'
{l_3}' }{ {l_1} {l_3} }+\frac{ {l_2}' {l_3}' }{ {l_2} {l_3} }=0\ , \\
-\frac{ {l_0}' {l_1}' }{ {l_0} {l_1} }&-\frac{ {l_0}' {l_3}' }{ {l_0} {l_3} }-\frac{ {l_0} {l_3} }{ {l_1} {l_2} }+\frac{3 {l_0}
{l_2} }{ {l_1} {l_3} }-\frac{ {l_0} {l_1} }{ {l_2} {l_3} }-\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_1} }+\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_2} }-\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_3} }+4
\Lambda {l_0}
+\frac{2 {l_1}'' }{ {l_1} }+\frac{ {l_1}' {l_3}' }{ {l_1} {l_3} } \\
-\frac{ {l_1'}^2}{ {l_1}^2}&+\frac{2
{l_3}'' }{ {l_3} }-\frac{ {l_3'}^2}{ {l_3}^2}=0\ ,\\
-\frac{ {l_0}' {l_2}' }{ {l_0} {l_2} }&-\frac{ {l_0}' {l_3}' }{ {l_0} {l_3} }-\frac{ {l_0} {l_3} }{ {l_1} {l_2} }-\frac{ {l_0}
{l_2} }{ {l_1} {l_3} }+\frac{3 {l_0} {l_1} }{ {l_2} {l_3} }+\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_1} }-\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_2} }-\frac{2
{l_0} }{ {l_3} } +4 \Lambda {l_0} +\frac{2 {l_2}'' }{ {l_2} }+\frac{ {l_2}' {l_3}' }{ {l_2} {l_3} } \\
-\frac{ {l_2'}^2}{ {l_2}^2} & +\frac{2 {l_3}'' }{ {l_3} }-\frac{ {l_3'}^2}{ {l_3}^2}=0\ ,\\
-\frac{ {l_0}' {l_1}' }{ {l_0} {l_1} }&-\frac{ {l_0}' {l_2}' }{ {l_0} {l_2} }+\frac{3 {l_0} {l_3} }{ {l_1} {l_2} }-\frac{ {l_0}
{l_2} }{ {l_1} {l_3} }-\frac{ {l_0} {l_1} }{ {l_2} {l_3} }-\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_1} }-\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_2} }+\frac{2 {l_0} }{ {l_3} }
+4 \Lambda {l_0} +\frac{2 {l_1}'' }{ {l_1} }+\frac{ {l_1}' {l_2}' }{ {l_1} {l_2} } \\
-\frac{ {l_1'}^2}{ {l_1}^2}&+\frac{2 {l_2}'' }{ {l_2} }-\frac{ {l_2'}^2}{ {l_2}^2}=0\ .
\end{split}$$ The IR expansion for the NUT solution with two squashings is given in . Using the equations of motion leads to the following series expansion $$\label{eqn:IRexpansion}
\begin{split}
l_0(r)&=1 \quad ,\\
l_1(r)&=\frac{1}{4} (r-r^*)^2+\beta_4 (r-r^*)^4 \\
+& \frac{(r-r^*)^6 \left(36\Lambda (\beta_4-4 \gamma_4)+ \left(-\Lambda ^2\right)+96 \left(-18 \beta_4 \gamma_4+17
\beta_4^2-18 \gamma_4^2\right)\right)}{480} +\mathcal{O}((r-r^*)^{8}) \ ,\\
l_2(r)&=\frac{1}{4} (r-r^*)^2+\gamma_4 (r-r^*)^4
\\
-&\frac{(r-r^*)^6 \left(36 \Lambda (4 \beta_4-\gamma_4)+ \Lambda ^2+96 \left(18 \beta_4 \gamma_4+18 \beta_4^2-17
\gamma_4^2\right)\right)}{480 } +\mathcal{O}((r-r^*)^{8})\ ,\\
l_3(r)&=(r-r^*)^4 \left(-\frac{1}{12}\Lambda -\beta_4-\gamma_4\right)+\frac{1}{4} (r-r^*)^2 \\
+& \frac{(r-r^*)^6 \left(354 \Lambda (\beta_4+\gamma_4)+11 \Lambda ^2+144 \left(52 \beta_4 \gamma_4+17 \beta
(4)^2+17 \gamma_4^2\right)\right)}{720}+\mathcal{O}((r-r^*)^{8}) \ .
\end{split}$$ As explained in the main text this expansion is controlled by the two real parameters $\beta_4$ and $\gamma_4$ which are ultimately related to the two squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, at the asymptotic boundary.
The IR expansion for the Bolt solution with two squashings is given in . Using the equations of motion in in the gauge $l_0(r)=1$ leads to the following series expansion $$\label{eqn:IRBoltexpansion}
\begin{split}
l_1(r)&=\gamma _0-\frac{1}{2} \left(\gamma _0 \Lambda
-1\right) (r-r^*)^2+\frac{\left(12 \gamma _0^2 \Lambda ^2-16 \gamma _0 \left(6 \gamma _4+\Lambda \right)+1\right) (r-r^*)^4}{96 \gamma
_0} \\
& +\frac{\left(\gamma _0 \Lambda \left(4 \gamma _0 \Lambda \left(14-5 \gamma _0 \Lambda \right)-41\right)+32 \gamma _0
\gamma _4 \left(9 \gamma _0 \Lambda -16\right)+4\right) (r-r^*)^6}{960 \gamma _0^2} + \mathcal{O}((r-r^*)^8)\ , \\
l_2(r)&=\gamma _0-\frac{1}{2} \left(\gamma _0 \Lambda
-1\right) (r-r^*)^2+\gamma _4 (r-r^*)^4 \\
& +\frac{\left(\gamma _0 \Lambda \left(12 \gamma _0 \Lambda \left(2 \gamma _0 \Lambda -7\right)+71\right)+48 \gamma _0
\gamma _4 \left(16-9 \gamma _0 \Lambda \right)-2\right) (r-r^*)^6}{1440 \gamma _0^2} + \mathcal{O}((r-r^*)^8)\ , \\
l_3(r)&=\frac{1}{4} (r-r^*)^2 -\frac{(r-r^*)^4}{12 \gamma _0}+ \frac{\left(36 \gamma _0^2 \Lambda ^2-144 \gamma _0 \Lambda +199\right) (r-r^*)^6}{5760 \gamma
_0^2} + \mathcal{O}((r-r^*)^8)\ .
\end{split}$$ We chose to parametrise this expansion by the two independent real parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ which are again mapped to the squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the UV.
The general UV expansion is given in . Plugging this into the equations of motion with $l_0(r)=1$ one finds the following consistent series expansion $$\label{eqn:UVexpansion}
\begin{split}
l_1(r)&=A_0 e^{2 r}+ \frac{3 \left(-2 A_0 \left(B_0+C_0\right)+5 A_0^2-3 \left(B_0-C_0\right)^2\right)}{8 B_0 C_0 \Lambda } +A_3 e^{-r} + \mathcal{O}(e^{-2r} ) \ , \\
l_2(r)&= B_0 e^{2 r} -\frac{3 \left(2 A_0 \left(B_0-3 C_0\right)+3 A_0^2+2 B_0 C_0-5 B_0^2+3 C_0^2\right)}{8 A_0 C_0 \Lambda }+B_3 e^{-r} + \mathcal{O}(e^{-3r} ) \;, \\
l_3(r)&= C_0 e^{2 r}+ \frac{-6 C_0 \left(A_0+B_0\right)-9 \left(A_0-B_0\right)^2+15 C_0^2}{8 A_0 B_0 \Lambda } + C_0 e^{-r} \left(-\frac{A_3}{A_0}-\frac{B_3}{B_0}\right) + \mathcal{O}(e^{-3r} )\ .
\end{split}$$ We have performed this expansion up to eight order and have verified that it is controlled by the five parameters $\{A_0,B_0,C_0,A_3,B_3\}$. Since the equations of motion are invariant under constant shifts of the radial coordinate, one can set $A_0=\frac{1}{4}$ by an appropriate shift of $r$. One can then identify $B_0$ and $C_0$ with the squashing parameters in as follows $$\label{eqn:alphabetaBC}
\alpha = \frac{1}{4C_0} - 1\;, \qquad\qquad \beta = \frac{1}{4B_0} - 1\;.$$ The parameters $A_3$ and $B_3$ are independent from the point of view of the UV expansion but are ultimately fixed in terms of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ by the regularity conditions that we imposed for the numerical solutions of the full nonlinear equations of motion.
It is worth discussing how we constructed the numerical solutions of the full nonlinear equations of motion in . For the AdS-Taub-NUT solutions we picked real values for the parameters $\beta_4$ and $\gamma_4$ in the IR expansion . For each such value we then numerically integrated the equations of motion from $r=0$ to some large value of $r$. If the resulting numerical solution does not exhibit a singularity at an intermediate value of the radial coordinate $r$ we declared the solution to be regular and read of the asymptotic parameters $B_0$ and $C_0$ in which we then related to the squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ using . As expected we find that there are no restrictions on the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, i.e. as we vary $\beta_4$ and $\gamma_4$ we can explore the whole $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:rangesolsNUT\].
![The range of parameters for the AdS-Taub-NUT solutions with two squashings. Left: the values of $\gamma_4$ and $\beta_4$ that lead to regular solutions. Right: the resulting values of the squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:rangesolsNUT"}](Rangegamma4beta4.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The range of parameters for the AdS-Taub-NUT solutions with two squashings. Left: the values of $\gamma_4$ and $\beta_4$ that lead to regular solutions. Right: the resulting values of the squashing parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:rangesolsNUT"}](Rangealphabeta.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
The procedure we used to construct the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions is very similar. We start with the IR expansion in , vary the parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ and integrate numerically the equations of motion. Finally we read off the asymptotic parameters $B_0$ and $C_0$ from the behaviour of the numerical solutions at large $r$ and deduce the corresponding values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ using the relation in . However, there is an important difference between these solutions and the AdS-Taub-NUT solutions. For a fixed value of $\beta$ there are critical values of $\alpha$ below/above which there are no AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions. This leads to curves in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ plane and the AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions exist only for values of the squashing parameters that are below or above these critical curves. Furthermore for every value of $(\alpha,\beta)$ for which Bolt solutions exist there are two possible solutions of the equations of motion which we dub “positive" and “negative" branch. All of these features are extensions of the familiar behaviour of the analytically known AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions with $\beta=0$ discussed in Section \[subsec:AdSTNB\]. We illustrate the range of the IR and squashing parameters for the “positive" and “negative" branch AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions in Figure \[fig:RangesolsBolt\] and Figure \[fig:RangesolsBoltNB\] respectively.
![The range of parameters for the “positive branch" AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions with two squashings. Left: the range of parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ that leads to regular solutions. Right: the resulting asymptotic parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:RangesolsBolt"}](Rangegamma0gamma4Combined.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The range of parameters for the “positive branch" AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions with two squashings. Left: the range of parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ that leads to regular solutions. Right: the resulting asymptotic parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:RangesolsBolt"}](RangealphabetaBoltDecent.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![The range of parameters for the “negative branch" AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions with two squashings. Left: the range of parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ that leads to regular solutions. Right: the resulting asymptotic parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:RangesolsBoltNB"}](rangegammaogamma4BoltNB.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The range of parameters for the “negative branch" AdS-Taub-Bolt solutions with two squashings. Left: the range of parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_4$ that leads to regular solutions. Right: the resulting asymptotic parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:RangesolsBoltNB"}](rangealphabetaBoltNB.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Eigenvalues of the Laplace operator {#App:eigen}
===================================
To calculate the eigenvalues of the Laplacian on the double squashed three sphere we use some of the results in [@PhysRevD.8.1048]. The main observation is that the Laplace operator $-\nabla^2$ on the squashed three sphere corresponds to the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ of an asymmetric top $$\begin{aligned}
-\nabla^2 \to \hat{H}=\frac{ \hat{L}_1^2}{2I_1} + \frac{ \hat{L}_2^2}{2I_2}+\frac{\hat{L}_3^2}{2I_3} \ , \label{eqn:Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{L}_1$, $\hat{L}_2$ and $\hat{L}_3$ the components of the angular momentum operator $\hat{L}$ along the three principal axes of inertia. $(I_1,I_2,I_3)$ are the principal moments of inertia of the body. These can be mapped to the squashing parameters in in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
I_1=\frac18 \ , \qquad I_2=\frac{1}{8(\beta+1)} \ , \qquad I_3=\frac{1}{8(\alpha+1)} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The round sphere with $\alpha=\beta=0$ is mapped to the spherical top defined by $I_1=I_2=I_3$. The sphere with one squashing parameter, say $\beta=0$ and $\alpha \neq 0$ is the counterpart of the symmetric prolate top with $I_1=I_2\neq I_3$. The problem of finding the eigenvalues of the Laplacian for the sphere with two nontrivial squashing parameters is therefore reduced to finding the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian of an asymmetric top with three different moments of inertia. This problem is studied to some extent in Section 103 of [@landau1977quantum] but since it may not be too familiar we discuss it below in some detail.
Let us start with the simplest case when $I_1=I_2=I_3=I$. The Hamiltonian in this case is reduced to $\hat{H}=\hat{L}^2/(2 I)$ for which the eigenvalues of an eigenvector $\psi$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}\psi= \frac{L(L+1)}{2I} \psi \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with degeneracy[^7] $2L+1$. Here $L$ is the rotational quantum number which is related to the quantum number $n$ in by $2L+1=n$.
It is also possible to find analytic expressions for the eigenvalues of the symmetric prolate top with $I_1=I_2$. In this case the Hamiltonian can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}=\frac{\hat{L}^2}{2I_1} + \frac12 \left(\frac{1}{I_3}-\frac{1}{I_1}\right) \hat{L}_3^2 \ . \label{eqn:Hamiltonianprolate}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\hat{L}_3$ commutes with $\hat{L}^2$ it has the same eigenvectors as $\hat{L}^2$, but with eigenvalues $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{L}_3\psi=k\psi, \qquad k=-L, \ldots , L \ .\end{aligned}$$ The relation between the quantum number $k$ above and the quantum numbers $q$ and $n$ used in is $$k = q+ \frac{1-n}{2}\;.$$ With this at hand one can show that the eigenvalues of $\hat{H}$ for the symmetric prolate top are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}\psi= \left[ \frac{L(L+1)}{2I_1} + \frac12 \left(\frac{1}{I_3}-\frac{1}{I_1}\right) k^2\right]\psi \ ,\end{aligned}$$ Every such eigenvalue is doubly degenerate.
For the completely asymmetric top it is impossible to solve the eigenvalue problem analytically. This is because $\hat{L}_1$, $\hat{L}_2$ and $\hat{L}_3$ do not mutually commute. The degeneracy that was present in the previous examples, is now completely lifted. A possible resolution is to solve the eigenvalue equation in matrix form. This means that we have to find solutions of a secular equation of degree $2 L+1$. For general values of $L$ we therefore have to resort to numerical methods to find the eigenvalues. Luckily there are some symmetries that reduce the degree of the secular equation making it more tractable to solve numerically.
The matrix elements of the angular momentum operator can be found in many textbooks on quantum mechanics, see for example [@landau1977quantum]. The only non-zero matrix elements are $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{L}_1)_{k, k-1}= (\hat{L}_1)_{k-1, k}&=\frac12 \sqrt{(L+k)(L-k-1)} \;, \\
(\hat{L}_2)_{k, k-1}=- (\hat{L}_2)_{k-1, k}&=-i\frac12 \sqrt{(L+k)(L-k+1)} \;, \\
(\hat{L}_3)_{k, k}&=k.\end{aligned}$$ From these expressions it is not too difficult to see that the only non-zero elements of $\hat{L}_1^2$, $\hat{L}_2^2$ and $\hat{L}_3^2$ are those for which $k\rightarrow k$ or $k\rightarrow k\pm 2$. For a given fixed value of $L$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{H})_{k,k}&= \frac12\left( \frac{(\hat{L}_1^2)_{k,k}}{I_1}+\frac{(\hat{L}_2^2)_{k,k}}{I_2}+\frac{(\hat{L}_3^2)_{k,k}}{I_3}\right)=\frac14\left(\frac{1}{I_1}+\frac{1}{I_2}\right)\left(L(L+1)-k^2\right)+\frac{k^2}{2 I_3} \;, \\
(\hat{H})_{k,k+2}&= (\hat{H})_{k+2,k}=\frac18 \left(\frac{1}{I_1}-\frac{1}{I_2}\right)\sqrt{(L-k)(L-k-1)(L+k+1)(L+k+2)} \;.\end{aligned}$$ These matrices are the essential building blocks in our numerical analysis. To continue our simplification of the secular equations, we have to treat the case of integer and half-integer values of $L$ separately.
First, let us consider the case when $L$ can only take integer values. In this case the even and odd values of $k$ will never be mixed. This means that the secular equation for a given $L$ splits into a secular equation of degree $L$ and one of degree $L+1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{det}(H_{k,k'}-E \delta_{k,k'})= \left. \textrm{det}(H_{k,k'}-E \delta_{k,k'})\right|_{k \textrm{ even}} \times \left. \textrm{det}(H_{k,k'}-E \delta_{k,k'})\right|_{k \textrm{ odd}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ It is possible to lower the degrees of the secular equations even further. To this end we have to consider the matrix elements with respect to a new basis $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{L_k}^+ &=\frac{\psi_{L_k}+\psi_{L_{-k}}}{\sqrt{2}} \;,\\
\psi_{L_k}^- &=\frac{\psi_{L_k}-\psi_{L_{-k}}}{\sqrt{2}}\;, \qquad k\neq 0 \;.\end{aligned}$$ This splits everything up in functions that are symmetric or anti-symmetric under sign change of $k$, which leads to another split in the two secular equations we have. At the end of the day in the new basis we have four independent matrices for which we have to find the eigenvalues. These are denoted by $O^+$, $O^-$, $E^+$ and $E^-$ where $O$, $E$ stands for odd or even respectively. Furthermore with $k^{\pm}$ we will distinguish between the eigenbasis spanned by $\psi^+$ or $\psi^-$.
The matrix elements in the new basis are then given by $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{H})_{k^{\pm},k^{\pm}}&=\langle \psi_{L_k}^{\pm}| H|\psi_{L_k}^{\pm}\rangle\\
&=\frac12\left(\langle \psi_{L_k}| H|\psi_{L_k}\rangle \pm \langle \psi_{L_k}| H|\psi_{L_{-k}}\rangle \pm \langle \psi_{L_{-k}}| H|\psi_{L_{k}}\rangle + \langle \psi_{L_{-k}}| H|\psi_{L_{-k}}\rangle\right)\\
&=\begin{cases}
(\hat{H})_{k,k} & k\neq 1\\
(\hat{H})_{1,1} \pm (\hat{H})_{1,-1} & k=1
\end{cases} , \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{H})_{k^{\pm},k+2^{\pm}}=\begin{cases}
(\hat{H})_{k,k+2} & k\neq 0,-2 \\
\sqrt{2} (\hat{H})_{0,2}
\end{cases} .\end{aligned}$$ This means that, for a given $L$, the matrices we have to find the eigenvalues of, are $$\begin{aligned}
O^{\pm}=\begin{pmatrix}
(\hat{H})_{1,1} \pm (\hat{H})_{1,-1} & (\hat{H})_{1,3}& 0 & \ldots \\
(\hat{H})_{1,3} & (\hat{H})_{3,3} & (\hat{H})_{3,5} &\ldots \\
0& (\hat{H})_{3,5} & (\hat{H})_{5,5} & \ldots \\
\ldots & \ldots &\ldots & \ldots
\end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
E^{+}=\begin{pmatrix}
(\hat{H})_{0,0} & \sqrt{2} (\hat{H})_{0,2}& 0 & \ldots \\
\sqrt{2} (\hat{H})_{0,2} & (\hat{H})_{2,2} & (\hat{H})_{2,4} &\ldots \\
0& (\hat{H})_{2,4} & (\hat{H})_{4,4} & \ldots \\
\ldots & \ldots &\ldots & \ldots
\end{pmatrix} \textrm{ and }
E^{-}=\begin{pmatrix}
(\hat{H})_{2,2} & (\hat{H})_{2,4}& 0 & \ldots \\
(\hat{H})_{2,4} & (\hat{H})_{4,4} & (\hat{H})_{4,6} &\ldots \\
0& (\hat{H})_{4,6} & (\hat{H})_{6,6} & \ldots \\
\ldots & \ldots &\ldots & \ldots
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
We still have to consider the half-integer values of $L$. In this case there is no transition between elements for which $k+1/2$ is even and for which this is odd, thus $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{det}(H_{k,k'}-E \delta_{k,k'})= \left. \textrm{det}(H_{k,k'}-E \delta_{k,k'})\right|_{k+1/2 \textrm{ even}} \times \left. \textrm{det}(H_{k,k'}-E \delta_{k,k'})\right|_{k+1/2 \textrm{ odd}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The secular equation is now split into two secular equations of degree $L+1/2$. It is not difficult to see that the set of $k$’s spanned by one of the secular equations is just minus the one of the other secular equation. On the other hand one can also show that $(\hat{H})_{k,k}= (\hat{H})_{-k,-k}$ and $(\hat{H})_{k+2,k}= (\hat{H})_{-k-2,-k}$. Therefore the two secular equations give the same result, leading to doubly degenerate eigenvalues for the case of half-integer $L$. The matrix for which we have to find the eigenvalues of is then $$\begin{aligned}
HI=\begin{pmatrix}
(\hat{H})_{-L,-L} & (\hat{H})_{-L,-L+2} & 0 &\ldots\\
(\hat{H})_{-L,-L+2} & (\hat{H})_{-L+2,-L+2} & \hat{H})_{-L+2,-L+4} & \ldots \\
0& (\hat{H})_{-L+2,-L+4} & (\hat{H})_{-L+4,-L+4} & \ldots\\
\ldots & \ldots &\ldots & \ldots
\end{pmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ For the purposes of Section \[sec:CFT\] we have implemented these eigenvalue problems into a numerical routine which produces all eigenvalues up to a certain quantum number $n=2L+1$. To ensure good convergence properties we had to choose values of $n$ that are of the order of 2000.
[^1]: Expressed in terms of the parameter $\alpha$ this range is $\alpha > \alpha_{\text{crit}} = 5+3\sqrt{3}$.
[^2]: In terms of the squashing parameter $\alpha$ this value is at $\alpha_{\text{HP}} = 6+2\sqrt{10}$.
[^3]: We assume that the full four-dimensional solutions have the same isometries as the asymptotic boundary.
[^4]: See also [@BBV] for some recent results on the usefulness of the squashed sphere partition function for free theories in odd dimensions.
[^5]: See [@Vassilevich:2003xt] for a review of heat kernel methods.
[^6]: For simplicity all the results we show below are for $N=1$, to obtain the results for higher $N$, one just has to multiply the free energy by $N$.
[^7]: This is the degeneracy of the energy levels with respect to the $2L+1$ directions of the angular momentum relative to the body itself. There is another $(2L+1)$-fold degeneracy with respect to a fixed coordinate system. These are not really physical, but need to be taken into account when we calculate the partition function.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
-48pt
[**On Quantum Nonlocality:\
Using Prediction of a Distant Measurement Outcome**]{}\
[**Vladimir S. MASHKEVICH**]{}[^1]\
[*Institute of Physics, National academy of sciences of Ukraine\
252028 Kiev, Ukraine*]{}\
[**Abstract**]{}
We assume that an event caused by a correlation between outcomes of two causally separated measurements is, by definition, a manifestation of quantum nonlocality, or superluminal influence. An example of the Alice-Bob type is given, with the characters replaced. The relationship between quantum nonlocality and relativity theory is touched upon.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
A recent paper by Stapp \[1\] has breathed new life into the problem of quantum nonlocality, or superluminal influence. As a result, a controversy has been aroused \[2-11\]. Opinions differ widely: Quantum nonlocality exists and may be proved using counterfactuals; quantum nonlocality exists but the counterfactual proof is untenable; quantum nonlocality does not exist.
Our opinion is the second one, so that an existence proof of quantum nonlocality should be based on actual events. The aim of the present paper is to propose such a proof. It goes without saying that first and foremost a definition of quantum nonlocality or, to be more precise, of its manifestation should be given.
We assume that an event caused by a correlation between outcomes of two causally separated measurements is, by definition, a manifestation of quantum nonlocality, or superluminal influence.
Given this definition, there is no difficulty in constructing an existence proof. We choose that of the Alice-Bob type, replacing the characters. Other examples, which relate to Bell inequalities, are well known.
The relationship between quantum nonlocality and relativity theory (for this problem see, e.g., \[12\]) is touched upon.
Definition of quantum nonlocality via its manifestation
=======================================================
Nobody would deny that due to quantum entanglement there exists a correlation between outcomes of two causally separated measurements. But since the correlation does not imply superluminal signals, not all treat it as quantum nonlocality. In the long run, that is a matter of taste. Be that as it may, it seems reasonable to define quantum nonlocality via manifestations of the correlation.
By definition, we assume that an event caused by a correlation between outcomes of two causally separated measurements is a manifestation of quantum nonlocality, or superluminal influence.
Here the term ‘event’ has a standard relativistic meaning: An event is localized in spacetime.
Two civilizations
=================
There are two civilizations: aggressive ($A$) and intellectual ($I$). The time distance between them is $$T\equiv T^{A}_{A-I-A}=T^{I}_{I-A-I}={\rm const}
\label{2.1}$$ where $T^{A}$ stands for a time interval by $A$ clock and $A-I-A$ for a light signal from $A$ to $I$ to $A$.
$A$ desires to destroy $I$. $A$ can send a destroying light pulse with one of frequencies $\Omega_{i},\quad i=1,2,...,N,
\quad N\gg 1$. $I$ has $N$ mirrors, $M_{1},M_{2},...,M_{N}$. The mirror $M_{i}$ reflects the pulse $\Omega_{i}$, so that $${\rm combination}\;(\Omega_{i},M_{i'})\; {\rm results \;
in\;destroying}\;\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
I\;{\rm for}\;i'\ne i\\
A\;{\rm for}\;i'=i. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{2.2}$$ The setting-up time for a mirror is $$T^{I}_{\rm setting}=\frac{1}{2}T-\tau^{I},\quad \tau^{I}\ll
\frac{1}{2}T.
\label{2.3}$$
$A$ is corrupt to the last degree. $I$ has an excellent secret service.
$A$ will send a pulse if $\Omega_{i}$ is unknown to $I$: in view of $N\gg 1$, the risk is small.
An order
========
To get around the corruption and secret service, $A$ decides that the choice of $\Omega_{i}$ should be a random event. An order is given to a physical laboratory: At the time $t^{A}_{\rm receiving}$, a quantum system ($A$ system) should be received in a mixed state with a statistical operator $$\rho^{A}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i}^{1,N}\left| Ai \right\rangle
\left\langle Ai \right|,\quad
\left\langle Ai \right|\left. Ai' \right\rangle=
\delta_{ii'},
\label{3.1}$$ where $$O^{A}\left| Ai \right\rangle=a_{i}\left| Ai \right\rangle.
\label{3.2}$$ At the instant $$t^{A}_{{\rm measuring}}=t^{A}_{{\rm receiving}}
\label{3.3}$$ the observable $O^{A}$ will be measured with a result $a_{i}$, and at the instant $$t^{A}_{{\rm sending}}=t^{A}_{{\rm measuring}}
\label{3.4}$$ a pulse $\Omega_{i}$ will be send.
The order is fulfilled
======================
Due to an operation by $I$ secret service, the order is fulfilled as follows. At the time $t^{A}_{{\rm receiving}}$ $A$ receives $A$ system with $\rho^{A}$ given by eq.(\[3.1\]), where $$\rho^{A}={\rm Tr}_{I}\rho^{AI},
\label{4.1}$$ $$\rho^{AI}=\left| AI \right\rangle\left\langle AI \right|,\quad
\left| AI \right\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i}^{1,N}
\left| Ai \right\rangle\otimes \left| Ii \right\rangle,
\quad \left\langle Ii \right|\left. Ii' \right\rangle=
\delta_{ii'},
\label{4.2}$$ $$O^{I}\left| Ii \right\rangle=b_{i}\left| Ii \right\rangle.
\label{4.3}$$ $I$ receives $I$ system at the time $t^{I}_{{\rm receiving}}$ such that $$t^{I}_{{\rm coming}}=t^{I}_{{\rm receiving}}+\frac{1}{2}T
\label{4.4}$$ where $t^{I}_{{\rm coming}}$ stands for the instant of the pulse coming.
The result
==========
The observable $O^{I}$ is measured at the instant $$t^{I}_{{\rm measuring}}=t^{I}_{{\rm receiving}}
\label{5.1}$$ with a result $b_{i}$ corresponding to $a_{i}$. The mirror $M_{i}$ is set up by the time $$t^{I}_{{\rm receiving}}+T^{I}_{{\rm setting}}=
t^{I}_{{\rm receiving}}+\frac{1}{2}T-\tau^{I}<
t^{I}_{{\rm coming}}.
\label{5.2}$$ The aggressor $A$ is destroyed.
The event referred to in Sec. 1 is the impact of the pulse $\Omega_{i}$ on the mirror $M_{i}$.
We may say that $I$ has used the prediction that the outcome of the distant measurement of $O^{A}$ is $a_{i}$.
Quantum nonlocality and relativity theory
=========================================
We would not say that quantum nonlocality contradicts special relativity: the situation is not so simple. Quantum nonlocality implies an additional structure of spacetime, which is absent in special relativity. The structure is this: The hypersurface of a quantum jump is that of a constant value of cosmic time \[13\].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Stefan V. Mashkevich for helpful discussion.
[99]{}
Henry P. Stapp, Am. J. Phys. , 300, (1997).
W. Unruh, quant-ph/9710032.
N. David Mermin, quant-ph/9711052.
Henry P. Stapp, quant-ph/9711060.
N. David Mermin, quant-ph/9712003.
Henry P. Stapp, quant-ph/9712036.
Henry P. Stapp, quant-ph/9712043.
J. Finkelstein, quant-ph/9801011.
Vladimir S. Mashkevich, quant-ph/9801032.
Henry P. Stapp, quant-ph/9801056.
Lev Vaidman, quant-ph/9802042.
B. d‘Espagnat, quant-ph/9802046.
Vladimir S. Mashkevich,$\quad $ gr-qc/9409010,$\;$ gr-qc/9505034, $\;$gr-qc/9603022,\
gr-qc/9609035, gr-qc/9609046, gr-qc/9704033, gr-qc/9704038, gr-qc/9708014,\
gr-qc/9802016, gr-qc/9802022.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'N. Harada'
- 'D. Riquelme'
- 'S. Viti'
- 'I. Jim[é]{}nez-Serra'
- 'M. A. Requena-Torres'
- 'K. M. Menten'
- 'S. Mart[í]{}n'
- 'R. Aladro'
- 'J. Martin-Pintado'
- 'S. Hochgürtel'
bibliography:
- 'gc.bib'
date: 'Received .../ Accepted ...'
title: 'Chemical Features in the Circumnuclear Disk of the Galactic Center [^1] [^2]'
---
Introduction
============
Located at $d \sim 8.4 \,$kpc from the Sun [@2009ApJ...700..137R], the center of the Milky Way is the nearest galactic nucleus. The supermassive black hole at its center is not currently active with an Eddington ratio of only $10^{-9}$, but X-ray observations suggest possible higher activity in the past [e.g., @2013ASSP...34..331P]. Even within the central parsec, at a close vicinity of Sgr A\*, a massive star cluster is found with a total stellar mass of $\sim 10^6 M_\odot$ . Star formation near the black hole is difficult to explain due to tidal shear. It has been proposed that these massive stars may have formed in situ or farther away from the black hole and migrated inwards [@2006ApJ...643.1011P and references therein]. The black hole is surrounded by the circumnuclear disk (CND) composed of molecular and atomic gas [@1987ApJ...318..124G]. The CND is actually a ring-like structure surrounding the very central region with an inner radius of 1.5 pc ($\sim$30 arcsec) that extends up to 7 pc at negative Galactic longitudes [@2011ApJ...732..120O].
Studying the molecular gas in the CND might yield information as to what extent stars can be formed in situ or not. The molecular inventory of the CND has been mapped in different tracers such as CO, CS and HCN . @2005ApJ...623..866B found a high ($ T_{\rm kin} \sim 200-300$K) kinetic temperature of the molecular gas, and proposed shocks as the dominant heating source. Higher resolution images of the HCN and HCO$^{+}$ $(1-0)$ lines were obtained by @2005ApJ...622..346C and they concluded that the molecular gas has high enough densities to be tidally stable. On the other hand, conducted a multi-$J$ transition analysis of CO, and derived a much lower density of $n_{\rm H} \sim 6\times 10^4\,$cm$^{-3}$ for most of the material. Besides the study of physical conditions by above authors, @2013ApJ...779...47M and @2014MNRAS.437.3159S used multi-$J$ lines of HCN to estimate the excitation conditions of the gas. Their derived densities range somewhere between those derived by @2005ApJ...622..346C and . explored the chemical complexity by mapping CN, SiO, H$_{2}$CO, HC$_3$N in the CND. Recently, a line survey in the CND of the 3mm wavelength range was conducted by @2014ApJS..214....2T.
Probing the physical conditions of molecular material is a complex problem. The abundance of a molecule may be influenced by a variety of phenomena. Moreover, even for a *given* molecule, different transitions with different frequencies and intrinsic strengths may require a wide range of critical densities for their excitation. In turn, analysis of multi-transition datasets with, e.g., a large velocity gradient (LVG) analysis using a radiative transfer program may yield estimates of the kinetic temperature and density. In general, it is necessary to observe a variety of molecules as wide as possible over the broadest feasible frequency range. Riquelme et al. (in preparation) conducted a line survey using the IRAM 30 meter telescope towards a position in the southwest lobe of the CND, covering 80 to 115 GHz and 129 to 175 GHz. Hochgürtel (2013, PhD thesis) surveyed a similar region using the FLASH+ receiver [@klein_flash] on the APEX 12-meter telescope . Based on their results, this paper studies possible interpretations of the chemical features observed in the CND.
In section 2, we discuss the processes that can affect the CND’s physical conditions and chemistry. Column densities from the LVG analysis are presented in Section 3. The details of the chemical model are presented in Section 4, while we discuss the results of the chemical modeling in Section 5. The interpretation of the results is discussed in Section 6, and main results are summarized in Section 7.
Physical conditions and the heating of the CND {#sec:phys_cond}
==============================================
In this section we summarize the environment within and surrounding the CND that can affect the chemical composition of the molecular gas. Ionizing sources such as UV-photons, cosmic rays, and X-rays can all dissociate molecules as well as heat the gas. Shock waves may also provide very efficient heating. Fast shocks also ionize the gas. These factors are also dependent on the density distribution of the molecular clump.
Kinetic Temperature and Heating Mechanisms
------------------------------------------
Observed temperatures can be elevated by any of above heating sources. Similar to the results by @2005ApJ...623..866B, constrained the temperatures of the molecular clouds in the southwest lobe of the CND to $T_{\rm kin} = 200^{+300}_{-70}\,$K for a low excitation component and $T_{\rm kin} = 500^{+100}_{-210}\,$K for a high excitation one. Possible heating mechanisms are as follows:
[**Shocks:** ]{} @2005ApJ...623..866B stated that this high temperature cannot be explained by UV-photons because of the high extinction in the clump, and proposed shock heating. In addition to the gas heating, fast shock waves can sputter molecules off the dust surface , which may dramatically change the chemical composition in the gas phase and in particular sputtering is known to increase the abundance of SiO [@1997ApJ...482L..45M].
[**X-rays:** ]{}A strong X-ray flux can affect the chemistry by ionizing and heating its surroundings creating an X-ray dominated region (XDR). The current value of unabsorbed X-ray flux from Sgr A\* in its quiescent state, i.e, not during a flare, is estimated to be $L\sim 2 \times 10^{33} \,$erg s$^{-1}$ in $2-10\,$keV range (Baganoff et al 2003). There are other X-ray sources nearby (Degenaar et al. 2012), but those are either too weak or too far to affect the molecular cloud. An estimation of the X-ray ionization rate as a function of the intervening total hydrogen column density is presented in Section \[sec:appen\_xray\] and its effect is discussed in Section \[sec:disc\]. Past high X-ray luminosities caused by increased activity of the central black hole have been suggested in the literature . Although higher X-ray fluxes could affect the chemistry, the flares causing them are likely of short duration, and may have a minimal effect on the chemistry given that the average flux is much lower.
[**UV-photons:** ]{}The star clusters in the center of the CND provide a strong UV field that could affect the chemistry. Taking $L_*=1.1\times10^{7}\,L_{\odot}$ and $d=1-3\,$pc, the UV radiation field would be $G_{0} \sim10^4-10^5$ Habing field units if we use the rough estimation described in Section \[sec:app\_uv\]. This high radiation field can affect the chemistry via photo-dissociation or photo-ionization of molecules. On the other hand, the effect of UV-photon enhancement on the abundances of certain species can be suppressed for total hydrogen column densities $> N_{\rm H} \sim 10^{22}\,$cm$^{-3}$, i.e., $A_v \sim 5$ (see Section \[sec:disc\_uv\]). Since the density of molecular clouds is expected to be high ($n_{\rm H}>6\times 10^4 \,$cm$^{-3}$), the depth of the photon-dominated regions (PDRs), i.e., the interface between the ionized and the molecular regions, must be less than $0.06\,$pc wide. Interferometric data show that the source size of our target molecular cloud has a size of $\sim$ 0.3 pc [@2005ApJ...622..346C]. Considering it to be a 0.3-pc diameter sphere illuminated from one direction, 27% of the material could be considered to be a PDR ($A_{\rm V} < 5$) when $n_{\rm H}=6\times10^4\,$cm$^{-3}$, and 9 % for $n_{\rm H}=2\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$. Therefore, PDRs may have some effect on the chemistry if the density is low, but the fraction of PDR is insignificant within the single-dish beam of our observations (from 0.5 to 1.1 pc) when the density is as high as what we derive from the LVG analysis for most of the species as described in a later section of this paper. The detailed discussion of the effects of a PDR is discussed separately in Section \[sec:disc\_uv\].
[**Cosmic-rays:**]{} An enhancement of the cosmic-ray ionization rate has been proposed as an alternative source of heating for the gas [e.g., @2013ApJ...762...33Y]. Although cosmic rays are likely to be an additional heating source, its ionization rate must be extremely high $\zeta >10^{-13}\,$s$^{-1}$ in order to achieve a high temperature of $T_{\rm kin}>280\,$K . Cosmic-rays also provide direct ionization and dissociation. The electrons produced by the ionization can also produce UV-photons by exciting H$_2$ molecules to the Lyman and Werner bands [@1983ApJ...267..603P]. Both X-rays and cosmic-rays can generate these secondary UV-photons; the effects of X-rays on the chemistry are similar to those of cosmic rays although X-rays heat the gas more efficiently than cosmic rays. Although high-energy $\gamma$-ray emission from the very center of the Galaxy provides strong evidence for cosmic rays [@2011ApJ...726...60C], it is hard to constrain the cosmic-ray ionization rates of molecules from the $\gamma$-ray observations. This is due to the strong dependence of cosmic-ray ionization rates on the lower energy term of the cosmic-ray spectrum , which is not well-known. It has been claimed that in the Central Molecular Zone (CMZ), a region of $\sim$ a few $\times$ 100 pc around Sgr A$^*$, $\zeta$ is higher than in regular spiral-arm Galactic giant molecular clouds (GMCs), with $\zeta \gtrsim 1 \times 10^{-15}\,$s$^{-1}$ [@2008ApJ...688..306G; @2013JPCA..117.9919G; @2014ApJ...786...96G; @2013ApJ...762...33Y]. Observations of high-energy gamma rays show higher flux around the Sgr A\* (see above), and a model of gamma-ray emission by @2011ApJ...726...60C shows that an injection of lower energy cosmic-rays $10^4\,$yrs ago best reproduces the observed spectrum.
Volume Densities
-----------------
A large range of volume densities[^3], $n_{\rm H}$, has been reported for the molecular gas in the CND. A large velocity gradient (LVG) analysis of multi-$J$ CO lines yields to $n_{\rm H}= (0.4-8)\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$ , lower values than those estimated from the HCN emission [$n_{\rm H} \gtrsim 10^7\,$cm$^{-3}$, @2009ApJ...695.1477M; @2005ApJ...622..346C]. However, recent analysis of multi-$J$ HCN lines reduced the discrepancy with the densities derived from CO observations [$n_{\rm H} = (0.2 - 20) \times 10^6\,$cm$^{-3}$, @2014MNRAS.437.3159S; @2013ApJ...779...47M] for most of the CND clumps because the above-mentioned previous studies needed to assume the kinetic temperature for their single-line analysis. An exception is a clump with a very high density of $n_{\rm H}=(0.6-8)\times 10^7$ cm$^{-3}$ found by @2013ApJ...779...47M in the southwest lobe in which a vibrationally excited HCN line was observed.
Observations and LVG analysis {#sec:obs}
=============================
The observations were conducted with 3- and 2-mm receivers of the IRAM 30m telescope and the FLASH+ receiver of the APEX telescope. Detailed information on the data will be presented in Riquelme et al. (in preparation). The observed positions of our survey are shown in Figure \[fig:cnd\]. The survey position of the IRAM 30m telescope is at an offset $\Delta \alpha=-30"$, $\Delta \delta =-30"$ and this telescope has an FWHM of 28“ at 86 GHz and 16” at 145 GHz. The APEX survey was taken with the FLASH+ receiver observing a position with an offset of $\Delta \alpha=-20.1"$, $\Delta \delta = -30.1"$ with a FWHM of 22“ at 262 GHz and 12” at 516 GHz. All offsets are relative to the position of Sgr A\* (the absolute coordinates: $\alpha_{J2000}=$17:45:39.99, $\delta_{J2000}=$-29:00:26.6). The maximum and minimum beam sizes are shown in solid lines (IRAM 30m) and in dotted lines (APEX - FLASH+) in Figure \[fig:cnd\]. The molecular transitions used in this analysis are listed in Table \[tab:lines\].
There are multiple velocity components along the same line of sight. Figure \[fig:hcn54\] shows a spectrum of HCN(5-4) as an example of those velocity components. The emission from positive velocities arises from M-0.02-0.07 (“20 km s$^{-1}$ cloud”) or M-0.13-0.08 (“50 km s$^{-1}$ cloud”), which may be interacting with the CND. The emission at negative velocities is thought to come from the CND . Interferometric data [e.g., @2005ApJ...622..346C] show a few peaks in our beam, namely, clumps O, P, and Q in their notation, each centered at $-108$, $-73$, and $-38$ km s$^{-1}$. We select the velocity range for our study based on the spectra shown in @2009ApJ...695.1477M. Clump Q is centered at around $\sim -40\,$km s$^{-1}$, and may be affected by self-absorption. Clump P is centered around $-70$ km s$^{-1}$ while Clump O is centered at around $-110$ km s$^{-1}$. Since emission with the velocity $v > -90\,$km s$^{-1}$ is likely to arise from all three clouds, we use the velocity cut from $v = -90$ to $-120\,$km s$^{-1}$ for our analysis to target only Clump O, located at the Galactic offset around $\Delta \alpha = -20"$, $\Delta \delta = -20"$. Smaller beams in higher frequency observations of each telescope will only partially cover our target clump. Thus, we treated the line intensities differently for lines above 100 GHz for IRAM observations and lines above 400 GHz for APEX observations. When there are more than 3 transitions observed in other frequency ranges for the species (CS, SO, and SiO), these lines are omitted from the analysis, otherwise we assumed large ( 50%) uncertainties.
Since our lower $J$ $^{12}$CO data may be affected by high optical depth, we also used the $^{13}$CO(3-2), CO(6-5) and CO(7-6) transition for the LVG analysis of CO. When using $^{13}$CO, an isotopic ratio of $^{12}C/^{13}C =$ 25 is assumed, following . Data of CO (6-5) and (7-6) are taken from where they mapped the whole CND with the CHAMP+ receiver [@2006SPIE.6275E..0NK] at the APEX telescope. It is also expected that HCN is optically thick, and H$^{13}$CN lines are used in the LVG analysis assuming the same isotopic ratio.
With the obtained velocity-integrated intensities, we conduct an LVG analysis using the non-LTE radiative transfer code RADEX covering the parameter ranges: $n_{\rm H} = 2 \times 10^2 - 2\times10^7 \,$cm$^{-3}$, column densities of species X $N(X) = 10^{11} - 10^{19}\,$cm$^{-3}$, and fixed kinetic temperatures of $T_{\rm kin}=100$, 300, and 500K. The interferometric HCN (1-0) data show that the cloud of our interest has a size of 0.33 pc [@2005ApJ...622..346C], while a smaller source size of 0.16 pc is reported from mapping of higher-$J$ lines [@2009ApJ...695.1477M]. Thus, we run our analysis for different source sizes of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 pc. Since our LVG analysis did not yield valid solutions for a source size $< 0.3$pc, we assum a source size of 0.3 pc for the results shown in the following sections. The brightness temperature was derived as $T_{b}=T_{MB} {\theta_s^2}/({\theta_s^2 + \theta_b^2})$, where $T_{MB}$ is the measured main beam temperature, $\theta_{s}$ is the source size, and $\theta_b$ is the beam size of the telescope. The observed lines in the CND are listed in Table\[tab:lines\] while results from the LVG analysis are shown in Table \[tab:obs\_spc\]. The derived values of column densities have little dependence on temperatures. Other than the listed species, CH$_{3}$OH and C$_{2}$H were also detected with strong intensities, but their lines were blended, making the LVG analysis very uncertain. These blended lines are omitted from the analysis. Since only one line of NO was detected, a temperature of $T_{\rm kin}=300\,$K and a density range of $n_{\rm H}=2\times 10^5 - 2\times 10^6 \,$cm$^{-3}$ are assumed for this molecule to obtain the range of column density. The column densities obtained from our LVG analysis at $T_{\rm kin}=300\,$K as well as the best-fit H$_2$ densities are listed in Table \[tab:obs\_spc\]. Due to the uncertainty in the high frequency observations mentioned above, volume densities for these species (CN, H$_{2}$CO, N$_{2}$H$^+$, HCN, HC$_3$N, and H$^{13}$CO$^+$) are very uncertain and therefore not shown.
Chemical Models {#sec:chem_model}
===============
To model the chemistry of the observed molecular cloud in the CND we use the time-dependent gas-grain code, UCL\_CHEM [@2004MNRAS.354.1141V], complemented with the parametric shock model of . Gas-phase reactions in this model are taken from the Rate06 version of the UMIST database . Details of the coupled code can be found in @2011ApJ...740L...3V. For our study we run the code in two phases. In Phase I, a diffuse cloud with an initial density of 100 cm$^{-3}$ collapses to a core of chosen pre-shock densities. Models are run assuming that initially half of hydrogen is in atomic form while the other half in molecular form, C$^+$, S$^+$, Mg$^+$, Si$^+$ are in ionic form, and O, N, and He are in the atomic form. We assume free fall collapse and a cosmic ray ionization rate of $\zeta = 10^{-17}\,$s$^{-1}$ and a standard interstellar radiation field, $G_0=1$. The models are run for 3 different pre-shock densities, $n_{\rm H}=2\times 10^4$, $2\times 10^5$, and $2\times 10^6\,$cm$^{-3}$. In Phase II, the code is run for 4 shock velocities of $v_s=10, 20, 30$ and 40 km s$^{-1}$ and the molecular abundances are followed along the propagation of the shock. We also run models with an increased cosmic-ray ionization rate but without shocks. Maximum temperatures and post-shock densities for corresponding velocities and densities are summarized in Table \[tab:param\]. Cosmic-ray ionization rates are varied from $\zeta = 10^{-17}$ to $10^{-13}\,$s$^{-1}$. In this paper, values of $\zeta$ are expressed with respect to H$_{2}$, not H (i.e., $\zeta_{H2}$). In Phase II, $\zeta$ is enhanced at the same time as the shock waves pass.
The effect of sputtering is included by considering saturation time-scales for silicon, times for which the silicon abundance in the gas-phase changes by less than 10% between two time steps by sputtering . Saturation time scales are also shown in Table \[tab:param\] and temperatures and densities for $n_{\rm H, pre}=2\times10^4\,$cm$^{-3}$ and $n_{\rm H, pre}=2\times10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$ with shock velocities of $v_{s} =10$, 20, 30, and 40 km s$^{-1}$ are shown in Figure \[fig:physcon\].
Sputtering by shock waves can vary the elemental abundances of the molecular clouds. For different shock velocities, different elemental abundances E1 and E2 are used (Table \[tab:elem\]). When the shock velocities are smaller than 20 km s$^{-1}$, the elemental abundances of E1, “low-metal abundances”, were applied. For higher shock velocity where the core sputtering of grains needs to be considered, E2 was used. This set of elemental abundances considers the depletion of metals onto the dust grains and is widely used for cold core chemical modeling as in @2008ApJ...680..371W. Since ice mantles are sputtered by shocks only partially for $v_{s} = 10\,$km s$^{-1}$, only 10 % of the mantles are considered to be sputtered. For shock velocities $v_{s} \geq 30\,$km s$^{-1}$, sputtering from the core of dust grains starts to occur. Thus, the higher elemental abundances of E2 were used for shock velocities of $v_{s}=30$ and 40 km s$^{-1}$ considering this core sputtering. The fraction of core sputtering of Si in E2 is taken from the results by for the degree of core sputtering caused by $v_{s}=30$ and 40 km s$^{-1}$. The value of Mg in E2 is estimated by assuming that 3 % of elemental Mg is sputtered from the grain core, which is a similar percentage as that of elemental Si. The sum of the elemental abundances for Mg and Fe was used for the Mg elemental abundance since the ionization of both Mg and Fe inject large amounts of free electrons which affects the chemistry, and this model currently does not contain Fe chemistry. The total elemental abundances of Si, Mg, and Fe abundances are taken from @1989GeCoA..53..197A.
The treatment of Si core sputtering for $v_s \geq 30\,$km s$^{-1}$ is only approximated in our model. Precise fractional abundances should be obtained with models such as those by , especially for SiO. In addition, physical parameters such as the temperature and the density are parameterized in our model. For precise values of physical parameters, see .
In order to study the effects of UV-photons, we use the publicly available Meudon PDR code [*version 1.4.4*]{} [@2006ApJS..164..506L], which we run separately from the shock model code. This code calculates steady-state abundances without the time dependence. Since the chemistry can reach steady state at a very low $A_{\rm V}$ within about 100 years, results in low $A_{\rm V}$ should be reasonable.
Results of Chemical Modeling
============================
Dependence on the Physical Conditions
-------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, chemical abundances are dependent on their pre-shock values, the physical structures of shock waves, cosmic-ray ionization rates, elemental abundances, densities, UV-photons, and their time evolution. In this subsection, we summarize the behavior of chemical abundances in the shock model with the variation of these parameters. First, the fractional abundances in pre-shock conditions are listed in Table \[tab:preshock\] for each pre-shock density of $n_{\rm H}=2\times 10^4,~2\times10^5$, and $2\times10^6\,$cm$^{-3}$, as a result of Phase I modeling. Since observed regions include different time steps of the shock passage, fractional abundances averaged over time are calculated. Plots of these time-averaged fractional abundances of observed species and H$_{2}$O in the post-shock phase (Phase II) are shown as examples in Figures \[fig:n2e5\_v20\_em2\_1\] & \[fig:n2e5\_v20\_em2\_2\] for $n_{\rm H}=2\times10^5\,$cm$^{-1}$, $v=20\,$km s$^{-1}$, and varying cosmic-ray ionization rates of $\zeta = 1 \times 10^{-17}\,$s$^{-1} - 1 \times 10^{-13}\,$s$^{-1}$ to see the effects of cosmic-ray ionization. In order to demonstrate the effects of varying shock velocities, Figures \[fig:n2e5\_z-16\_1\] and \[fig:n2e5\_z-16\_2\] show post-shock time-averaged fractional abundances of observed species and H$_{2}$O for pre-shock densities of $n_{\rm H}=2\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$, a cosmic-ray ionization rate of $\zeta = 1 \times 10^{-16}\,$s$^{-1}$, with varying shock velocities of 10, 20, 30, and 40 km s$^{-1}$. As shown in Table \[tab:param\], higher shock velocities mean higher maximum temperatures. Abundance ratios of H$_{3}$O$^{+}$/H$_{2}$O and HNC/HCN are also shown in Figure \[fig:n2e5\_v20\_em2\_2\] and \[fig:n2e5\_z-16\_2\], respectively.
### Pre-shock abundances
Molecules on the grain mantle are ejected after the shock waves pass, producing an increase of their gas-phase abundances in the post-shock phase. Significant amounts of some species such as HCN, HNC, H$_{2}$CO and NO are depleted on the grain surface before the shock passes (Table \[tab:preshock\]). For other species, even if the fractional abundances in the ice phase are not very high, their post-shock abundances in the gas phase can be increased from the ejection of other species. For example, ionic species (e.g., HCO$^+$ and H$_3$O$^+$) are assumed to be neutralized when they are depleted on grains, but their abundances can be enhanced after shock when their neutral counterparts (e.g., CO and H$_2$O) that have high abundances on ice mantles are released in the gas phase. Water, CO, and N$_{2}$ have high fractional abundances on the ice ($\sim 3\times 10^{-5} - 1\times 10^{-4}$, $\sim 3\times 10^{-7} - 4\times 10^{-5}$, $\sim 2\times 10^{-7} - 6\times 10^{-6}$, respectively, with higher ice abundances for higher pre-shock densities), which enhance the abundances of their protonated species H$_{3}$O$^{+}$, HCO$^{+}$, and N$_{2}$H$^{+}$ after the shock passes. In addition, the fractional abundance of H$_{2}$S on the ice is very high since our model favors hydrogenation reactions on grains. Thus, the sputtering of H$_{2}$S ice also causes the increase of the fractional abundances of sulfur species such as CS and SO. Similarly, major Si-containing species on ice (SiH$_{4}$ in our model) can react to form SiO after its ejection into the gas-phase . It has been shown from the study of low-mass pre-stellar cores that the evaporation of CH$_{4}$ can lead to the formation of carbon-chain molecules including HC$_{3}$N [@2008ApJ...672..371S]. The pre-shock fractional abundance of CH$_{4}$ on the grain surface is also high in this model, around $10^{-5}$. In this model, radicals such as CN are assumed to be hydrogenated immediately after they are depleted on grains, and their pre-shock abundances are not shown in the table.
### Dependence of shock velocities
After the shock, the HCN fractional abundance can be further increased by the high temperature chemistry induced by the shock waves due to endothermic reactions that convert HNC and CN to HCN (Figure \[fig:n2e5\_z-16\_2\]). The following reaction involving CN $$\label{hydro_hcn}
{\rm H_2 + CN \longrightarrow HCN + H}$$ has a reaction barrier of 820 K. When the temperature becomes high enough for the collisional dissociation of molecular hydrogen to occur ($\sim 4000\,$K) via reaction of the form ${\rm H_{2} + M \longrightarrow H + H + M}$ where M is any given species (most often H$_{2}$ or H), 90 % of hydrogen is rapidly converted into the atomic form. Such collisional dissociation occurs in our model when $n_{\rm H} \geq 2 \times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$ and $v_{s} = 40$ km s$^{-1}$. Then, the reverse reaction of the reaction (\[hydro\_hcn\]) becomes more important, increasing the CN abundance. The fractional abundance of HNC decreases by the reaction: $${\rm H + HNC \longrightarrow H + HCN.}$$ The rate coefficient of this reaction has a strong temperature dependence[^4] ($k \propto T^{4.5}$), and the ratio HCN/HNC increases when the maximum temperature caused by the shock waves is higher, and the abundance ratio of HCN/HNC $>10$ is reached for the model $v_s > 30\,$km s$^{-1}$ for all densities in our models (see Figure \[fig:n2e5\_z-16\_2\]). Abundances of ionic species decrease after the shock because metal species such as Mg are sputtered into the gas-phase and become atomic ions, taking over the positive charge from molecular ions. Therefore, the case of $v_{s}=10\,$km s$^{-1}$ with less sputtering has a higher HCO$^{+}$ and N$_{2}$H$^{+}$ abundance. As for H$_{3}$O$^{+}$, which has higher proton affinity than HCO$^{+}$ and N$_{2}$H$^{+}$, the fractional abundance after the shock decreases less than that of these species. When $v_{s} = 40\,$km s$^{-1}$, the ionization fraction increases and the fractional abundances of HCO$^{+}$, N$_{2}$H$^{+}$, and H$_{3}$O$^{+}$ increase. Since a high abundance of sulfur is sputtered from grains, the CS and SO fractional abundances increase after the shock especially for $v_s > 30\,$km s$^{-1}$. The increase of a fractional abundance due to the sputtering is even more noticeable in the case of SiO. As mentioned in Section \[sec:chem\_model\], the amount of the core elements sputtered from shock waves with $v_s > 30\,$km s$^{-1}$ is a rough estimate in this model, and a more careful treatment should be used for a better prediction of SiO’s fractional abundances. The fractional abundances of NO increase slowly after the shock passes because the evaporation of NH$_{3}$ can initiate the reaction: $${\rm NH + O \longrightarrow NO + H,}$$ where NH is produced through the dissociation of NH$_{3}$. There is no strong dependence on the shock velocity except for the case of $v_s = 40\,$km s$^{-1}$ for NO. The fractional abundance of H$_{2}$CO does not strongly depend on shock velocities. The only difference is that for increasing $v_s$, H$_{2}$CO is injected into the gas phase at earlier times due to the shorter saturation times. The fractional abundance of HC$_{3}$N for $v_s \leq 30\,$km s$^{-1}$ only increases after $10^4$ yrs while the increase happens earlier for $v_s=40\,$km s$^{-1}$, around 1000 yrs or so. Higher maximum temperatures, $T_{\rm max}$, caused for higher shock velocities increase the HC$_{3}$N fractional abundances since they accelerate some endothermic reactions such as $${\rm C_2H + HCN \longrightarrow HC_3N + H.}$$
### Dependence on cosmic-ray ionization rate
In the models we run, the increase in $\zeta$ in Phase II causes the peak value of the HCN abundance ($\sim 3-10 \times 10^{-7}$ ) to occur earlier in time. However, a high $\zeta$ also decreases the fractional abundance of HCN faster in the post-shock region than low values of $\zeta$. Regarding the dependence on the cosmic-ray ionization rate, HNC has a similar behavior to HCN; a higher cosmic-ray ionization rate helps the formation of HNC on a shorter time scale. This trend by the higher cosmic-ray ionization rate to shorten the chemistry time scale also applies to other species such as CS, SO, SiO, NO, and HC$_{3}$N. Although varying $\zeta$ does not change the peak value itself, it shortens the time span in which the higher fractional abundances are attained. While the HCN/HNC ratio has some temperature dependence, it decreases with higher cosmic-ray ionization rate because a high ionization fraction makes the HCNH$^{+}$ abundance high and a following reaction brings the HCN/HNC ratio closer to unity:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm HCNH^+ + e^- \longrightarrow HCN + H} \\
{\rm \longrightarrow HNC + H}\\
{\rm \longrightarrow CN + H + H}\end{aligned}$$
whose branching ratios are 34%, 34%, and 33%, respectively. Although CN is an unstable radical, a high ionization fraction caused by a high cosmic-ray ionization rate can keep the CN fractional abundance high via reaction (7) above. A higher cosmic-ray ionization rate also increases the abundances of ionic species such as N$_{2}$H$^{+}$, HCO$^{+}$, and H$_{3}$O$^{+}$. The proton affinity of H$_{2}$O is higher than those of CO and N$_{2}$, and CO has a higher value than N$_{2}$. This means that CO is more likely to be protonated than N$_{2}$, and a reaction such as N$_{2}$H$^{+}$ + CO $\longrightarrow$ N$_{2}$ + HCO$^{+}$ is much faster than its reverse reaction. The fractional abundance of a protonated species of a lower proton affinity such as N$_{2}$H$^{+}$ has a stronger dependence on the cosmic-ray ionization rate. The increase of a peak fractional abundance of H$_{2}$CO at a higher cosmic-ray ionization rate is caused by the dissociation of CH$_{3}$OH via the gas-phase reactions $${\rm CH_{3} + O \longrightarrow H_{2}CO + H,}$$ and the cosmic-ray-photodissociation reaction $${\rm CH_{3}OH \longrightarrow H_{2}CO + H_{2}.}$$
### Dependence on UV-field strength {#sec:disc_uv}
Results obtained with the Meudon code [@2006ApJS..164..506L] show that the fractional abundance of HCO$^{+}$ and H$_{3}$O$^{+}$ can be enhanced up to $10^{-8}$ for $A_{\rm V}<1$ when $G_{0} =10^4$ Habing field units and $n_H=2\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$ (Figure \[fig:pdr\]). The peak value of CN is achieved at a larger value than those of HCO$^{+}$ and H$_{3}$O$^{+}$, at $A_V \sim 3$. Unlike HCO$^{+}$ and H$_{3}$O$^{+}$, the fractional abundance of N$_2$H$^{+}$ is not enhanced in the low $A_V$ regime (Figure \[fig:pdr\]). For other species, there is no enhancement in their fractional abundances in $A_{\rm V} < 1$ regions.
Comparison with Observations {#sec:cmp_obs}
----------------------------
We compare the observed column densities with the predictions of our chemical models in this section. Since chemical models give us fractional abundances, we opt for comparing ratios of column densities with ratios of fractional abundances (and hence make the implicit assumption that all molecules arise from the same gas component). All our ratios are with respect to CO. The results of chemical modeling with different physical conditions mentioned in Section \[sec:chem\_model\] are compared following the method used in . A confidence level for each species $i$ is defined by $$\kappa_{i}=erfc \left(\frac{|log(X_{i, calc})-log(X_{\rm i, obs})|}{\sqrt{2} \sigma} \right)$$ where $erfc$ is a complementary error function in a form $erfc(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int^{\infty}_{x} e^{-t^2}dt$, $X_{i, calc}$, $X_{i,obs}$ are fractional abundances with respect to CO for molecules $i$ predicted from models and observations respectively, and in the above formula, a value of $\sigma=1$ is used. The degree of agreement between model predicted and observed abundances is measured by an average value of $\kappa _{i}$, $\bar{\kappa}$, for all the observed species. A value of $\bar{\kappa}=1$ means a perfect match, and $\bar{\kappa}=0.317$ means an average discrepancy of one order of magnitude. Since our calculation for SiO is only an approximation, values of $\kappa$ are calculated for cases with and without SiO included. We found that there is no significant differences between the cases with and without SiO.
The maximum values of confidence level in each model over the post shock time of $t=0-10^5$ yrs are plotted in Figure \[fig:fit\]. Models in a reasonable agreement ($\kappa > 0.7$) with the observed abundances can be summarized in the following three categories: 1) low density models ($n_H=2\times 10^4\,$cm$^{-3}$, $v_{s} > 30\,$km s$^{-1}$, $\zeta < 10^{-13}\,$s$^{-1}$), 2) high velocity shock models ($n_{\rm H}=2\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$, $v_{s}=40\,$km s$^{-1}$), and 3) high cosmic-ray ionization models ($n_{\rm H}=2\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$, $\zeta > 10^{-15}\,$s$^{-1}$). In case 1), the chemistry is still in an early phase because a significant amount of atomic carbon is present, and because the radical and ionic species are abundant, resulting in a good agreement with the observed chemical features. In case 2), the maximum temperature is so high that the shock becomes dissociative, which means that the majority of molecular hydrogen is destroyed by collisions with molecular or atomic hydrogen. Over the short time period during which atomic hydrogen is abundant, the abundances of radical and ionic species increase. In case 3), the high cosmic-ray ionization rate keeps the abundances of radical and ionic species high. Example plots of fractional abundances and confidence levels are shown in Figures \[fig:n2e4\_model2\] for case 1), Figure \[fig:n2e5\_model7\] for case 2), and Figure \[fig:n2e5\_model12\] for case 3). For the cases without shocks, the agreement with the observations is better for the high cosmic-ray ionization rates, achieving a similar degree of agreement to models with shocks. The plausibility of each scenario is discussed in the next section.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
Although there are several different models that show a modest degree of agreement with observations, these cases can be constrained using other information.
Gas density
-----------
Our derived total hydrogen densities for the species we observed range from $n_{\rm H} =2 \times 10^4 -1.2 \times 10^6\,$cm$^{-3}$. @2013ApJ...779...47M derived $n({\rm H}) = 3 \times 10^7\,$cm$^{-3}$ from multi-$J$ observations of HCN for similar velocity range when including the high-lying $J=8-7$ transition. @2014MNRAS.437.3159S derived a total hydrogen density of $2.6 \times 10^{6}\,$cm$^{-3}$ also from HCN lines although they used the entire velocity component around $-80$ km s$^{-1}$ instead of the velocity slice that we have used. The density derived from our observations of HCN are $n_{\rm H}=(6.94 - 10.5) \times 10^{5}\,$cm$^{-3}$ assuming $T_{\rm kin} = 300\,$K, and for the case of $T_{\rm kin}=100\,$K, $n_{\rm H}= (1.40 - 2.20) \times 10^{6}\,$cm$^{-3}$. Since the temperatures used by @2013ApJ...779...47M and @2014MNRAS.437.3159S are 61 and 150 K respectively, our derived densities are roughly consistent considering the degeneracy between the derived density and the temperature. For the CO lines, the best-fit density in our analysis is $1 \times 10^4\,$cm$^{-3}$, which is similar to the value derived from multi-$J$ CO lines by and @2005ApJ...623..866B. Since we used the high-$J$ CO line data from , this similarity is expected. The derived densities of other molecules are $n_{\rm H}>2\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$ except for H$_{3}$O$^{+}$. For the case of H$_{3}$O$^{+}$, the density is derived from two lines whose energy levels are close together, and the solution has a large uncertainty. If we use the density of other species ($n_{\rm H}>2\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$), the low-density scenario of $n_{\rm H}\sim 2\times 10^4\,$cm$^{-3}$ in Section \[sec:cmp\_obs\] is excluded.
The tidal stability of the core in the CND is determined by the following equation [@2005ApJ...622..346C] $$n({\rm H_2})=2.87 \times 10^7 \left [\left (\frac{R}{\rm pc}\right)^{-3} + 0.4\left(\frac{R}{\rm pc}\right)^{-1.75}\right] {\rm cm^{-3}}$$ where $R$ is a Galactocentric radius. The core becomes tidally unstable when $n_{\rm H} < 2.8\times 10^7\,$cm$^{-3}$ for $R=1.5\,$pc and when $n_{\rm H} < 1.4\times 10^7\,$cm$^{-3}$ for $R=2\,$pc. Densities derived by our analysis are still lower than this limit even for HCN with the large dipole moment whose lines have higher critical densities. This result suggests that the core is tidally unstable. On the other hand, @2013ApJ...779...47M found a clump that may be gravitationally stable in their observation of the HCN emissions in the CND. Their use of higher transition lines ($J=9-8$ and a vibrationally excited line) may have resulted in their tracing a higher excitation or higher density portion, while we are tracing the bulk material of the clump. Since @2013ApJ...779...47M concluded that the bulk of the gas except for one clump is tenuous and gravitationally unstable, our results are overall consistent with theirs.
High velocity shocks
--------------------
It has been shown in Figure \[fig:fit\] that a high shock velocity case ($v_s =40\,$km s$^{-1}$) apparently gives a good agreement with the observations. However, the time span required for attaining an agreement is very short ($t\sim 3\times 10^2$ yrs) as shown in Figure \[fig:n2e5\_model7\]. In this time span, the temperature should still be over 1000 K, which is not supported by previous studies found in the literature. However, if such high velocity shocks are occurring in short periods of time, that may also give a good agreement with the observations. suggested shocks in the Galactic Center as often as $5\times 10^4$ yrs although this time scale is much longer than the time suggested by our high velocity shock case.
Cosmic-ray dominated gas
------------------------
If we assume a density $\gtrsim $ a few $\times 10^5\,$cm$^{-3}$ as our results of the LVG analysis for most species show, models with a higher cosmic-ray ionization rate of $\zeta > 10^{-15}\,$s$^{-1}$ show the best agreement with the observed column densities. This is in agreement with previous studies in other parts of the Galactic Center region [e.g., @2013ApJ...764L..19Y]. The level of agreement stays high until $t \sim 10^3 - 10^4\,$yrs after the passage of the shock wave. The derived cosmic-ray ionization rate is about 2-4 orders of magnitude higher than the regular value in dense molecular clouds in the spiral arms of $(1-5)\times 10^{-17}$ s$^{-1}$. A high cosmic-ray ionization rate in the CND is not very surprising since analysis of high-energy $\gamma$-ray emission in the Galactic Center claimed that most of this $\gamma$-ray emission comes from within 3 pc from Sgr A\* [@2012ApJ...753...41L]. Some previous studies have also claimed high values for the cosmic-ray ionization rate in the Galactic Center. For example, @2013JPCA..117.9919G [@2014ApJ...786...96G] studied the cosmic-ray ionization rate in the CND. In their earlier work, they derived $\zeta \sim 1.2 \times 10^{-15}\,$s$^{-1}$ from their H$_{3}^{+}$ observations while $\gamma$-ray observations indicate 4 orders of magnitude higher values. In their more recent work, they claimed that $\zeta$ is well above $10^{-15}\,$s$^{-1}$ [@2014ApJ...786...96G]. For a cosmic-ray ionization rate of $\zeta > 10^{-12}\,$s$^{-1}$, as suggested by $\gamma$-ray observations, the molecules start to dissociate in a short time scale ($\sim 10^3\,$ yrs). Since cosmic rays have high penetration depth, an enhancement of the cosmic-ray ionization rate as in the CND should also appear in other locations in the Galactic Center. This is consistent with other studies such as that by who claimed higher cosmic-ray ionization rate of $\zeta = 4\times 10^{-16}\,$s$^{-1}$ in Sgr B2 as well as the work of @2007ApJ...656..847Y, who claimed $\zeta = 5\times 10^{-13}$s$^{-1}$ ($\zeta_H = 0.5\zeta_{H2}$) on average in Sgr B1, Sgr B2, Sgr C, Radio Arc and Arches Cluster.
We note our LVG analysis gives different volume densities for CO than for any other species. In fact it is possible that CO is tracing a larger gradient in density than any other species analysed in this study because its emission may come from extended regions. Although the high-$J$ transitions of CO used in our analysis is likely to trace relatively compact and dense regions as other species, the uncertainty of the derived CO column density needs to be investigated. To test how sensitive our results would be to variations in CO column densities, we have calculated the confidence level for CO column densities a factor of 3 higher and lower than what we derived. We find that when a higher CO column density is used, the best fit cosmic-ray ionization rate is lower by approximately one order of magnitude, while the opposite is true when a lower CO column density is used. Since it is likely that the CO emission is extended, the real CO column density in the region traced by the other molecules will be lower. Hence the upper value of our best fit cosmic ray ionization rate is in fact conservative and our conclusion that the gas chemistry is dominated by cosmic rays is still valid. Of course, our results should be confirmed with higher angular resolution observations of the CMZ.
Effects of UV-photons
---------------------
Depending on the geometry of the molecular cloud, the surface area exposed to the central star cluster might be large, which means that the molecular mass affected by UV photons might be significant. In that case, species such as CN and HCO$^+$ become more abundant. These species are enhanced for higher cosmic-ray ionization rates as well. In addition, other factors to be considered are the beam size and the uncertainty of the source size that we used. The largest beam size is 28", which might include emission from more tenuous and extended parts of the CND. Those parts are more likely to be influenced by UV-photons, which may increase the abundance of HCO$^+$ and CN. Increase of these radicals and ions by UV-photons may misleadingly give a good agreement of observations with a higher cosmic-ray ionization rate than the actual value. Since cosmic-rays can penetrate into larger column densities than UV-photons, higher resolution map of these species as well as that of N$_{2}$H$^{+}$, which is not abundant in PDRs, can help differentiating between the two scenarios. Furthermore, the enhancement of the cosmic-ray ionization rate should affect larger regions in the CMZ than the UV-photons, and comparison with other positions in our survey can also help constraining the value of cosmic-ray ionization rate.
Cosmic-rays or X-rays?
----------------------
Our models do not include X-rays, but their effect on the chemistry is very similar to that of cosmic-rays, and variation of the X-ray ionization rate can be mimicked by that of the cosmic-ray ionization rate. The difference in penetration depth may help differentiating between the effect of X-rays and cosmic-rays. As shown in Figure \[fig:zeta\_x\], the X-ray ionization rate goes down below $\zeta_X =10^{-16}\,$s$^{-1}$ quickly after the shielding column density of $N_H=10^{21}\,$cm$^{-2}$ since we use a soft X-ray spectrum assuming most of the emission comes from stellar components as in @2013JPCA..117.9919G. Majority of the ionization is caused by these soft components. If the density is $ >10 ^{5}\,$cm$^{-3}$, this column density corresponds to 0.003pc, which is 1% of the size of the molecular cloud in length. Although the observed chemical composition agrees with the models with ionization rate $\zeta > 10^{-15}\,$s$^{-1}$, X-rays are not likely the source of ionization if the average X-ray flux is similar to the value observed currently from Sgr A\*. As mentioned in Section \[sec:phys\_cond\], the X-ray activity may have been higher in the past. Although this higher (and harder spectrum) X-ray flux may have increased the X-ray ionization rate, the hard spectrum coming from the AGN may not significantly affect the ionization rate because of the smaller cross section. Also, the flares may be too short-lived to cause significant change in chemistry.
Possibility of no shock
-----------------------
As stated in Section \[sec:cmp\_obs\], models without shocks yield good agreement with observations if the cosmic-ray ionization rate is high. This is due to the desorption of ice induced by cosmic rays described in @2007MNRAS.382..733R, and it can increase gas-phase abundances of shock-related molecules such as SiO. However, this mechanism of cosmic-ray induced photo-desorption has a large uncertainty in parameters. In addition, observations of ubiquitous complex organic molecules in the Galactic Center [@2008ApJ...672..352R] indicates that shock waves are common in the Galactic Center. Therefore, it is very likely that shocks are present in the CND.
Other factors
-------------
The models discussed in this paper assume an enhancement of the cosmic-ray ionization rate and the contemporaneous passage of a shock wave. There are of course other possibilities. The shock wave may have passed earlier/later than the enhancement of the cosmic-ray ionization rate. There might have been multiple shock waves in the past $10^4\,$ yrs or so. The frequency of shock waves should be considered in future work with the help of hydrodynamic models of the CND. The pre-shock conditions have also some uncertainties. In our models, we run the pre-shock conditions with $\zeta=1\times 10^{-17}\,$s$^{-1}$ and $G_0=1$. It is likely that the enhancement of UV-field and cosmic-ray ionization rate has occurred before the shock passage, although it is almost impossible to trace the exact time evolution of these quantities.
The effects of turbulence may also need to be considered; it is possible that ionized or atomic gas might be fed into the molecular region continuously due to turbulence. The ionized gas may induce the chemical reactions similar to those in regions of high X-ray/cosmic-ray ionization rate. The effect of turbulence needs to be further investigated.
Summary
=======
We have analysed the line survey data taken with the IRAM 30-meter telescope and the 12-meter APEX telescope toward a position in the southwestern lobe of the circumnuclear disk of the Galactic Center. Using an LVG radiative transfer code to predict the emission from 15 different molecular species we have derived column densities and H$_{2}$ volume densities implied by their excitation. A combined analysis of the excitation and the chemical modeling suggests that models with lower density ($n_{\rm H}\sim 2 \times 10^4\,$cm$^{-3}$), higher cosmic-ray ionization rate ($\zeta > 10^{-15}\,$s$^{-1}$), or high-velocity shocks ($v_s > 40\,$km s$^{-1}$) give good agreement with the observations. Considering the density derived from our observations and the estimated temperature in previous studies, the scenario of high cosmic-ray ionization rate is favored, but chemical compositions can also be partially affected by UV-photons or X-rays if the structure of the cloud is clumpy or filamentary. Future study is needed both in terms of modeling and observation. Since the source is very heterogeneous, one-dimensional model that include XDRs and PDRs may be necessary. Observationally, high spatial resolution interferometeric maps that resolve the different structures are essential for the interpretation of this complex source. ALMA observations of the CND by Mills et al. (in preparation) should reveal such morphology of physical conditions in the CND.
Estimation of Physical Conditions
=================================
X-ray ionization rate {#sec:appen_xray}
---------------------
As for the calculation of X-ray ionization rate, we followed the procedure described in @2013JPCA..117.9919G. From the X-ray luminosity measured in the 2-10 keV range by @2003ApJ...591..891B $L_X=2\times 10^{33}\,$ erg s$^{-1}$, X-ray flux in 0.1-2 keV range was estimated from the ATOMDB program [@2012ApJ...756..128F] with the plasma temperature of 1.9 keV. The ionization rate was taken to be $$\zeta_X = \int \sigma_{\rm tot}(E) \frac{E}{W(1{\rm keV})} F(E) dE,$$ where $\sigma_{tot}$(E) is the ionizing cross section including the photo-ionization from heavy elements and Compton scattering at energy $E$, $W$ is the mean energy required for ionization [@1999ApJS..125..237D], and $F$(E) is the flux at energy $E$. For $W$, a value at $E=1$ keV was used. In addition to the calculation by @2013JPCA..117.9919G, we calculated the dependence of X-ray ionization rate on the shielding hydrogen column densities $N$. The flux at energy $E$ becomes $F(E,N)=F_0 {\rm exp}(-\sigma_{\rm tot}(E) N)$. We also used 2 pc as the distance to the source. The calculated X-ray ionization rate is shown in Figure \[fig:zeta\_x\].
UV-photon flux {#sec:app_uv}
--------------
@1980ApJ...241..132L estimated the number of ionizing photon flux to be $2\times10^{50}\,$s$^{-1}$ with the effective temperature of $T_{\rm eff}=31,000-35,000\,$K. From the stellar parameters listed in @2005pcim.book.....T, we consider spectral types of the stars in the central cluster to be similar to B0 types. The total number of ionizing photons is translated into $\sim140$ stars, and the total luminosity becomes $1.1\times10^{7}\,L_{\odot}$. Using Equation (9.1) in @2005pcim.book.....T, the radiation field strength $G_{0}$ becomes $$G_0=625\frac{L_{*}\chi}{4\pi d^2}=1.3\times10^5(\chi/1)(d/1{\rm pc})^{-2},$$ where $L_*$ is the luminosity of the star, $\chi$ is the fraction of luminosity above 6eV, and $d$ is the distance from the star.
------------------ ----------------------- ---------- -------------------------------
Molecule Transition Freq. $\int^{-90}_{-120} T_{MB} dv$
(GHz) (K km s$^{-1}$)
CO 4-3 461.04 501.83
6-5 691.47 895.68
7-6 806.65 877.8
HCN 1-0 88.632 56.860
4-3 354.51 89.725
5-4 443.116 88.629
HNC 1-0 90.664 8.0164
3-2 271.981 10.561
4-3 362.630 8.5620
HCO$^{+}$ 1-0 89.1885 23.681
4-3 356.7343 45.648
SiO 2-1 86.847 2.0543
8-7 347.331 1.8295
9-8 390.729 1.7224
CS 2-1 97.981 12.130
6-5 293.912 22.196
7-6 342.883 22.423
8-7 391.847 22.484
p-H$_2$CO 2$_{0,2}$ - 1$_{0,1}$ 145.603 2.1535
4$_{0,4} -3_{0,3}$ 290.623 0.95264
N$_2$H$^+$ 3-2 279.512 1.6709
4-3 372.673 1.7412
5-4 465.825 1.2520
SO $2_3 - 1_2$ 99.300 1.0909
$7_8 - 6_7$ 304.077 3.7813
$8_9 - 7_8$ 346.527 3.7220
$9_{10} - 8_9 $ 389.120 3.9306
CN $1_{1/2}-0_{1/2}$ 113.169 14.283
$1_{3/2}-0_{1/2}$ 113.495 14.004
$3_{7/2}-2_{5/2}$ 340.249 29.820
HC$_3$N 10-9 90.979 0.54742
18-17 163.753 1.0548
NO 4-3 350.69 2.4023
p-H$_3$O$^+$ $3_2+-2_2-$ 364.797 2.5981
$3_1+ -2_1- $ 388.459 2.1160
$^{13}$CO 3-2 330.588 25.334
H$^{13}$CN 1-0 86.3399 5.0428
2-1 172.6778 10.346
4-3 345.3398 9.0259
H$^{13}$CO$^{+}$ 1-0 86.7543 1.1076
2-1 173.5067 1.4072
4-3 346.9983 1.3180
------------------ ----------------------- ---------- -------------------------------
: A list of spectral lines used for chemical analysis. Their transitions, frequencies, and velocity-integrated intensities in the range of -120 to -90 km s$^{-1}$ are shown.[]{data-label="tab:lines"}
[ccc]{}\
Species &Column Densities (cm$^{-2}$) &Hydrogen Densities (cm$^{-3}$)\
\
CS &$(1.07\pm 0.13)\times 10^{15}$ &$(7.26 \pm 1.18)\times 10^{5}$\
CN &$(5.48\pm 3.75)\times 10^{15}$ &—\
H$_2$CO &$(5.01\pm 2.76)\times 10^{13}$ &—\
SO &$(4.46\pm 0.61)\times 10^{14}$ &$(1.10 \pm 0. 21)\times 10^{6}$\
N$_2$H$^+$ &$(1.47\pm 0.58)\times 10^{13}$ & —\
H$_3$O$^+$ &$(9.44\pm 0.38)\times 10^{14}$ &$(7.18 \pm 3.32)\times 10^{4}$\
SiO &$(7.95\pm 0.49)\times 10^{13}$ &$(5.04 \pm 0.32)\times 10^{5}$\
HCN &$(3.38 \pm 0.40)\times 10^{15}$ &$(8.70 \pm 1.76)\times 10^5$\
HCO$^+$ &$(5.26\pm 1.28)\times 10^{14}$ &$(2.34 \pm 0.84)\times 10^{5}$\
HNC &$(1.90\pm 0.29)\times 10^{14}$ &$(5.46 \pm 0.88)\times 10^{5}$\
HC$_3$N &$(2.87\pm 0.58)\times 10^{13}$ &—\
NO &$(3.02\pm 0.61)\times 10^{15}$ &—\
CO &$(2.23\pm 0.35)\times 10^{18}$ &$(2.28 \pm 0.52)\times 10^{4}$\
H$^{13}$CN &$(9.70\pm 2.30)\times 10^{13}$ &$(4.44 \pm 2.00)\times 10^{5}$\
H$^{13}$CO$^+$ &$(4.02 \pm 2.55)\times 10^{13}$ &—\
\
[ccccc]{} $n_{\rm H, pre}$(cm$^{-3}$) &$n_{\rm H, post}$(cm$^{-3}$) &$v_s$ (km/s) &$T_{max}$ (K)& $t_{sat}$ (yr)\
\
$2\times10^4$&$6.1\times10^4$&10&300&95.4\
$2\times10^4$&$1.0\times10^5$&20&900&57.0\
$2\times10^4$&$1.3\times10^5$&30&1800&44.0\
$2\times10^4$&$1.6\times10^5$&40&2200&45.5\
$2\times10^5$&$6.3\times10^5$&10&300&10.5\
$2\times10^5$&$1.0\times10^6$&20&800&5.7\
$2\times10^5$&$1.4\times10^6$&30&2000&4.4\
$2\times10^5$&$1.7\times10^6$&40&4000&4.6\
$2\times10^6$&$6.3\times10^6$&10&300&1.0\
$2\times10^6$&$1.0\times10^7$&20&800&0.6\
$2\times10^6$&$1.4\times10^7$&30&2000&0.4\
$2\times10^6$&$1.7\times10^7$&40&4000&0.5\
\
[ccccc]{}\
Element &E1 &E2\
\
He &0.14 &0.14\
C &7.3e-5 &7.3e-5\
N &2.1e-5 &2.1e-5\
O &1.8e-4&1.8e-4\
S &8.0e-8 &4.5e-7\
Si &8.0e-9&1.0e-6\
Mg &7.0e-9&2.4e-6\
\
[ccccc]{}\
&\
Species &$2\times 10^4$ &$2\times 10^5$ &$2\times 10^6$\
HCN & 3.6(-9) & 2.8(-8) & 6.1(-10)\
HCN (ice) & 8.5(-9) & 2.1(-8) & 3.5(-8)\
HNC & 7.9(-10) & 1.2(-8) & 3.8(-10)\
HNC (ice) & 5.4(-11) & 3.0(-9) & 9.8(-9)\
CN & 3.5(-8) & 4.4(-9) & 9.6(-12)\
HCO$^+$ & 3.3(-11) & 1.4(-9) & 7.8(-10)\
CO & 9.0(-6) & 3.6(-5) & 5.9(-6)\
CO (ice) & 3.0(-7) & 9.3(-6) & 4.2(-5)\
CS & 8.4(-10) & 1.9(-9) & 1.2(-10)\
CS (ice) & 2.1(-14) & 2.2(-14) & 2.2(-14)\
SO & 8.1(-14) & 1.4(-12) & 6.7(-11)\
SO (ice) & 4.5(-14) & 6.7(-13) & 6.9(-11)\
H$_2$S (ice) & 7.0(-8) & 7.6(-8) & 7.8(-8)\
N$_2$H$^+$ & 2.9(-11) & 6.9(-11) & 7.0(-11)\
N$_2$ (ice) & 1.9(-7) & 2.0(-6) & 6.3(-6)\
NH$_3$ (ice) & 2.6(-6) & 4.8(-6) & 6.5(-6)\
NO & 2.0(-9) & 3.1(-9) & 8.4(-8)\
NO (ice) & 8.4(-11) & 8.1(-10) & 1.3(-7)\
H$_3$O$^+$ & 6.9(-11) & 1.7(-9) & 3.9(-10)\
H$_2$O & 9.2(-9) & 2.9(-7) & 8.9(-8)\
H$_2$O (ice) & 2.9(-5) & 7.3(-5) & 1.2(-4)\
H$_2$CO & 9.8(-10) & 3.5(-10) & 2.4(-10)\
H$_2$CO (ice) & 1.0(-10) & 5.4(-9) & 3.8(-8)\
SiO & 6.2(-12) & 1.4(-11) & 1.7(-12)\
SiH$_4$ (ice) & 7.6(-9) & 7.9(-9) & 7.9(-9)\
HC$_3$N & 5.3(-14) & 2.8(-11) & 4.8(-11)\
HC$_3$N (ice) & 2.0(-15) & 2.1(-12) & 2.1(-10)\
CH$_{4}$ (ice) &6.5(-6) &2.0(-5) &2.2(-5)\
\
![A contour map of HCN (4-3) emission in the CND from @2009ApJ...695.1477M. Circles in solid lines show minimum and maximum beam sizes for the IRAM 30m telescope, and circles in dotted lines are for APEX FLASH instrument. The central position is the location of Sgr A\* at EQ J2000 $\alpha=$17:45:39.99, $\delta=$-29:00:26.6. One arcsecond corresponds to 0.04 pc using the distance to the Galactic Center as $d=8.4\,$kpc[]{data-label="fig:cnd"}](CND_beamsAPEX30M_surveys_v2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![A spectrum of HCN(5-4) is shown as an example of typical velocity components in the line of sight. A component centered at $\sim 50$ km s$^{-1}$ is from “50 km s$^{-1}$ cloud,” whereas other two components are from the CND. The velocity range used for the analysis, which should come from a cloud in the southwest lobe, is highlighted.[]{data-label="fig:hcn54"}](HCN54.eps){width="48.00000%"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
![The solid line shows the X-ray ionization rate derived by using a current X-ray luminosity $L_X = 2 \times 10^{33}\,$erg s$^{-1}$ in 2-10 keV range [@2003ApJ...591..891B] as a function of intervening column density at a distance of $d = 2$ pc from the X-ray source. X-ray flux in lower energy range is estimated by AtomDB program [@2012ApJ...756..128F] following a similar procedure in @2013JPCA..117.9919G using a plasma temperature of $kT=1.9$ keV.[]{data-label="fig:zeta_x"}](col_zeta.eps){width=".40\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
{width=".3\textwidth"}{width=".3\textwidth"}{width=".3\textwidth"}
{width=".3\textwidth"} {width=".3\textwidth"} {width=".3\textwidth"}
{width=".3\textwidth"} {width=".3\textwidth"} {width=".3\textwidth"}
NH thanks Miwa Goto for sharing her results on X-ray ionization rate in her paper. IJ-S acknowledges funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA grant agreement number PIIF-GA-2011-301538.
[^1]: Figures 5-9 are only available in electronic form via http://www.edpsciences.org
[^2]: Based on observations carried out with the IRAM 30m Telescope. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany) and IGN (Spain).
[^3]: In this paper, number densities are presented in terms of total hydrogen densities, which are common in theoretical papers instead of $H_2$ densities, which are conventionally used in observational papers.
[^4]: The temperature dependence of the rate coefficient of this reaction is derived by fitting experimental values. A temperature dependence that has a physical meaning should be in the form of exp(-$\gamma$/T) where $\gamma$ is a reaction barrier [see @2014ApJ...787...74G for detailed analysis of HNC/HCN ratio].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the context of Markov processes, we show a new scheme to derive dual processes and a duality function based on a boson representation. This scheme is applicable to a case in which a generator is expressed by boson creation and annihilation operators. For some stochastic processes, duality relations have been known, which connect continuous time Markov processes with discrete state space and those with continuous state space. We clarify that using a generating function approach and the Doi-Peliti method, a birth-death process (or discrete random walk model) is naturally connected to a differential equation with continuous variables, which would be interpreted as a dual Markov process. The key point in the derivation is to use bosonic coherent states as a bra state, instead of a conventional projection state. As examples, we apply the scheme to a simple birth-coagulation process and a Brownian momentum process. The generator of the Brownian momentum process is written by elements of the $SU(1,1)$ algebra, and using a boson realization of $SU(1,1)$ we show that the same scheme is available.'
author:
- Jun Ohkubo
title: Duality in interacting particle systems and boson representation
---
Introduction
============
In the context of nonequilibrium physics, simple systems of interacting particles have been received considerable attention recently, and it has been known that the concept of duality is useful in studying stochastic processes of interacting particle systems [@Liggett_book]. The duality would give deep insights and analytical results for stochastic models in nonequilibrium, and actually, there are many works using duality properties, ranging from calculations of correlation functions in interacting particle systems [@Kipnis1982; @Spohn1983; @Schutz1994; @Schutz1997; @Doering2003; @Giardina2007; @Giardina2009] to studies of biological population models [@Shiga1986; @Mohle1999].
While the duality is a useful concept, there are some problems to use it. For example, it has been sometimes necessary to construct a dual process with ad-hoc procedures. In addition, while the original process and the dual one are connected via a duality function, the duality function should be selected properly. To construct the duality function, usually one sets an ansatz for the duality function, and checks whether the ansatz satisfies the dual relation or not. Recently, a general procedure to derive a duality function has been proposed [@Giardina2009]; dual relations for various stochastic models have been recovered using the symmetries of the original process. While this general procedure has wide applications, it may be needed to use a heuristic way for some specific cases. For example, the general procedure in [@Giardina2009] may not be available for Brownian momentum (or energy) processes in boundary driven cases, and a boundary part in a duality function was heuristically found in [@Giardina2009].
In the present paper, we show a new scheme to obtain a dual process and a duality function. The scheme is based on a boson representation, and it is applicable to a case in which a generator of the stochastic process is expressed by boson creation and annihilation operators. We will see that a continuous time Markov process with *discrete* state space (e.g., simple birth-death processes and discrete random walk models) is a dual process of a continuous time Markov process with *continuous* state space (e.g., stochastic differential equations and Brownian momentum models). In the derivation of the duality function, the generating function approach and the Doi-Peliti method are used. It will be clarified that the dual process and the duality function are naturally derived by using bosonic coherent states as a bra state in the Doi-Peliti method, instead of a usual projection state. In addition, using a boson realization of $SU(1,1)$, it is also possible to study a duality relation for a stochastic model with elements of the $SU(1,1)$ algebra. Especially, we can derive a duality function for a Brownian momentum process with boundaries not heuristically, but deductively.
The outline of the present paper is as follows. In section 2, we give a definition of duality. The new scheme to derive a dual process and a duality function is shown in section 3. Sections 4 and 5 are applications of the new scheme to two examples; i.e., a simple birth-coagulation process and a Brownian momentum process. Section 6 gives concluding remarks.
Duality
=======
General discussions for duality are given in [@Liggett_book]. In the present paper, we only treat the duality between birth-death processes (or discrete random walk models) and diffusion processes.
Suppose that $(\xi_t)_{t \geq 0}$ and $(z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ are continuous time Markov processes on state spaces $\Omega$ and $\Omega_\mathrm{dual}$, respectively. Let $\mathbb{E}_{\xi}$ denotes the expectation given that the process $(\xi_t)_{t \geq 0}$ starts from $\xi$. The process $(\xi_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is said to be dual to $(z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ with respect to a duality function $D: \Omega \times \Omega_\mathrm{dual} \to \mathbb{R}$ if for all $\xi \in \Omega$, $z \in \Omega_\mathrm{dual}$ and $t \geq 0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\xi} D(z,\xi_t) = \mathbb{E}_{z}^\mathrm{dual} D(z_t,\xi),
\label{eq_duality}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{E}_{z}^\mathrm{dual}$ is expectation in the process $(z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ starting from $z$.
In the following discussions and examples, the process $(\xi_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a continuous time Markov process denoting a birth-death process (or a discrete random walk model), so that $\xi_t \in \mathbb{N}$. On the other hand, the dual process $(z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a continuous time Markov process with continuous variables, and then $z_t \in \mathbb{R}$.
Derivation of duality function using boson representation
=========================================================
In this section, we derive a duality function. In order to obtain it, we firstly explain a correspondence between a generating function approach and the Doi-Peliti method (second quantization method). After that, it will be shown that a duality function is naturally obtained from a state vector for the continuous time Markov process with discrete state space.
Generating function approach
----------------------------
Some stochastic models with discrete variables are described as birth-death processes. A time evolution of a birth-death system obeys a master equation, and it is sometimes useful to treat a generating function instead of the original master equation [@Gardiner_book]. For simplicity, we here treat a birth-death process with only one variable. The generating function $G(x,t)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,t) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty P(n,t) x^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $x \in \mathbb{R}$, and $P(n,t)$ is the probability with $n$ particles at time $t$. The time evolution equation for $G(x,t)$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} G(x,t) = L\left( x,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x} \right) G(x,t),
\label{eq_time_evol_for_generating_function}\end{aligned}$$ where $L(x,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x})$ is a linear operator, which is constructed from the original master equation.
Doi-Peliti method: boson representation
---------------------------------------
The Doi-Peliti method is a well-known approach to investigate birth-death systems [@Doi1976; @Doi1976a; @Peliti1985]. In the Doi-Peliti method, bosonic creation and annihilation operators are used: the creation operator $a^\dagger$ and annihilation operator $a$ satisfy the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
[a,a^\dagger] = 1, \quad [a, a] = [a^\dagger,a^\dagger] = 0,\end{aligned}$$ and each operator works on a vector in Fock space $| n \rangle$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
a^\dagger | n \rangle = | n+1 \rangle, \quad a | n \rangle = n | n-1 \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The vacuum state $|0\rangle$ is characterized by $a | 0 \rangle = 0$. The inner product of bra state $\langle m |$ and ket state $| n \rangle$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m | n \rangle = \delta_{m,n} n!,\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{m,n}$ is the Kronecker delta.
When we define a time-dependent state $| \psi(t) \rangle$ as $$\begin{aligned}
| \psi(t) \rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} P(n, t) | n \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ the time evolution of the state $| \phi(t) \rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} | \psi (t) \rangle = L(a^\dagger,a) | \psi(t) \rangle,
\label{eq_time_evol_for_doi_peliti}\end{aligned}$$ which recovers the original master equation. The linear operator $L(a^\dagger,a)$ is obtained from the original master equation, and it is known that $L(a^\dagger,a)$ in (\[eq\_time\_evol\_for\_doi\_peliti\]) has the same form as $L(x,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x})$ in (\[eq\_time\_evol\_for\_generating\_function\]).
While the Doi-Peliti method is similar with usual quantum mechanics, there are some differences. One of the big differences is the usage of a projection state. In the Doi-Peliti method, the projection state $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathcal{P} | \equiv \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} \langle n | = \langle 0 | \mathrm{e}^{a}\end{aligned}$$ is used to obtain physical quantities. For example, the average of $n$ is given by $\sum_{n=0}^\infty n P(n,t) = \langle \mathcal{P} | a^\dagger a | \psi(t) \rangle$.
Connection between generating function approach and Doi-Peliti method
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a one-to-one correspondence between the generating function approach and the Doi-Peliti method. Consider the following construction for ket and bra states in the Doi-Peliti method: $$\begin{aligned}
| n \rangle \equiv x^n, \quad
\langle m | \equiv \int \mathrm{d} x \, \delta(x) \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x} \right)^m (\cdot),\end{aligned}$$ and interpret the creation and annihilation operators as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
a^\dagger \equiv x, \quad a \equiv \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we immediately see that all properties in the Doi-Peliti method are recovered using $x$ and $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}$. In addition, the linear operator $L(a^\dagger,a)$ in (\[eq\_time\_evol\_for\_doi\_peliti\]) is obtained by replacing $x$ and $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}$ of $L(x,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x})$ in (\[eq\_time\_evol\_for\_generating\_function\]) with $a^\dagger$ and $a$, respectively.
Because of the correspondence between the generating function approach and the Doi-Peliti method, we will switch between these two notations freely in the following discussions.
Derivation of duality function
------------------------------
For simplicity, a case with only one variable is discussed at first. After that, a result for general cases will be given.
We consider the following time evolution equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} | \phi(t) \rangle = L | \phi(t) \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $|\phi(t)\rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
| \phi(t) \rangle \equiv \sum_{\xi=0}^\infty P(\xi,t) | \xi \rangle, \quad
| \xi \rangle = d( {a^\dagger}, \xi ) | 0 \rangle.
\label{eq_def_of_states}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\xi$ is a variable used in a continuous time Markov process with discrete state space ($\xi \in \mathbb{N}$), whose probability distribution is denoted by $P(\xi,t)$. Note that the state $| \xi \rangle$ is not restricted to the form discussed in section 3.2, and $| \xi \rangle$ is generated using the creation operator $a^\dagger$ via a function $d(a^\dagger,\xi)$. For example, we will see the following functions $d(a^\dagger,\xi)$ in sections 4 and 5: $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{In section 4:} \quad d( {a^\dagger}, \xi ) &= (a^\dagger)^\xi, \\
\textrm{In section 5:} \quad d( {a^\dagger}, \xi ) &= \frac{(a^\dagger)^{2\xi}}{ (2\xi -1)!!},\end{aligned}$$ where $(2n-1)!! \equiv (2n-1)(2n-3)\cdots 3 \cdot 1$. In both cases, the state $| \xi \rangle$ is expressed in terms of the creation operator $a^\dagger$, but it is not necessary to use the simple construction $|n\rangle = (a^\dagger)^n |0\rangle$ in section 3.2.
As explained in section 3.2, the projection state is usually used as an adequate ‘bra’ state in the Doi-Peliti formalism. The key point to obtain a duality function here is the following one; instead of the projection state, we define a bra state $\langle \tilde{\phi}(t) |$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \tilde{\phi}(t) | \equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d} z \tilde{\phi}(z,t) \langle z |,\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle z |$ is a coherent state of $a^\dagger$: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle z | \equiv \langle 0 | \mathrm{e}^{z a}, \end{aligned}$$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\langle z | a^\dagger = z \langle z |,\end{aligned}$$ and $z$ is assumed to be a real variable. From the correspondence between the generating function approach and Doi-Peliti method, the following identities are easily checked: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle z | n \rangle = z^n,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle z | x^k \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x} \right)^l | n \rangle
= z^k \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \right)^l \langle z | n \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The linear operator $L(a^\dagger,a)$ (i.e, $L(x,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x})$) is generally written in normal order, i.e., all creation operators are to the left of all annihilation operators in products. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \tilde{\phi}(t) | L \left( x, \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}\right)
&=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d} z\tilde{\phi}(z,t) \langle z | L \left( x, \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}\right) \nonumber \\
&=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d} z\tilde{\phi}(z,t) L \left( z, \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z}\right) \langle z | \nonumber \\
&= \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d} z
\left[ L^{*} \left( z, \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z}\right) \tilde{\phi}(z,t) \right] \langle z | ,
\label{eq_time_evol_tilde_phi}\end{aligned}$$ where $L\left( z,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \right)$ is obtained by simply replacing $x$ and $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} x}$ as $z$ and $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z}$, respectively; $L^{*} \left( z,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \right)$ is the adjoint operator of $L\left( z,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \right)$. Therefore, we obtain the following identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \tilde{\phi}(0) | \phi(t) \rangle
= \langle \tilde{\phi}(0) | \mathrm{e}^{Lt} | \phi(0) \rangle
= \langle \tilde{\phi}(t) | \phi(0) \rangle,
\label{eq_duality_pre}\end{aligned}$$ where the time development of the bra state $\langle \tilde{\phi}(t) |$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \langle \tilde{\phi}(z,t) | = \langle \tilde{\phi}(z,t) | L.
\label{eq_time_evol_bra}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[eq\_time\_evol\_tilde\_phi\]) and (\[eq\_time\_evol\_bra\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} \tilde{\phi}(z,t) = L^{*}\left(z,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \right) \tilde{\phi}(z,t).\end{aligned}$$ At this stage, it is clarified that the linear operator $L$ is a generator for the continuous time Markov process $(z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ if $\tilde{\phi}(z,t)$ can be considered as the time-dependent probability density. Hence, a continuous time Markov process with discrete state space, $(\xi_t)_{t \geq 0}$, is naturally connected to the stochastic process with continuous variables $(z_t)_{t \geq 0}$. In addition, writing (\[eq\_duality\_pre\]) explicitly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d} z \sum_{\xi=0}^\infty \tilde{\phi}(z,0) P(\xi,t) d(z,\xi)
= \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d} z \sum_{\xi=0}^\infty \tilde{\phi}(z,t) P(\xi,0) d(z,\xi).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if we set the initial conditions for $\xi$ and $z$ as a Kronecker delta function and a Dirac delta function respectively, the duality relation (\[eq\_duality\]) is obtained. It is also clear that the function $d$ gives a duality function. The above discussion means that if a generator $L$ is expressed in terms of creation and annihilation operators, a dual process is immediately constructed and the duality function is given by the function $d$, which specifies a state $|\xi\rangle$ in the Markov process with discrete state space (see (\[eq\_def\_of\_states\])).
If a Markov process with discrete state space has many variables $\{\xi_i\}$ ($i \in \{ 1, \dots, N\}$), a state $| \xi \rangle$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
| \xi \rangle = \bigotimes_{i=1}^{N} | \xi_i \rangle_i
= \left( \prod_{i=1}^{N} d_i(a^\dagger_i, \xi_i) \right)
\left( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{N} | 0 \rangle_i \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $d_i(a_i^\dagger,\xi)$ may be different from each other. Hence, using $z = \{ z_1, z_2, \dots, z_N \}$, $z_i \in \mathbb{R}$, and $\xi = \{ \xi_1, \xi_2, \dots, \xi_N \}$, $\xi_i \in \mathbb{N}$, a duality function is given as $$\begin{aligned}
D(z,\xi) \equiv \prod_{i=1}^{N} d_i(z_i, \xi_i).\end{aligned}$$
Example 1: Simple birth-coagulation process
===========================================
As a first example, we apply the scheme in section 3 to a simple birth-coagulation process. The birth-coagulation process has been used widely to study front-propagation problems, and it has been known that a Langevin equation, so-called stochastic Fisher and Kolmogorov-Petrovsky-Piscounov (sFKPP) equation, plays an important role in the study of the front-propagation problems [@Brunet1997; @Pechenik1999; @Panja2004; @Brunet2006]. Recently, the sFKPP equation has been discussed even in a QCD context [@Munier2006].
A duality relation for the birth-coagulation process has been used to study a front propagating problem in [@Doering2003]. In the duality relation, the birth-coagulation process is connected to a Langevin equation. In [@Doering2003], the dual process and the duality function were assumed, and explicit calculations based on stochastic differential equations were used to check the duality relation. We will show that the dual process and the duality function are recovered simply using our general scheme. In addition, we will derive a new duality relation for a slightly-changed stochastic process. The derivation demonstrates the effectiveness of the present scheme to find a new duality relation.
Derivation of duality relation in the birth-coagulation process {#sec_ex1_1}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following reaction scheme for the birth-coagulation process: $$\begin{aligned}
&A \to A+A \quad \textrm{at rate $\gamma$}, \nonumber \\
&A + A \to A \quad \textrm{at rate $\sigma^2$}.
\label{eq_ex1_process}\end{aligned}$$ The master equation for the birth-coagulation process is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} P(\xi,t)
=&
\gamma (\xi-1) P(\xi-1,t) - \gamma \xi P(\xi,t) \nonumber \\
&- \sigma^2 \frac{\xi(\xi-1)}{2}P(\xi,t) + \sigma^2 \frac{(\xi+1)\xi}{2} P(\xi+1,t),
\label{eq_ex1_master_equation}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is the number of particle $A$, and $\xi \in \mathbb{N}$. The linear operator in the Doi-Peliti method is given by $$\begin{aligned}
L = \gamma(a^\dagger-1) a^\dagger a + \frac{\sigma^2}{2}(1-a^\dagger) a^\dagger a^2,
\label{eq_generator_ex1}\end{aligned}$$ and it is easy to check that the following time evolution equation and a bra state $| \phi(t)\rangle$ recover the master equation (\[eq\_ex1\_master\_equation\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} | \phi(t) \rangle = L | \phi(t) \rangle, \quad
| \phi(t) \rangle = \sum_{\xi=0}^\infty P(\xi,t) | \xi \rangle\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
| \xi \rangle = (a^\dagger)^{\xi} | 0 \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Since $d(a^\dagger,\xi) = (a^\dagger)^{\xi}$, a duality function is $$\begin{aligned}
D(z,\xi) = z^\xi.
\label{eq_ex1_duality_function}\end{aligned}$$ Considering the adjoint of the linear operator $L$ in terms of $z$ and $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z}$, $$\begin{aligned}
L^{*} = - \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \left[ -\gamma z (1-z) \right]
+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d} z^2} \left[ \sigma^2 (1-z) z \right],\end{aligned}$$ we see that the adjoint operator $L^{*}$ gives a Fokker-Planck equation. Hence, the dual process corresponds to the following stochastic differential equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d} z = - \gamma z(1-z) \mathrm{d} t + \sigma \sqrt{z(1-z)} \mathrm{d} W.\end{aligned}$$ If one consider a new process via a variable transformation $u(t) = 1-z(t)$, the corresponding stochastic differential equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d} u = \gamma u(1-u) \mathrm{d} t + \sigma \sqrt{u(1-u)} \mathrm{d} W,\end{aligned}$$ and the duality function is rewritten by using the new variable $u$ as $$\begin{aligned}
D(u,\xi) = (1-u)^\xi.\end{aligned}$$ The above dual process and the duality function are consistent with results in [@Doering2003].
New duality relation for a slightly-changed reaction scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
We here show that it is easy to derive a new duality relation for a slightly-changed reaction scheme, which has not been studied yet.
We consider that the following reaction is added to the stochastic system (\[eq\_ex1\_process\]): $$\begin{aligned}
A \to A + A + A \quad \textrm{at rate $\alpha$}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, a new term, $\alpha (\xi -2) P(\xi-2,t) - \alpha \xi P(\xi,t)$, is added to the master equation (\[eq\_ex1\_master\_equation\]). The corresponding linear operator in the Doi-Peliti method is $\alpha ( (a^\dagger)^2 -1) a^\dagger a$, and then the adjoint operator $L^*$ is finally given by $$\begin{aligned}
L^{*} = - \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} z} \left[ -\gamma z (1-z)
- \alpha z(1-z^2)
\right]
+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d} z^2} \left[ \sigma^2 (1-z) z \right].\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we conclude that the dual process is given by the following stochastic differential equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d} z =
- [\gamma z(1-z) + \alpha z(1-z^2) ]\mathrm{d} t + \sigma \sqrt{z(1-z)} \mathrm{d} W,\end{aligned}$$ and the duality function is given by (\[eq\_ex1\_duality\_function\]).
Example 2: Brownian momentum process
====================================
As a next example, a Brownian momentum process is studied [@Giardina2007; @Giardina2009]. In this case, different from example 1 in section 4, we start from a stochastic process with continuous state space and obtain a dual process with discrete state space.
The model is defined as a stochastic process on $N$-dimensional vectors $(z_1, \dots, z_N) \in \mathbb{R}^N$, which have to be interpreted as momenta associated with lattice sites $\{1, \dots, N \}$. In addition, sites $1$ and $N$ are in contact with heat reservoirs at temperature $T_\mathrm{L}$ and $T_\mathrm{R}$, respectively. The process is defined by a generator $L$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
L = L_1 + L_N + \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} L_{i,i+1},\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 f &= T_\mathrm{L} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z_1^2} f - z_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial z_1} f,\\
L_N f &= T_\mathrm{R} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z_N^2} f - z_N \frac{\partial}{\partial z_N} f,\\
L_{i,i+1} f &= \left( z_{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_{i+1}} -
z_{i+1} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_{i}} \right)^2 (f),\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is a $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ function. Hence, the time-dependent probability density $p(z,t)$ obeys the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial}{\partial t} p(z,t) = L^{*} p(z,t),\\
&L^{*} = L^{*}_1 + L^{*}_N + \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} L^{*}_{i,i+1},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
L^{*}_1 f &= T_\mathrm{L} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z_1^2} f + \frac{\partial}{\partial z_1} (z_1 f),\\
L^{*}_N f &= T_\mathrm{R} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z_N^2} f + \frac{\partial}{\partial z_N} (z_N f),\\
L^{*}_{i,i+1} &= L_{i,i+1}.\end{aligned}$$ The above equation corresponds to a stochastic process with continuous state space [@Giardina2007].
It has been known that the generator $L$ is rewritten by using elements (operators) of the $SU(1,1)$ algebra [@Giardina2009]. The operators are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
K_i^{+} = \frac{1}{2} z_i^2, \quad
K_i^{-} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z_i^2}, \quad
K_i^{0} = \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i}(z_i \, \cdot)
+ z_i \frac{\partial}{\partial z_i} \right),
\label{eq_def_of_su11}\end{aligned}$$ and they satisfy the following commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
[K_i^0,K_i^{\pm}] = \pm K_i^{\pm}, \quad [K_i^{-}, K_i^{+}] = 2 K_i^0.\end{aligned}$$ The components of the generator $L$ is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
L_{i,i+1} &= 4 \left(
K_i^{+} K_{i+1}^{-} + K_i^{-} K_{i+1}^{+} - 2 K_i^{0} K_{i+1}^{0} + \frac{1}{8}
\right), \\
L_1 &= 2 T_\mathrm{L} K_1^{-} - 2 K_1^{0} + \frac{1}{2},\\
L_N &= 2 T_\mathrm{R} K_N^{-} - 2 K_N^{0} + \frac{1}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, the $SU(1,1)$ group admits a discrete (infinite dimensional) representation: $$\begin{aligned}
K_i^{+} | \xi_i \rangle = \left( \frac{1}{2} + \xi_i \right) | \xi_i + 1 \rangle, \quad
K_i^{-} | \xi_i \rangle = \xi_i | \xi_i - 1 \rangle, \quad
K_i^{0} | \xi_i \rangle = \left( \xi_i + \frac{1}{4} \right) | \xi_i \rangle.
\label{eq_discrete_representation_of_su11}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we reinterpret the operators $L_1$ and $L_N$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 &= 2 T_\mathrm{L} K_1^{-} - 2 K_1^{0} + \frac{1}{2}
\equiv 2 a^\dagger_0 K_1^{-} - 2 K_1^{0} + \frac{1}{2}, \\
L_N &= 2 T_\mathrm{R} K_N^{-} - 2 K_N^{0} + \frac{1}{2}
\equiv 2 a^\dagger_{N+1} K_N^{-} - 2 K_N^{0} + \frac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ where we interpret the constants $T_\mathrm{L}$ and $T_\mathrm{R}$ as the creation operators related to additional sites $0$ and $N+1$; $T_\mathrm{L} = z_0 \equiv a^\dagger_0$ and $T_\mathrm{R} = z_{N+1} \equiv a^\dagger_{N+1}$. This reinterpretation is justified according to the correspondence between the generating function approach and the Doi-Peliti method (see section 3.3). Using the introduction of the bosonic creation operators for sites $0$ and $N+1$ and the $SU(1,1)$ algebra for the other sites, it is possible to consider that the generator $L$ creates a stochastic process with discrete state space. We define, for $\xi \in \Omega$, $i,j \in \{0,\dots,N+1\}$, the configuration $\xi^{i,j}$ to be the configuration obtained from $\xi$ by removing one particle at $i$ and adding one particle at $j$. Hence, the linear operator $L$ is interpreted as $$\begin{aligned}
&L \psi(\xi) = \nonumber \\
&2 \xi_1 [ \psi( \xi^{1,0}) - \psi(\xi) ] + 2 \xi_1 (2\xi_2 + 1) [ \psi(\xi^{1,2})-\psi(\xi)] \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{i=2}^{N-1} \Big(
2\xi_i (2\xi_{i-1}+1)[ \psi(\xi^{i,i-1}) - \psi(\xi) ]
+ 2\xi_i (2\xi_{i+1}+1)[ \psi(\xi^{i,i+1}) - \psi(\xi) ]
\Big) \nonumber \\
&+ 2 \xi_N (2\xi_{N-1} + 1) [ \psi(\xi^{N,N-1})-\psi(\xi)] + 2 \xi_N [ \psi( \xi^{N,N+1}) - \psi(\xi) ] ,
\label{eq_generator_ex2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi: \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ is an arbitrary function of the finite particle configurations. This process is considered as a discrete random walk model with absorbing sites $0$ and $N+1$[@Giardina2007]. Hence, a stochastic process with continuous variables (the Brownian momentum process) is naturally connected to a stochastic process with discrete variables (discrete random walk model).
Next, we obtain the duality function. Using (\[eq\_discrete\_representation\_of\_su11\]) iteratively, it is easy to confirm that a state $| \xi_i \rangle$ for $i \in \{ 1, \dots, N \}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
| \xi_i \rangle = \frac{2^{\xi_i}}{(2\xi_i - 1)!!} (K_i^{+})^{\xi_i} | 0 \rangle_i',\end{aligned}$$ where $| 0 \rangle_i'$ is the vacuum state in the $SU(1,1)$ representation. Here, we note that there are boson representations for the operators in $SU(1,1)$ [@Perelomov_book]: $$\begin{aligned}
K_i^{+} = \frac{1}{2} (a^\dagger_i)^2, \quad
K_i^{-} = \frac{1}{2} (a_i)^2, \quad
K_i^{0} = \frac{1}{4} (a_i a_i^\dagger + a^\dagger_i a_i).\end{aligned}$$ (See also (\[eq\_def\_of\_su11\]).) Hence, it is possible to rewrite state $| \xi_i \rangle$ by using boson creation operators instead of $K_i^{+}$. On the other hand, for site $0$ and $N+1$, it is necessary to indicate a state $| \xi_0 \rangle_0$ ($| \xi_{N+1} \rangle_{N+1}$) by using the creation operator $a^\dagger_0$ ($a^\dagger_{N+1}$) instead of $K_0^{+}$ ($K_{N+1}^{+}$); i.e., $| \xi_0 \rangle_0 = (a^\dagger_0)^{\xi_0} | 0 \rangle_0$ and $| \xi_{N+1} \rangle_{N+1} = (a^\dagger_{N+1})^{\xi_{N+1}} | 0 \rangle_{N+1}$. We therefore obtain $$\begin{aligned}
| \xi \rangle &= | \xi_0 \rangle_0 \left( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{N} | \xi_i \rangle_i \right)
\otimes | \xi_{N+1} \rangle_{N+1} \nonumber \\
&= \left( (a^\dagger_0)^{\xi_0} | 0 \rangle_0 \right)
\left( \bigotimes_{i=1}^N \left[ \frac{1}{(2\xi_i-1)!!} (a^\dagger_i)^{2\xi_i} | 0 \rangle_i \right] \right)
\otimes \left( (a^\dagger_{N+1})^{\xi_{N+1}} | 0 \rangle_{N+1} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ This means $$\begin{aligned}
d_i(a_i^\dagger,\xi_i) =
\begin{cases}
(a_i^\dagger)^{\xi_i} & \textrm{for } i = 0, N+1, \\
\frac{(a_i^\dagger)^{2\xi_i}}{ (2\xi_i -1)!!} & \textrm{otherwise},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and then we immediately have a duality function as (note that $z_0 = T_L$ and $z_{N+1} = T_R$) $$\begin{aligned}
D(z,\xi) = T_L^{\xi_0} T_R^{\xi_{N+1}} \prod_{i=1}^N \frac{z_i^{2\xi_i}}{(2\xi_i - 1)!!},\end{aligned}$$ which is consistent with the results of [@Giardina2007; @Giardina2009].
Concluding remarks
==================
In the present paper, a new scheme to obtain a dual process and duality function was given; the scheme is applicable when a generator is expressed in terms of boson representation. Using the new scheme, it is possible to find the duality function not heuristically, but deductively using a state expression for a continuous time Markov process with discrete state space. The duality connects the Markov process to the dual process with continuous state space. We applied the scheme to two examples, and adequately recovered results in previous works, and derived a new duality relation for a slightly-changed stochastic process. We here note that the same scheme is available to obtain a duality function in a Brownian energy model in [@Giardina2009], and we confirmed that a suitable duality function is actually obtained.
Our analysis in the present paper was limited to simple cases in which a representation of the $x$-representation is changed to the $n$-representation. In [@Giardina2009], the role of symmetries was considered, which then leads to self-duality for discrete processes. The key idea in our scheme is a usage of coherent states as a bra state, instead of a conventional projection state. Although we here limited ourselves to cases with boson representation, the similar idea will be also applicable to other cases. For example, it will be possible to apply the similar discussions to a case with a generator with the $SU(2)$ algebra (or the quantum algebra $U_q[SU(2)]$), which describes symmetric (or asymmetric) simple exclusion processes [@Schutz1997]. Such extensions are out of the scope of the present paper; these issues are currently under investigations and will be published in future.
Finally, we comment on the applicability of the scheme. The scheme would basically connect a discrete representation and continuous one, and give a duality function between them. However, there may be no guarantee that a corresponding dual ‘process’ adequately describes a stochastic process; e.g., it is necessary for Markov processes with discrete state space to have the generators with some specific forms (see (\[eq\_generator\_ex1\]) and (\[eq\_generator\_ex2\])). In our scheme, it is at least possible to derive a differential equation with continuous variables, which may not be interpreted as a stochastic process. The derived differential equation and the original Markov process is adequately connected via a (duality) function, which is simply given from a state expression for the Markov process, as discussed in the present paper. Such ‘duality’ between a stochastic process and a deterministic differential equation would be valuable for studies of nonequilibrium physics. In addition, the present formalism based on the generating function and Doi-Peliti method would be tractable for physicists, and then it will help to seek new duality relations for stochastic processes.
The author thank S. Sasa and K. Itakura for motive argument of this work. This work was supported in part by grant-in-aid for scientific research (Grants No. 20115009 and No. 21740283) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
[99]{} Liggett T M 2005 [*Interacting Particle Systems (Classics in Mathematics)*]{} (Berlin: Springer) Reprint of the 1985 edition
Kipnis C, Marchioro C and Presutti E 1982 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**27**]{} 65 Spohn H 1983 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**16**]{} 4275 Sch[ü]{}tz G and Sandow S 1994 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**49**]{} 2726 Sch[ü]{}tz G M 1997 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**86**]{} 1265 Doering C R, Mueller C and Smereka P 2003 [*Physica A*]{} [**325**]{} 243 Giardin[à]{} C, Kurchan J and Redig F 2007 [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**48**]{} 033301 Giardin[à]{} C, Kurchan J, Redig F and Vafayi K 2009 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**135**]{} 25
Shiga T and Uchiyama K 1986 [*Probab. Th. Rel. Fields*]{} [**73**]{} 87 M[ö]{}hle M 1999 [*Bernoulli*]{} [**5**]{} 761
Gardiner C W 2004 [*Handbook of Stochastic Methods*]{} 3rd edn (Berlin: Springer)
Doi M 1976 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**9**]{} 1465 Doi M 1976 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**9**]{} 1479 Peliti L 1985 [*J. Physique*]{} [**46**]{} 1469
Brunet E and Derrida B 1997 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**56**]{} 2597 Pechenik L and Levine H 1999 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**59**]{} 3893 Panja D 2004 [*Phys. Rept.*]{} [**393**]{} 87 Brunet E, Derrida B, Mueller A H and Munier S 2006 [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**73**]{} 056126 Munier S 2006 [*Acta Phys. Polo. B*]{} [**37**]{} 3451
Perelomov A 1986 [*Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications*]{} (Berlin: Springer)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The IPSO framework allows optimal design of experiments and surveys. We discuss the utility of IPSO with a simplified 10 parameter MCMC D-optimisation of a dark energy survey. The resulting optimal number of redshift bins is typically two or three, all situated at $z<2$. By exploiting optimisation we show how the statistical power of the survey is significantly enhanced. Experiment design is aided by the richness of the figure of merit landscape which shows strong degeneracies, which means one can impose secondary optimisation criteria at little cost. For example, one may choose either to maximally test a single model (e.g. $\Lambda$CDM) or to get the best model-independent constraints possible (e.g. on a whole space of dark energy models). Such bifurcations point to a future where cosmological experiments become increasingly specialised and optimisation increasingly important.'
author:
- 'Bruce A. Bassett$^{1,2}$, David Parkinson$^{2}$ and Robert C. Nichol$^{2}$'
title: Designer Cosmology
---
Introduction
============
We have reached an enviable resonance in which improvements in detector performance and cost are allowing not only rapid gains in our fundamental knowledge of the cosmos but also the opportunity for smaller experiments to make critical contributions to that knowledge. This has resulted in a surge of interest in next-generation experiment design with over twenty major surveys in planning or construction in observational cosmology alone. Experimental cosmology has changed in a few short years into a crowded and jostling marketplace.
There are several big prizes currently at stake: [*Detection of dark energy dynamics, B-mode polarisation and cosmological non-Gaussianity*]{}. Competition, limited funding, low signal-to-noise and extreme competition mean that new surveys will need to be increasingly optimised to get the most out of them. The aims of this [*Letter*]{} are to show how this can be achieved in a cross-disciplinary way and to illustrate some of the rich aspects of cosmological optimisation.
IPSO
====
Integrated Parameter Space Optimisation (IPSO; Bassett 2004, hereafter B04) proceeds by first constructing a class of candidate survey/experiment geometries, $S$, labeled by survey parameters, $s_i$, such as areal and redshift coverage.
Second, a target parameter space, , is defined, consisting of the parameters that we wish to optimally constrain (labeled $\theta_{\mu,\nu...}$). There are also typically nuisance parameters we need to marginalise over (labeled $\varphi_{a,b...}$).
Third, a Figure of Merit (FoM) is defined which assigns a single real number to each candidate survey. The candidate with the extremal FoM is the optimal experiment/survey. The FoM we consider is defined by (B04): FoM(s\_i) = \_[****]{} I(s\_i,) p() d. \[basicdef\] $I(s_i,\vec{\theta})$ is a scalar which depends on the survey geometry (through the $s_i$), and position in ${\bf \Theta}$ and $p(\vec{\theta})$ is a ‘window function’ that weights the different regions of the parameter space. By integrating over the parameter space we do not make assumptions about the underlying model, which is particularly important when we have very limited knowledge of the underlying physics, as is the case with dark energy.
Most choices for $I(s_i,\vec{\theta})$ typically invoke either the parameter covariance matrix or ${\bf F}$, the Fisher matrix, defined by: F\_[AB]{} = -= \_i ()\_i\_i\^[-2]{}(s). \[fisher1\] Here we use $A = \{\mu...,a...\}$ to label both fundamental and nuisance parameters, ${\cal L}$ is the likelihood, $X = C_{\ell}, d_L, H$ represents the quantity being measured with $i$ labeling redshift bin or Fourier mode as appropriate (Tegmark [*et al.*]{} 1998). The $\epsilon_i^2$ are the error variances on $X$ and depend explicitly on the survey parameters, $s_i$, unlike the derivatives, $\partial X/\partial \theta_A$. In computing integrals such as (\[basicdef\]) this allows for significant cpu gains since the derivatives need only to be computed once.
Via the Cramér-Rao bound ${\bf F}^{-1}$ provides the best possible covariance matrix and hence a lower bound on the achievable parameter variances. Although there are many choices for $I(s_i,\thet)$ (B04) we focus on only one for simplicity: D-optimality, defined by I(s,) = ([**F**]{} + [**P**]{}) [**D-optimality**]{} \[dop\] where ‘det’ denotes matrix determinant and ${\bf P}$ is the prior precision matrix, [*viz.*]{} the Fisher matrix of all the relevant prior data.
Eq. (\[dop\]), is the gain in Shannon information or entropy over the prior. Maximising (\[dop\]) provides the best possible gain in constraints on the parameters $\thet$ over what was available from just the prior data, ${\bf P}$. It is known as D-optimality in the design literature. If ${\bf P}=0$ maximising (\[dop\]) is equivalent to minimising the volume of the error ellipses, an alternative FoM (Huterer and Turner 2001, Frieman [*et al.*]{} 2003, B04). Via the General Equivalence Theorem, D-Optimal solutions are also optimal under other FoM. For these reasons it seems appropriate for cosmological applications, although as we will see, secondary optimisation criteria can be imposed at almost no cost to the primary FoM.
Nuisance parameters, such as $\Omega_k, \Omega_m$ etc..., whose values we do not know precisely but which we do not want to optimise with respect to, can be easily dealt with by inverting the full Fisher matrix $F_{AB}$, extracting the relevant submatrix corresponding to the $\thet$, re-inverting (e.g. Seo & Eisenstein 2003, B04) and then applying Eq. (\[dop\]). Further, any reasonable FoM can also be generalised to allow inclusion of competing surveys by simply replacing ${\bf F} \rightarrow {\bf F} + {\cal F}$ where ${\cal F}$ is the sum of the Fisher matrices expected for the competing surveys. In this way IPSO will find the optimal niche with respect to the other surveys (B04).
Optimizing CMB and Weak Lensing Surveys {#wl}
=======================================
When is optimisation worth doing? To illustrate this let us contrast weak lensing (wl) convergence and CMB surveys on the celestial sphere. In both of these cases the Fisher matrix is a sum over $\ell$ (Hu and Tegmark 1999, Knox and Song 2002, Kesden [*et al.*]{} 2002): F\_ = \_[l>f\_[sky]{}\^[-1/2]{}]{} (N\^X\_)\^[-2]{} where $X=CMB,wl$, $N^X_{\ell}$ is the total noise for the survey and $f_{sky}$ is the fraction of the sky observed. For the CMB we consider only one spectrum (e.g. the B-mode power spectrum). In both cases we assume that the surveys are constrained to last a given length of time, $T$, and ask ‘what is the optimal sky coverage, $f_{sky}$, given this constraint?’ For CMB experiments we have (Knox 1995): N\^[CMB]{}\_ f\_[sky]{}\^[-1/2]{}(C\^[CMB]{}\_ + e\^[\^2 \_b]{}) \[N\] where $T = t_{pix}N_{pix}$ is the length of the survey, $a$ is a proportionality constant and the $N_{pix}$ pixels are each observed for time $t_{pix}$ using a Gaussian beam with $\mbox{FWHM} \propto \sigma_b$. The first (second) term in (\[N\]) is the noise from sample variance (instrument noise).
CMB experiments will benefit from optimisation since the competition between the terms in eq. (\[N\]) creates a local minimum in the noise (Jaffe [*et al*]{} 1999). To apply IPSO to the CMB one must first choose . For example, for optimal detection of deviations from the inflationary consistency conditions the key variable is $\theta \equiv n_t + r/4.8$ where $n_t$ is the tensor spectral index and $r$ is the ratio of tensor to scalar quadrupole in the CMB. Single field inflation predicts this should vanish. Hence a high-$\sigma$ detection of $\theta \neq 0$ would put severe pressure on simple inflationary models. In contrast, an experiment designed to detect B-mode polarisation alone would optimise to detect $r$ only and would lead to a different optimal area.
In contrast, for weak lensing (Kaiser 1992) N\^[wl]{}\_ f\_[sky]{}\^[-1/2]{}C\^[wl]{}\_ + \[nwl\] where $\sigma_g^2 \sim 0.35$ is the approximately constant intrinsic ellipticity error and the surface density of detected galaxies scales roughly as $\overline{n} \sqrt{t}$ where $t$ is the integration time per field of view. The noise terms $N^X_{\ell}$ differ crucially when it comes to optimisation of the areal coverage, $f_{sky}$. Unlike the CMB noise, $N^{wl}_{\ell}$ has no local minimum; the weak lensing Fisher matrix is a monotonic function of $f_{sky}$. Optimising any of the FoM simply proceeds by using the largest feasible area to minimise the sample variance.
If, in addition, the intrinsic ellipticity noise dominates the noise (as it does for the proposed SNAP WAS) then the FoM becomes essentially independent of $f_{sky}$ and the gain of going to the largest area is minimal, as found by (Rhodes [*et al.*]{}, 2004).
Optimal measurements of the Hubble constant {#hub}
===========================================
To illustrate some of the issues one faces in applying IPSO to realistic surveys, consider the optimisation of a redshift survey designed to measure the Hubble constant through observation of the radial baryon oscillations (Seo & Eisenstein 2003, Blake & Glazebrook 2003, Linder 2003, Amendola [*et al.*]{} 2004, Yamamoto [*et al.*]{} 2005). For clarity we assume no nuisance parameters, a flat FLRW model with $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $H_0$ known exactly and we ignore the constraints from $d_A$ which a full optimisation would include.
We consider a model of dark energy based on Taylor expansion in powers of $(1-a) = \frac{z}{1 + z}$ (Chevallier M., Polarski 2001, Linder 2003, Bassett, Corasaniti & Kunz 2004), with $w = p_{DE}/\rho_{DE}$ w(z) &=& w\_0 + w\_1 + w\_2\
\_[DE]{} && (1+z)\^[3(1 + w\_0 + w\_1 + w\_2)]{}\
& & () \[rhode\] where $\rho_{DE}(z)$ is the dark energy energy density.
Comparing with eq. (\[fisher1\]), $X=E\equiv H/H_0$. Rather than the optimal area, $f_{sky}$, we want the optimal number of redshift bins, $N$, what redshifts they should be centered on, $z_i$, and how long we should observe in each bin, $t_i$. Again we assume fixed total survey time ($T$) so we need to optimise given the constraint $\sum_i^N t_i = T$.
We assume that the error bars scale as $\epsilon_i^{-2} = e_i t^{\gamma}$ where $e_i \propto (1+z_i)^{-\beta}$ gives the efficiency with which galaxies are detected and $\gamma, \beta$ parameterise our ignorance. These could be treated as nuisance parameters to be marginalised over but we find that our main results are insensitive to both over the range $\beta = 1-2, \gamma=1-2$ we consider. Note that $\gamma=1$ implies that the FoM is maximised on the boundary of the allowed redshift region (just as was the case with the weak lensing survey earlier). We focus on the case $\gamma=2$ here for illustrative purposes. The real constraint will be significantly more complex and we leave this issue to future work.
We restrict the bin redshifts to be between $0.5 < z_i <4.5$ which is a feasible range for future baryon oscillation surveys such as KAOS and set $w_2 = 0$ for clarity. We performed an MCMC (Christensen and Meyer, 2000) optimisation with the D-Optimal FoM (\[dop\]) with ten free survey parameters: $\{t_i, z_i\}$ giving the integration time and redshifts of the five bins. The effective number of bins varies dynamically because the MCMC chain could (and typically did) assign negligible amounts of observing time to some of the bins.
We ran multiple chains (up to 5000) with random starting configurations for the survey and used a standard Hastings-Metropolis algorithm for jump acceptance. Instead of directly performing the integral (\[basicdef\]) we used the definition $FoM(s) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N I(s,\theta_a)$ where the $\theta_a$are drawn randomly from a probability distribution based on $p(\theta_i)$ in (\[basicdef\]). We chose $p$ to be a bi-variate Gaussian centered on the $\Lambda$CDM point $w_0=-1, w_1 = 0$ so our optimisation was chosen to detect slowly varying dark energy dynamics close to a cosmological constant.
The Fisher matrix derivatives based on eq. (\[rhode\]) are simple to compute; e.g. &=& 3 \_[DE]{} (1+z)\
&=& 3 \_[DE]{} ((1+z) - ). Our unoptimised fiducial survey had five redshift bins located at $z_i = 0.6,0.8,1,1.2,3$, as in (Seo & Eisenstein 2003 and Amendola [*et al.*]{} 2004), with equal integration time ($T/5$) assigned to each bin.
Fig. (\[phantom\]) shows typical gains over the unoptimised survey for a near optimal survey chosen randomly from the 5000 MCMC chains while Fig. (\[w0vol\]) shows the area of the error ellipse versus the corresponding error on $w_0$ for each of the 5000 locally optimal solutions. It is very clear that at almost identical area (and FoM) there is a very wide range of error ellipse ellipticity (controlled by $\sigma_{w_0}$). In other words, there are many local maxima which come very close to matching the global maximum.
The implications of this FoM ‘degeneracy’ for ruling out dark energy models are clarified in Fig. (\[lcdm\]) where we show the thinnest error ellipse (diagonal “strip"), the unoptimised error ellipse and the error ellipse with the maximal FoM, all computed at the $\Lambda$CDM point (the thinnest ellipse is shifted down for clarity).
This degeneracy offers the chance for secondary optimisation (the primary one in this case being based on the D-optimal FoM). For example, one could choose geometries that deliver the best constraints on a particular linear combination of the parameters $\thet$ adapted to the degeneracy structure of the observations while sacrificing the orthogonal direction(s). This amounts to minimising the smallest eigenvalue of the covariance matrix which may be preferable for testing dark energy dynamics in the short term.
The redshifts, $z_i$, and integration times, $t_i$, for each bin of some optimal and near optimal surveys are shown in Fig. (\[survey\]) along with corresponding error bars on the Hubble rate, $H(z)$. Typically the locally optimal geometries in our 5000 chains had only two ($51\%$ of all chains) or three redshift bins ($39\%$ of all chains) with more than $5\%$ of the total survey time. Optimal geometries with either one or five bins were extremely rare, forming less than $1\%$ of all the locally optimal geometries (although single bin geometries deliver the thinnest error ellipses). The preferance for only a few bins arises because the dark energy models we consider vary rather slowly with redshift, hence it is statistically preferable to constrain $w$ rather than $dw/dz$. This conclusion may change somewhat if one allows very rapid evolution in $w(z)$ which actually provides a very good fit to current SNIa data (Bassett [*et al*]{}., 2004). We found that the redshifts of the two bins with the most integration time were typically located at $z<2$ (as shown in Fig. (\[domz\])).
Conclusions
===========
We have considered optimisation both of 2-d surveys such as CMB and weak lensing experiments and 3-d redshift surveys. In a simplified optimisation of a baryon oscillation survey we have shown how IPSO allows significant gains in the statistical power of a survey can be achieved through optimisation, in this case a reduction by a factor of 6 in the error ellipse area over the unoptimised survey. We found that there are many diverse surveys with nearly degenerate figures of merit (FoM), as shown in Figs. (\[survey\]) & (\[w0vol\]). This is good news since it allows survey designers to pick a near optimal survey structure that is most compatible with real-world intangibles that cannot easily be included explicitly in the optimisation.
The Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) search was repeated thousands of times with randomly chosen initial survey configurations. Most of the resulting locally optimal surveys divided $> 90\%$ of the survey time between only two or three redshift bins. A single bin leads to the thinnest possible error ellipse and may be appropriate for some experiments, particularly if the resulting ellipse is orthogonal to those coming from other observations. Alternatively, at almost the same FoM, one can choose a survey configuration that gives the best joint constraints on all the parameters simultaneously. At least for measurements of the Hubble constant alone, we found that typically the two dominant redshift bins should be located at low redshift, $z<2$, as shown in Figures (\[survey\]) and (\[domz\]). This is good news for upcoming baryon oscillation surveys such as KAOS which will be able to probe the optical region $z<1.3$ with high precision from earth.
We thank Chris Blake, Eric Linder and Takahiro Tanaka for useful comments on the draft.
Amendola L., Quercellini C. and Giallongo E., preprint (astro-ph/0404599). Bassett B. A., 2004, preprint (astro-ph/0407201), (B04) Bassett B. A., Corasaniti P. S., Kunz M., 2004, preprint (astro-ph/0407364) Blake C., Glazebrook K., 2003, ApJ, [**594**]{}, 665 Chevallier M., Polarski D., 2001, IJMPD, [**10**]{}, 213 Christensen N., and Meyer R., 2000, preprint (astro-ph/0006401). Frieman,J. A., Huterer D., Linder E. V. and Turner M. S., 2003, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 083505. Hu W., and Tegmark M., 1999, ApJ [**514**]{}, L65. Huterer D., Turner M., 2001, Phys Rev D [**64**]{}, 123527. Jaffe A.H., Kamionkowski M., and Wang, L., 2000, Phys. Rev. D[**61**]{}, 083501 Jungman G., Kamionkowski M., Kosowsky A., Spergel D. N., 1996, Phys Rev D [**54**]{}, 1332. Kaiser, N. 1992, ApJ, [**388**]{}, 272 Kesden, M., Cooray, A., and Kamionkowski, M., 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 011304. Knox, L., 1995, Phys. Rev. D[**52**]{}, 4307. Knox, L., and Song Y-S., 2002, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**89**]{} 011303 Linder E. V., 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**90**]{}, 091301 Linder E. V., 2003, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 083504 (2003) Magueijo J., Hobson M. P., 1997, Phys. Rev. D, [**56**]{}, 1908. Refregier A., [*et al.*]{}, 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0304419) Rhodes J., Refregier A., Massey R., \[the SNAP Collaboration\], Astropart. Phys. [**20**]{} (2004) 377 Seo H. J., Eisenstein D. J., 2003, ApJ, [**598**]{}, 720 Tegmark M., Eisenstein D. J., Hu W., Kron R., 1998, preprint (astro-ph/9805117) Tegmark M., Taylor A. and Heavens A., 1997 ApJ, [**480**]{}, 22 Tegmark M., 1997, Phys. Rev. D, [**56**]{}, 4514 White M. J., Carlstrom J., Dragovan M. and Holzapfel S. W. L., 1999, preprint (astro-ph/9912422). Yamamoto, K., Bassett,B. A., and Nishioka, H., 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 051301
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we consider a problem of searching a space of predictive models for a given training data set. We propose an iterative procedure for deriving a sequence of improving models and a corresponding sequence of sets of non-linear features on the original input space. After a finite number of iterations $N$, the non-linear features become $2^N$-degree polynomials on the original space. We show that in a limit of an infinite number of iterations derived non-linear features must form an associative algebra: a product of two features is equal to a linear combination of features from the same feature space for any given input point. Because each iteration consists of solving a series of convex problems that contain all previous solutions, the likelihood of the models in the sequence is increasing with each iteration while the dimension of the model parameter space is set to a limited controlled value.'
author:
- |
Michael Tetelman\
Advanced Magic Technologies\
Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA\
`[email protected]`\
title: 'Continuous Learning: Engineering Super Features With Feature Algebras'
---
Introduction
============
This paper proposes a method of finding a sequence of improving models for a given fixed data set that we call Continuous Learning. The method is based on iterative exploration of a space of models that have a specific limited number of parameters, which correspond to non-linear polynomial features of an input space. The feature set is evolving with each iteration, so the most important features are selected from the current feature set then the reduced feature set is expanded to include higher degree polynomials while the dimension of the expanded feature space is limited or fixed. Resulting features are computed recursively from iteration to iteration with different parameters of the recursions found for each execution of the iteration algorithm.
The paper is organized as follows:
To search a model space we need to compare different models and solutions. We use Bayesian framework that provides a natural way for model comparison [@barberBRML2012]. Continuous Learning consists of a sequence of iteration cycles. Each iteration cycle has a number of steps. In first of these steps, we use bootstrap method to obtain a set of sampled solutions [@hastie_09_elements-of.statistical-learning] and parameter-feature duality as a method for exploring the feature space. We construct a model of a solution distribution and use Principal Component Analysis to select a subspace of the most important solutions and reduce dimensions of the parameter space. Then we use non-linear expansion of the feature space by adding tensor-features that are products of the principal features selected in the previous step. That concludes a definition of one iteration cycle.
Each iteration is recursively redefining features that become non-linear functions on the original feature space. We analyzed a stationary solution of the iteration cycle and found that, in a limit of the infinite number of iterations, features form a Feature Algebra. Different solutions of Feature Algebra define non-linear feature representations.
For the purpose of this work, we will consider a prediction problem setup. The goal is to find a probability of a class label $y$ for a given input $x$: $Prob (y|x)$.
The model class family is defined by a conditional probability function $P
(y|x, w)$, where $w$ is a parameter vector. For a set of independent training data samples $(y_t, x_t), t = 1 \ldots t_{\max}$, the probability of labels for given inputs is defined by the Bayesian integrals
$$\label{eq:BayesianIntegral1}
B (y, \{y_t \}|x, \{x_t \}) = \int P (y|x, w) \prod_t P (y_t |x_t, w) P_0 (w|r) dw,$$
$$\label{eq:BayesianIntegral2}
B (\{y_t \}|\{x_t \}) = \int \prod_t P (y_t |x_t, w) P_0 (w|r) dw,$$
$$\label{eq:PredictionProb}
Prob (y|x) = B (y, \{y_t \}|x, \{x_t \}) / B (\{y_t \}|\{x_t \}),$$
where $P_0 (w|r)$ is a prior probability of parameters $w$ that guarantees existence and convergence of the Bayesian integrals in Equations \[eq:BayesianIntegral1\] and \[eq:BayesianIntegral2\] and it is normalized as follows:
$$\label{eq:PriorProbNormalization}
\int P_0 (w|r) dw = 1.$$
Then the Bayesian integral in the Equation \[eq:BayesianIntegral2\] is equal to a probability of labels $\{y_t\}$ for the given input vectors $\{x_t\}$ of the training set.
The prior distribution $P_0(w|r)$ itself depends on some parameters $r$ (hyper-parameters or regularization parameters). Then the Bayesian integrals in the Equations \[eq:BayesianIntegral1\] and \[eq:BayesianIntegral2\] also depend on regularization parameters $r$. Optimal values of the regularization parameters could be found by maximizing the probability of the training data given by the Bayesian integral in Equation \[eq:BayesianIntegral2\]. This is possible because due to normalization of the prior probability in the Equation \[eq:PriorProbNormalization\], the Bayesian integrals include the contribution of the normalization factor that depends only on regularization parameters $r$. The regularization solution found by maximizing the probability of training data is equivalent to the solution for regularization parameters found by cross-validation.
For the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to estimate values of the Bayesian integrals in the Equations \[eq:BayesianIntegral1\] and \[eq:BayesianIntegral2\] using maximum likelihood approximation (MLA) by finding a solution $w_m$ that maximizes log-likelihood of the training set that includes the prior probability of parameters $w$:
$$\label{eq:MLAsolution}
w_m = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_w L(w), L (w) = \left\{ \ln (P_0 (w)) + \sum_t \ln (P(y_t |x_t, w)) \right\} .$$
Then the Bayesian integral can be approximated by the maximum likelihood as follows
$$\label{eq:MLAintegral}
B (\{y_t \}|\{x_t \}) \approx \exp (L (w_m)).$$
Training and sampling noise
===========================
The training data are always a limited-size set or a selection from a limited-size set. For that reason it contains a sampling noise. The sampling noise affects solutions. This is easy to see by sub-sampling the training data: for each sampled training set the MLA solution is different in the Equation \[eq:MLAsolution\] as well as the value of the Bayesian integral $B$ in the Equation \[eq:MLAintegral\].
Our goal is to find a solution that is the least dependent on the sampling noise and better represents an actual statistics of a source.
To achieve that, we can sample the training data to create a set of the training sets $\left\{ T_s, s = 1 \ldots 2^{t_{\max}} \right\}$ and then find an MLA solution $w_s$ for each sampled training set $\left\{ y_t, x_t, t \in T_s
\right\}$.
$$\label{eq:MLAsolutionS}
w_s = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_w \left\{ \ln (P_0 (w)) + \sum_{t \in T_s} \ln (P (y_t |x_t, w)) \right\}, B_s \approx \exp ( L(w_s) ) .$$
Now we have a set of solutions $\left\{ w_s \right\} $ which is a noisy representation of a source statistics. The probability of each solution is given by the value of the Bayesian integral on the solution and is equal to
$$\label{eq:SolutionProb}
Prob(w_s) = e^{L \left( w_s \right)} / \sum_{s'} e^{L \left( w_{s'} \right)} .$$
The solution distribution in the Equation \[eq:SolutionProb\] is based on sampling of the original training data set. It is a variant of a bootstrap technique [@hastie_09_elements-of.statistical-learning]. This type of methods is actively used in different forms to improve training and to find a robust solution, that is less dependent on a sampling noise in the original training set. For example, see the dropout method that randomly omits hidden features during training [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1207-0580] or the method of adding artificial noise or a corruption to a training data [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1305-6663].
Instead of trying to find a single best solution we use the bootstrap method here to obtain a distribution of solutions.
Distribution of solutions
=========================
Let’s consider the set of solutions in the Equation \[eq:MLAsolutionS\] as samples from unknown distribution of solutions, where each solution $w_s$ has a weight $\exp \left( L \left( w_s
\right) \right)$ and the probability of the solution is given by the Equation \[eq:SolutionProb\].
Then we can model this distribution of solutions by proposing a probability function $Prob \left( w_s \left| z \right.
\right)$ with parameters $z$, which we can find by maximizing by $z$ the following log-likelihood
$$\sum_s e^{L \left( w_s \right)} \ln \left( Prob \left( w_s \left| z \right. \right) \right) / \sum_s e^{L \left( w_s \right)} .$$
Up until now we did not specify the model class distribution $P
\left( y \left| x, w \right. \right)$. For the following consideration, we will use logistic regression for model class distribution with binary label $y = 0, 1$ as follows
$$\label{eq:modelLogit}
P \left( y \left| x, w \right. \right) = \frac{\exp \left( y\mathbf{w}
\cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) \right)}{1 + \exp \left( \mathbf{w}
\cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) \right)} ,$$
where $\mathbf{w} \cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) = w_0 + \sum_i w_1^i
x^i$ is a product of the parameter vector $\mathbf{w}$ with the feature vector $\mathbf{f} \left( x \right)$ which includes a bias feature 1.
The use of the logistic regression here is not a limitation on the possible models. It is selected only for certainty and to avoid an unnecessary complication of the consideration. As we will see the following approach is applicable to any model class distribution that is a function of a scalar product of a feature vector and a parameter vector. Also it could be used for a model class distribution that is a function of multiple products of a feature vector and parameter vectors.
Using the Equation \[eq:modelLogit\] we will find a set of solutions defined in the Equation \[eq:MLAsolutionS\] for each corresponding training set $ T_s $.
To model the distribution of solutions we will start by considering Gaussian model for the distribution of solutions $Prob\left( w_s \left| z \right. \right)$.
Then the model is defined by mean
$$\label{eq:meanSolution}
\langle w \rangle = \sum_s w_s e^{L \left( w_s \right)} / \sum_s e^{L \left( w_s \right)}$$
and covariance matrix
$$cov \left( w \right) = \langle \left( w - \langle w \rangle \right) \otimes \left( w - \langle w \rangle \right) \rangle =$$ $$\label{eq:covSolution}
\sum_s \left( w_s - \langle w \rangle \right) \otimes \left( w_s - \langle w \rangle \right) e^{L \left( w_s \right)} / \sum_s e^{L \left( w_s \right)} .$$
We will use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to separate important solutions from noise. That leads to the following representation of the parameter vector $w$:
$$\label{eq:PCAparameters}
\mathbf{w} = \mathbf{V_0} + \sum_{\alpha} V_1^{\alpha} \mathbf{U_{\alpha}},$$
where $\mathbf{V_0} = \langle \mathbf{w} \rangle$ and $\mathbf{U_{\alpha}}$ are selected eigenvectors of the covariance matrix $cov \left( w \right)$ indexed by $\alpha$. The coordinates $V_1^{\alpha}$ span over the principal-component subspace that is defined by selected eigenvectors. The selected eigenvectors correspond to a high-variance subspace, where eigenvalues of the covariance matrix $cov \left( w \right)$ are larger than a certain threshold. The value of the threshold for selecting the principal components is a hyper-parameter that controls the dimension of the principal component space, which in practice is constrained by the available memory.
Iterating over sequence of models
=================================
The important property of the model class probability distribution is a parameter - feature duality: the parameters $w$ for the model class distribution $P \left( y \left| x, w \right. \right)$ are used only in a product form
$$\label{eq:origProduct}
\mathbf{w} \cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) = w_0 + \sum_i w_1^i x^i,$$
where $\mathbf{f} \left( x \right)$ are the original features.
By considering solutions that are limited to the principal component space we can find that the product is given by the following Equation
$$\label{eq:parFeatureProd}
\mathbf{w} \cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) = \left( \mathbf{V}_0
\cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) \right) + \sum_{\alpha} V_1^{\alpha}
\left( \mathbf{U}_{\alpha} \cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) \right) .$$
We will have exactly the same product form here as in the Equation \[eq:origProduct\] when we will define new features $F_0(x), F_{\alpha}(x)$ via original features $\mathbf{f}(x)$ as follows
$$\label{eq:reDefinedFeatures}
F_0 \left( x \right) = \left( \mathbf{V}_0 \cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x
\right) \right)/| \mathbf{V}_0 | , F_{\alpha} \left( x \right) =
\left( \mathbf{U}_{\alpha} \cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) \right),$$
so the parameter-feature product will look like this
$$\label{eq:newProduct}
\mathbf{w} \cdot \mathbf{f} \left( x \right) = V_0 F_0 \left( x \right) +
\sum_{\alpha} V_1^{\alpha} F_{\alpha} \left( x \right),$$
where now $V_0$ and $V_1^{\alpha}$ are new parameters for the model class distribution with re-defined super-features $F_0(x), F_{\alpha} \left( x \right)$ from the Equation \[eq:reDefinedFeatures\].
The result of this step is that using PCA and redefining features we reduced the original parameter space to a new smaller space.
Let’s now extend the parameter-feature space by adding products of the super-features
$$\label{eq:extendingFeatures}
\mathbf{w} \cdot \mathbf{f}(x) \rightarrow V_0 F_0(x)
+ \sum_{\alpha} V_1^{\alpha} F_{\alpha}(x) + V_2^{0 0}F_0(x)^2
+ \sum_{\alpha} V_2^{0 \alpha} F_0(x) F_{\alpha}(x)
+ \sum_{\alpha, \beta} V_2^{\alpha \beta} F_{\alpha}(x) F_{\beta}(x).$$
By extending the feature space in the Equation \[eq:extendingFeatures\], we increased the dimension of the parameter space by adding new parameters $ V_2 $ and creating new features as non-linear (quadratic) functions of the previous features.
Now we can repeat the iteration cycle, which consists of the steps in the Table \[tab:iteration\].
--- ----------------------------------------------------
- sample data
- get solution set
- select principal components
- redefine features
- extend feature set by adding products of features.
--- ----------------------------------------------------
: Iteration cycle[]{data-label="tab:iteration"}
It is important to emphasize that
At each iteration we have a model that is defined on a new feature space and has a limited defined number of dimensions in its parameter space.
At each iteration the feature space is a non-linear map of the original feature space.
Each iteration makes new super-features to be higher degree polynomials of the original basic features.
After $N$ iterations new features are $2^N$-degree polynomials of the original features.
The expansions of the feature set by adding products of features were used in recently proposed sum-product networks [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1202-3732] and Neural Tensor Networks [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1301-3618].
Feature Algebra
===============
To simplify notations, let’s allow the feature indices $\alpha, \beta$ to include value $0$. Then the Equation \[eq:extendingFeatures\] will look like this
$$\label{eq:extendingFeaturesNewAlpha}
\mathbf{w} \cdot \mathbf{f}(x) \rightarrow \sum_{\alpha} V_1^{\alpha} F_{\alpha}(x)
+ \sum_{\alpha, \beta} V_2^{\alpha \beta} F_{\alpha}(x) F_{\beta}(x).$$
The iterations will converge when the product of super-features $F_{\alpha} \left(
x \right)$ in the Equation \[eq:extendingFeaturesNewAlpha\] could be expressed only as a linear combination of the super-features
$$\label{eq:fAlgebra}
F_{\alpha} \left( x \right) F_{\beta} \left( x \right) = \sum_{\gamma}
C_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma} F_{\gamma} \left( x \right),$$
where for $\alpha=0$ the super-feature $F_{\alpha}(x)$ is the bias super-feature $F_0(x)$.
The Equation \[eq:fAlgebra\] defines a feature algebra with structure constants $C_{\alpha
\beta}^{\gamma}$.
The feature algebra has following important properties:
1. It must be associative:
$$F_{\alpha} \left( x \right) \left( F_{\beta}
\left( x \right) F_{\gamma} \left( x \right) \right) = \left( F_{\alpha}
\left( x \right) F_{\beta} \left( x \right) \right) F_{\gamma} \left( x
\right),$$
that property leads to major equations for structure constants:
$$\label{eq:structureConstants}
\sum_{\mu} C_{\alpha \beta}^{\mu} C_{\mu \gamma}^{\nu} = \sum_{\mu}
C_{\alpha \mu}^{\nu} C_{\beta \gamma}^{\mu};$$
2. The super-feature space with the feature algebra is a complete linear vector space: due to the algebra, any function $g(F)$ on the super-feature space representable by power series is equal to a linear combination of the super-features with computable coefficients $A_{\alpha}$:
$$\label{eq:falgSpaceLinearity}
g \left( F \left( x \right) \right) = \sum_{\alpha} A_{\alpha}
F_{\alpha} \left( x \right) .$$
The feature algebra defined by the Equation \[eq:fAlgebra\] is not limited to polynomial functions, it could be any function set that satisfies the algebra Equation \[eq:fAlgebra\] with structure constants that are a solution of the Equation \[eq:structureConstants\].
Simple examples of algebras that are defined by Equations \[eq:fAlgebra\] and \[eq:structureConstants\] are complex numbers and quaternions. Less trivial examples of such algebras are operator algebras that were successfully used in Statistical Physics of Phase Transitions and Quantum Field Theory.
Conclusions
===========
We proposed an iterative procedure for generating non-linear features (super-features) that are high-degree polynomials on the original feature space after a finite number of iterations.
For a finite number of iterations, the non-linear super-features are defined by sets of principal components selected at each iteration.
By selecting a small set of principal components, the dimensionality of a feature space is limited at each iteration while resulting super-features are highly non-linear (as polynomials of exponentially high with number of iterations degree). That contrasts with an approach when high-degree polynomials are used as the original features - which requires to find a solution for an exponentially high-dimensional model.
In the limit of infinite iterations, the super-features form a linear vector space with an associative algebra.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
I am grateful to my wife Yelena for support.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Ângela Mestre[^1], Robert Oeckl[^2]\
\
Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM Campus Morelia,\
C. P. 58190, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
bibliography:
- 'stdrefs.bib'
date: |
24 May 2005\
27 January 2006 (v2)
title: '**Combinatorics of $n$-point functions via Hopf algebra in quantum field theory**'
---
[^1]: email: [email protected]
[^2]: email: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The canonical duality theory has provided with a unified analytic solution to a range of discrete and continuous problems in global optimization, which can transform a nonconvex primal problem to a concave maximization dual problem over a convex domain without duality gap. This paper shows that under certain conditions, this canonical dual problem is equivalent to the standard semi-definite programming (SDP) problem, which can be solved by well-developed software packages. In order to avoid certain difficulties of using the SDP method, four strategies are proposed based on unconstrained approaches, which can be used to develop algorithms for solving some challenging problems. Applications are illustrated by fourth-order polynomials benchmark optimization problems.
Global optimization; Optimization algorithms; Canonical duality theory;
author:
- |
Xiaojun Zhou$^{\dag}$$^{\ddag}$[^1] and Chunhua Yang$^{\ddag}$\
$^{\dag}$[*[School of Science, Information Technology and Engineering, University of Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia]{}*]{}; $^{\ddag}$[*[School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China]{}*]{}\
title: |
Four strategies to develop canonical dual algorithms for\
global optimization problems
---
Introduction and motivation {#intro}
===========================
Numerical optimization methods are usually categorized into deterministic and stochastic, both of them have found extensive applications in real-world problems [@hendrix; @shmoys]. The deterministic methods such as Newton’s method were considered as “local search" because they are dependent on initial point to a large extent and finally arrive at the “neighborhood" of the initial point, while the stochastic methods such as genetic algorithm were regarded as “global search" due to their search ability on the whole space. However, the premature convergence and easily getting trapped into local optimum are common phenomena for stochastic algorithms [@back; @bentley]. On the other hand, some deterministic global optimization algorithms have been proposed in recent years, and they are able to solve much general optimization problems such as nonconvex continuous, mixed-integer, differential-algebraic, bilevel, and non-factorable problems [@floudas]. The development of deterministic and stochastic just indicate what the “No Free Lunch Theorems" means, that is, there exists no algorithm which is better than its competitor over all problems [@wolpert].\
In the meanwhile, a novel global optimization theory called the [*canonical duality theory*]{} has been developed during the past 20 years. The kernels of the theory consist of a canonical dual transformation methodology, a complementary-dual principle, and a triality theory [@gao1; @gao2]. The main merit is that this theory can transform nonconvex/nonsmoonth/discrete optimization/variational problems into continuous concave maximization problems over convex domains, which can be solved easily, under certain conditions, by many well-developed algorithms and softwares. Therefore, the canonical duality theory has been used successfully for solving a large class of challenging problems in computational biology [@zgy], engineering mechanics [@Gao-Sherali-AMMA09; @gao-yu2008; @santos-gao], information theory [@latorre-gao], network communications [@gao3], nonlinear dynamical systems [@ruan-gao-ima], and some NP-hard problems in global optimization [@fang-gaoetal07; @gao2010; @gao-watsonetal; @wangetal].\
However, it was realized that the canonical dual problem may have no critical point in the dual feasible space and in this case, the primal problem could be NP-hard [@gao-jimo07]. By introducing a linear perturbation term to the primal problem or a quadratic perturbation term to the dual problem, the issue can be partially tackled with to some extent but is still an open problem [@wangetal]. For one thing, it is not easy to find such an appropriate perturbation. For another, only approximate solution is obtained due to the perturbation. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly that solving a constrained optimization problem (a continuous concave maximization problem over convex domain) is much more difficult than an unconstrained one. Therefore, some approaches, such as the penalty function method, aim to convert a constrained minimization problem into an equivalent unconstrained one to reduce the computational complexity.\
As is known to us, for nonconvex optimization problem, methods based on gradient are dependent on initial point, and choosing a good initial point can reach a good solution in the end. To overcome local optimality, it usually requires some type of diversification to find the global optimum. For instance, the multi-start methods, which are applied by starting from multiple random initial solutions, are widely used to realize diversification [@marti]. However, it remains hard to construct good initial solutions.\
Fortunately, the global optimality condition contained in triality theory, can identify the global minimum, which provides with greatly useful information to select a good initial point and can be utilized to develop related canonical dual algorithms. In this study, we show that, under certain conditions, the canonical dual problem is essentially equivalent to the standard semi-definite programming (SDP) problem and then be solved by well-developed software packages, such as SeDuMi [@sturn]. In the case that the canonical dual problem has no critical point, four strategies are proposed to develop efficient algorithms based on unconstrained approaches by using the core points of canonical dual transformation methodology, complementary-dual principle and global optimality condition. A series of fourth-order polynomials benchmark optimization problems are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed strategies.
A brief review of canonical duality theory {#sec:1}
==========================================
For the completeness of this paper, we give a brief review of the following fourth-order polynomials minimization problem (primal problem) in @gao3: $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{P}): \min \Big\{ P(\mathbf{x}) = W(\mathbf{x}) + \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^TQ\mathbf{x} -\mathbf{x}^T\mathbf{f}:\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
W(\mathbf{x})= \sum_{k=1}^{m} \frac{1}{2} \alpha_k \Big(\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^TA_k\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b}^T_kx + c_k \Big)^2,\end{aligned}$$ and $A_k = A^T_k, Q = Q^T \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ are indefinite symmetrical matrices, $\mathbf{b}_k,\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ are given vectors, $\alpha_k, c_k \in \mathbb{R}$ are known constants. Without loss of much generality, the $\alpha_k$ is assumed to be positive.\
The standard canonical dual transformation methodology consists of the following three procedures.
Canonical dual transformation
-----------------------------
Introducing a nonlinear operator(a Gâteaux differentiable geometrical measure) $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\xi} = (\xi_1,\cdots,\xi_m)^T = \mathrm{\Lambda}(\mathbf{x}) = \Big\{ \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{x}^T A_k \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b}^T_k \mathbf{x} + c_k \Big\}^m: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_a \subset \mathbb{R}^m\end{aligned}$$ so that $W(\mathbf{x})$ can be recast by: $$\begin{aligned}
W(\mathbf{x}) = V(\mathrm{\Lambda}(\mathbf{x})),\end{aligned}$$ where, $V(\bm{\xi})$ is said to be a canonical function and in this case $$\begin{aligned}
V(\bm{\xi}) = \sum_{k=1}^{m} \frac{1}{2} \alpha_k \xi^2_k = \frac{1}{2} \bm\alpha^T(\bm\xi \circ \bm\xi),\end{aligned}$$ in which, $\bm\alpha = (\alpha_1, \cdots, \alpha_m)^T$, the notation $\mathbf{s} \circ \mathbf{t} = (s_1 s_1, \cdots, s_m s_m)^T$ denotes the Hadamard product for any two vectors $\mathbf{s}$, $\mathbf{t} \in \mathbb{R}^m$.\
Then, the primal problem can be rewritten as the canonical form: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n} \Big\{ P(\mathbf{x}) = V(\mathrm{\Lambda}(\mathbf{x})) - U(\mathbf{x}) \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $U(\mathbf{x}) = - \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^TQ\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{x}^T\mathbf{f}$.
Generalized complementary function
----------------------------------
The dual variable $\bm\varsigma$ to $\bm\xi$ is defined by the duality mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\bm \varsigma = (\varsigma_1, \cdots, \varsigma_m) = \nabla V(\bm{\xi}) = \bm\alpha \circ \bm\xi:\mathcal{E}_a \rightarrow \mathcal{E}^{*}_a \subset \mathbb{R}^m.\end{aligned}$$ For the given canonical function $V(\bm{\xi})$, the Legendre conjugate $V^{\ast}(\bm \varsigma)$ can be defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\ast}(\bm{\varsigma}) = \underset{\bm{\xi}}{\mathrm{sta}}\{\bm{\xi}^T\bm{\varsigma} - V(\bm{\xi})\} = \sum_{k=1}^{m}\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{-1}_k \varsigma^2_k,\end{aligned}$$ where, sta$\{\cdot\}$ stands for finding stationary point of the statement in $\{\cdot\}$. The $(\bm \xi,\bm \varsigma)$ forms a canonical duality pair and the following canonical duality relations hold on $\mathcal{E}_a \times \mathcal{E}^{*}_a$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\varsigma} = \nabla V(\bm{\xi}) \Leftrightarrow \bm{\xi} = \nabla V^{\ast}(\bm{\varsigma}) \Leftrightarrow V(\bm{\xi}) + V^{\ast}(\bm{\varsigma}) = \bm{\xi}^T \bm{\varsigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $W(\mathbf{x})= V(\mathrm{\Lambda}(\mathbf{x}))$ by $\mathrm{\Lambda}^T(\mathbf{x})\bm{\varsigma} - V^{\ast}(\bm{\varsigma})$, the generalized complementary function can be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm{\varsigma}) &=& \mathrm{\Lambda}^T(\mathbf{x})\bm{\varsigma} - V^{\ast}(\bm{\varsigma}) - U(\mathbf{x}) \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{k=1}^{m} \Big[\Big(\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^TA_k\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b}^T_k \mathbf{x} + c_k \Big) \varsigma_k -\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{-1}_k \varsigma^2_k\Big] + \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^TQ\mathbf{x} -\mathbf{x}^T\mathbf{f}. ~~\end{aligned}$$
Canonical dual function
-----------------------
By using the generalized complementary function, the canonical dual function $P^d(\bm{\varsigma})$ can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
P^d(\bm{\varsigma}) = \underset{\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{sta}}\{\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm{\varsigma})\}.\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed $\bm{\varsigma}$, the stationary condition $\nabla\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm{\varsigma})$ leads to the canonical equilibrium equation: $$\begin{aligned}
G(\bm{\varsigma}) \mathbf{x} = F(\bm{\varsigma}),\end{aligned}$$ in which, $G(\bm{\varsigma}) = Q + \sum_{k=1}^{m} \varsigma_k A_k$, $F(\bm{\varsigma}) = \mathbf{f} - \sum_{k=1}^{m} \varsigma_k \mathbf{b}_k$. For any given $\bm\varsigma$, if $F(\bm{\varsigma})$ is in the column space of $G(\bm{\varsigma})$, denoted by $\mathcal{C}_{ol}(G(\bm{\varsigma}))$, i.e., a linear space spanned by the columns of $G(\bm{\varsigma})$, the solution of the canonical equilibrium equation can be well defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{x} = G^{\dagger}(\bm{\varsigma})F(\bm{\varsigma}),\end{aligned}$$ where, $G^{\dagger}(\bm{\varsigma})$ denotes the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of $G(\bm{\varsigma})$.\
Then, the canonical dual function can be written explicitly as follows $$\begin{aligned}
P^d(\bm{\varsigma}) = \sum_{k=1}^{m}\Big(c_k \varsigma_k - \frac{1}{2} \alpha^{-1}_k \varsigma^2_{k}\Big) - \frac{1}{2} F^T(\bm{\varsigma})G^{\dagger}(\bm{\varsigma})F(\bm{\varsigma}).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the canonical dual problem can be expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{P}^d): \mathrm{sta} \Big\{P^d(\bm{\varsigma}) = \sum_{k=1}^{m}\Big(c_k \varsigma_k - \frac{1}{2} \alpha^{-1}_k \varsigma^2_{k}\Big) - \frac{1}{2} F^T(\bm{\varsigma})G^{\dagger}(\bm{\varsigma})F(\bm{\varsigma}): \bm{\varsigma} \in \mathcal{S}_a\Big\},~~~\end{aligned}$$ where the dual feasible space is defined by $\mathcal{S}_a = \{ \bm{\varsigma} \in \mathbb{R}^m | F(\bm{\varsigma}) \in \mathcal{C}_{ol}(G(\bm{\varsigma}))\}$.\
**Theorem 1** (**Complementary-Dual Principle and Analytical Solution**). The problem $(\mathcal{P}^d)$ is canonically dual to the primal problem $(\mathcal{P})$ in the sense that if $\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}$ is a critical point of $(\mathcal{P}^d)$, then the vector $$\bar{\mathbf{x}} = G^{\dagger}(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})F(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})$$ is a critical point of $(\mathcal{P})$ and $$P(\bar{\mathbf{x}})=P^d(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}) .$$
This theorem shows that the critical solutions to the primal problem depend analytically on the canonical dual solutions and there is no duality gap between the primal problem and its canonical dual.\
**Theorem 2** (**Global Optimality Condition**). Suppose $ \bar{\bm{\varsigma}} $ is a critical point of $P^d( {\bm{\varsigma}})$. If $\bar{\bm{\varsigma}} \in S^{+}_a$, then $\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}$ is a global maximizer of $(\mathcal{P}^d)$ on $S^{+}_a$ if and only if the analytical solution $\bar{\mathbf{x}} = G^{\dagger}(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})F(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}) $ is a global minimizer of $(\mathcal{P})$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$, i.e., $$P(\mathbf{\bar{x}}) = \min_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n}P(\mathbf{x}) \Leftrightarrow \max_{\mathbf{\bm{\varsigma}} \in \mathcal{S}^+_a}P^d(\bm{\varsigma}) = P^d(\mathbf{\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}}),$$ where $$\mathcal{S}^{+}_a = \{\bm \varsigma \in \mathcal{S}_a | G(\bm \varsigma) \succeq 0 \}.$$
This theorem shows that $\bar{\bm{\varsigma}} \in S^{+}_a$ provides a global optimality condition, which can be used to develop algorithms for solving the nonconvex primal problem.
The equivalent semi-definite programming problem
================================================
By Theorem 2, the primal problem is equivalent to the following canonical dual maximization problem ($({\cal P}^d_{\max})$ in short): $$\begin{aligned}
({\cal P}^d_{\max}): \max_{\mathbf{\bm{\varsigma}} \in \mathcal{S}^+_a}P^d(\bm{\varsigma}) = \sum_{k=1}^{m}\Big(c_k \varsigma_k - \frac{1}{2} \alpha^{-1}_k \varsigma^2_{k}\Big) - \frac{1}{2} F^T(\bm{\varsigma})G^{\dagger}(\bm{\varsigma})F(\bm{\varsigma})\end{aligned}$$ In this section, we will show that this problem can be also equivalent to the standard semi-definite programming problem (SDP).\
$$\begin{aligned}
(SDP): \min && \frac{1}{2}t_1 + \frac{1}{2}t_2 - \bm\varsigma^T \mathbf{c} \nonumber \\
\mathrm{subject~to:} &&
\begin{pmatrix}
G(\bm{\varsigma}) & F(\bm{\varsigma}) \nonumber \\
F^T(\bm{\varsigma}) & t_1
\end{pmatrix} \succeq 0, \\
&&
\begin{pmatrix}
Diag\{\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_m\} & \bm{\varsigma} \\
\bm{\varsigma}^T & t_2
\end{pmatrix} \succeq 0.\end{aligned}$$ **Theorem 3** Let $(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}, \bar{t}_1, \bar{t}_2)$ be an optimal solution of problem (SDP), if $G(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}) \succ 0$, then $\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}$ is the unique optimal solution of problem $(\mathcal{P}^d)$ and $\bar{\mathbf{x}} = G^{\dagger}(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})F(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})$ is the unique optimal solution of problem $(\mathcal{P})$. If det($G(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})) = 0$ and $(I - G(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})G^{\dagger}(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}))F(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}) = 0$, then $\bar{\bm{\varsigma}}$ is an optimal solution of problem $(\mathcal{P}^d)$ and $\bar{\mathbf{x}} = G^{\dagger}(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})F(\bar{\bm{\varsigma}})$ is an optimal solution of problem $(\mathcal{P})$. In this case, problem $(\mathcal{P})$ has multiple optimal solutions.\
**Proof**. At first, we relax $({\cal P}^d_{\max})$ to the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\min && \frac{1}{2}t_1 + \frac{1}{2}t_2 - \bm\varsigma^T \mathbf{c} \nonumber \\
\mathrm{subject~to:} && t_1 \geq F^T(\bm{\varsigma})G^{-1}(\bm{\varsigma})F(\bm{\varsigma}), \nonumber \\
&& t_2 \geq \bm{\varsigma}^T Diag\{\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_m\} \bm{\varsigma}, \nonumber \\
&& G(\bm{\sigma}) \succeq 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ where, $\mathbf{c} = [c_1, \dots, c_m]^T$, $Diag\{\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_m\}$ stands for a diagonal matrix with $\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_m$ as its elements.\
**Lemma 1** (Schur complement) Considering the partitioned symmetric matrix $$\begin{aligned}
X = X^T =
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B\\
B^T & C \\
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ if $A \succ 0$, then $X\succeq 0$ if and only if the matrix $C-B^TA^{-1}B\succeq 0 $.\
Using the Schur complement lemma, we can get the equivalent positive (semi) definite programming optimization problem (SDP) consequently according to Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. $\Box$
Four strategies for canonical dual theory
=========================================
Although the canonical dual problem can be transformed into the equivalent semi-definite programming problem and then solved by well-developed software packages, it should be noted that there may be no critical points in the canonical dual feasible domain. Moreover, solving a constrained optimization problem (SDP) is more complicated than an unconstrained one. In this paper, we focus on unconstrained methods, trying to explore efficient and effective algorithms based on the canonical duality theory.\
The canonical duality theory has provided with a unified analytic solution for optimization problems. Obviously, we can firstly find all of the stationary points, and then identify which one is in the canonical dual feasible domain $\mathcal{S}^{+}_a$. As can be seen from the main procedures of canonical dual transformation methodology, we can find that we have to solve stationary problems twice, one is for $\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm{\varsigma})$, and the other is for $P^d(\bm{\varsigma})$. To calculate the stationary points for $\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm \varsigma)$, we have to solve the following nonlinear equations: $${\label{eq:16}}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&G(\bm{\varsigma}) \mathbf{x} = F(\bm{\varsigma}),\\
&\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^TA_k\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b}^T_k \mathbf{x} + c_k = \alpha^{-1}_k \varsigma_k, \forall k = 1,\cdots,m.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Similarly, to find the stationary points for $P^d(\bm{\varsigma})$, we have to solve the nonlinear equations as follows: $${\label{eq:17}}
\frac{1}{2} F^T(\bm{\varsigma})G^{\dagger} A_k G^{\dagger} (\bm{\varsigma}) F(\bm{\varsigma}) + \mathbf{b}^T_k G^{\dagger} (\bm{\varsigma})F(\bm{\varsigma}) + c_k - \alpha^{-1}_k \varsigma_k =0, \forall k = 1,\cdots,m.$$ As the number of variables becomes large, the complexity of computing the stationary problems is also increasing. That is to say, the computing of the stationary points for $\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm{\varsigma})$ will be more complicated than that of $P^d(\bm{\varsigma})$. On the contrary, we can also observe that the solving of stationary points for $P^d(\bm{\varsigma})$ may become more difficult than $\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm{\varsigma})$ due to the inverse of matrix. It indicates that the complexity of solving the two nonlinear equations will be distinctive for different problems, which is the original source of why we design *Strategy 1* and *Strategy 2*.\
Any way, finding stationary points is just one way to solve optimization problems, and we can use iterative method to “search" for global optimum as well. According to the results of canonical duality theory, compared with the primal problem $(\mathcal{P})$, the advantages of solving the canonical dual problem $(\mathcal{P}^d)$ is that $(\mathcal{P}^d)$ can be easily solved by well-developed optimization algorithms because the $(-\mathcal{P}^d)$ is convex on convex domain $\mathcal{S}^{+}_a$. In practice, we find that sometimes the form of $(\mathcal{P}^d)$ may become much more complicated than the primal problem $(\mathcal{P})$, also due to complexity of computing $G^{\dagger}(\bm{\varsigma})$, which is the original source of why we design *Strategy 3* and *Strategy 4*.\
So far, there still exist big issues in practical application. In terms of *Strategy 1* and *Strategy 2*, there may exist numerous stationary points, leading it difficult to identify which one is in the canonical dual feasible domain, while for *Strategy 3*, there will be no canonical dual feasible solutions, making it impossible to substitute back to get solution to the primal problem. If we suppose that there exists a algorithm, once it runs into the “neighborhood" of the canonical dual feasible domain, it will never deviate too far from the “neighborhood", then we can start from an initial point in this “neighborhood" to finally arrive at the global solution according to the close relationship between the solution of dual and that of the primal by the complementary-dual principle, which is the kernel of the proposed four strategies. In this case, there is no need to identify which stationary point is in the canonical dual feasible domain $\mathcal{S}^{+}_a$ and there is also no need to solving a constrained optimization problem, because we can just start from a “good" initial point to solve the nonlinear equations or to find global optimum based on unconstrained approach.\
The detailed strategies of how to use the canonical duality theory above to find a global minimum will be given in the following:\
**Strategy 1**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: *standardization*
Convert the original problem to the standard form of the primal problem discussed in
the paper, and then the parameters of $(\mathcal{P})$ like $\alpha_k, A_k, \mathbf{b}_k, c_k, Q, \mathbf{f}$ will be well defined.
2: *selection*
Select an appropriate $\bm \varsigma_0$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$, and then gain the corresponding
$\mathbf{x}_0 = G^{-1}(\bm \varsigma_0) F(\bm \varsigma_0)$.
3: *nonlinear equations*
Taking $(\mathbf{x}_0,\bm \varsigma_0)$ as initial point, use numerical calculation methods to solve the
nonlinear equations in (\[eq:16\]).
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Strategy 2**
1: *standardization*
Convert the original problem to the standard form of the primal problem discussed in
the paper, and then the parameters of $(\mathcal{P})$ like $\alpha_k, A_k, \mathbf{b}_k, c_k, Q, \mathbf{f}$ will be well defined.
2: *selection*
Select an appropriate $\bm \varsigma_0$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$.
3: *nonlinear equations*
Taking $\bm\varsigma_0$ as initial point, use numerical calculation methods to solve the
nonlinear equations in (\[eq:17\]).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Strategy 3**
1: *standardization*
Convert the original problem to the standard form of the primal problem discussed in
the paper, and then the parameters of $(\mathcal{P})$ like $\alpha_k, A_k, \mathbf{b}_k, c_k, Q, \mathbf{f}$ will be well defined.
2: *selection*
Select an appropriate $\bm \varsigma_0$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$.
3: *numerical optimization*
Taking $\bm \varsigma_0$ as an initial point (or some $\bm \varsigma_0$ as initial population), using numerical
optimization algorithms to optimize the dual problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Strategy 4**
1: *standardization*
Convert the original problem to the standard form of the primal problem discussed in
the paper, and then the parameters of $(\mathcal{P})$ like $\alpha_k, A_k, \mathbf{b}_k, c_k, Q, \mathbf{f}$ will be well defined.
2: *selection*
Select an appropriate $\bm \varsigma_0$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$, and then gain the corresponding
$\mathbf{x}_0 = G^{-1}(\bm \varsigma_0) F(\bm \varsigma_0)$.
3: *numerical optimization*
Taking $\mathbf{x}_0$ as an initial point (or some $\mathbf{x}_0$ as initial population), using numerical
optimization algorithms to optimize the primal problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
**Remark 1.** In the numerical optimization step of *Strategy 3* and *Strategy 4*, some numerical optimization methods may not be able to search just in the “neighborhood", in this case, a penalty function is suggested to add to $(\mathcal{-P}^d)$ or $(\mathcal{P})$ so that $G(\bm \varsigma) \succeq 0$ in the search process.
Numerical results
=================
To testify the effectiveness of the strategies, some fourth-order polynomials benchmark functions are collected, and we will use the proposed strategies to find the global minimum one by one. In this paper, we implement the strategies in MATLAB R2010b on Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2310M CPU @2.10GHz under Window 7 environment, and *fsolve* and *fminunc* built in MATLAB are used to solve nonlinear equations and for numerical optimization, respectively.\
*Example 0* (A special case)\
Considering the following one-dimensional problem $$\begin{aligned}
f_0(x)&& = \frac{1}{2}\alpha(\frac{1}{2}a x^2 + b x + c)^2 + \frac{1}{2}q x^2 - x f. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ we can get the corresponding canonical dual problem easily $$\begin{aligned}
P^{d}_0(\varsigma)&& = c\varsigma - \frac{1}{2\alpha}\varsigma^2 - \frac{(f - b\varsigma)^2}{2(q+a\varsigma)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To be more specific, let fix $\alpha = 1$, $a = 1$, $b = -1$, $c = -2$, $q = -2$, $f = -2$, which is a special case because $x^{*} = G^{-1}(\varsigma)F(\varsigma) = \frac{f-b\varsigma}{q+a\varsigma}=1, \forall \varsigma$, and the graphs of the primal and dual functions are given in Fig.\[fig:f0\].
![graphs of the primal function $f_0(x)$ and its corresponding dual function $P^{d}_0(\varsigma)$[]{data-label="fig:f0"}](f0.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="30.00000%"} ![graphs of the primal function $f_0(x)$ and its corresponding dual function $P^{d}_0(\varsigma)$[]{data-label="fig:f0"}](Pd0.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="30.00000%"}
\
As can be shown in Fig.\[fig:f0\], there is no critical point in the canonical dual feasible domain $G(\varsigma) = -2 + \varsigma > 0$, that is to say, the semi-definite programming software packages will be invalid in this case. For remedy, we can add a small linear perturbation to the primal problem, for instance, $f = f + \triangle $. If $\triangle = 0.05$, the graphs of the primal and dual functions with linear perturbation are given in Fig.\[fig:f0p\].
![graphs of the primal function $f_0(x)$ and its dual function $P^{d}_0(\varsigma)$ with linear perturbation[]{data-label="fig:f0p"}](f0p.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="30.00000%"} ![graphs of the primal function $f_0(x)$ and its dual function $P^{d}_0(\varsigma)$ with linear perturbation[]{data-label="fig:f0p"}](Pd0p.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%" height="30.00000%"}
\
Using SeDuMi to solve the modified canonical dual problem, we can get $\varsigma^{*} = 2.0166$, $x^{*} = G^{-1}(\varsigma)F(\varsigma) = -2.0056$ and $P(x^{*}) = -6.1234$. We can find that there exists small deviation from the global optimum.\
On the other hand, if we choose to use the proposed *Strategy 4*, not starting from the initial point $x_0 = 1$ directly but adding a translation $x_0 = 1 + randn$ (*randn* is the built-in function of the standard normal distribution within MATLAB), we can finally arrive at either $x^{*} = -2$ or $x^{*} = -4$ precisely.\
\
*Example 1* (Colville function) $$\begin{aligned}
f_1&& = 100(x_2 - x^2_1)^2 + (1 - x_1)^2 + 90(x_4 - x^2_3)^2 + (1 - x_3)^2 \nonumber \\
&&+ 10.1((x_2 - 1)^2 + (x_4 - 1)^2) + 19.8(x_2 -1)(x_4 -1). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We firstly rewrite it to the standard form, and then we can get $\alpha_1 = 200, \alpha_2 = 180, A_1 = Diag\{-2,0,0,0\}, A_2 = Diag\{0,0,-2,0\}, \mathbf{b}_1 = [0,1,0,0]^T$, $\mathbf{b}_2 = [0,0,0,1]^T, c_1 = c_2 =0,\mathbf{f} = [2,40,2,40]^T$, and $$\begin{aligned}
Q =
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&0&0\\
0&20.2&0&19.8\\
0&0&2&0\\
0&19.8&0&20.2
\end{pmatrix}, \nonumber
\mathrm{then} \quad
G(\bm \varsigma) =
\begin{pmatrix}
2 -2\varsigma_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 &20.2& 0 &19.8 \\
0 &0 & 2 - 2\varsigma_2 &0 \\
0 &19.8& 0 &20.2
\end{pmatrix}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ *Strategy 1*\
The generalized complementary function is $$\begin{aligned}
&& ~~\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm \varsigma) = (x^2_1 - x_2)\varsigma_1 + (x^2_3 - x_4)\varsigma_2 - \frac{1}{400}\varsigma^2_1 - \frac{1}{360}\varsigma^2_2 \nonumber \\
&&+ (x^2_1 + 10.1x^2_2 + x^2_3 + 10.1x^2_4 + 19.8x_2x_4) - (2x_1 + 40x_2 + 2x_3 + 40x_4) + 42.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We select $\bm \varsigma_0 = (\varsigma_1,\varsigma_2) = (0.5,0.5)$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$ and the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = G(\bm \varsigma_0)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma_0)= (2.0000,0.9875,2.0000,0.9875)$ as initial point $(\mathbf{x}_0, \bm \varsigma_0)$ for the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:16\]), and after 5 iterations with 0.338344 seconds, we obtain $(\mathbf{x}^{*}, \bm \varsigma^{*}) = (1.0000,1.0000,1.0000,1.0000,0.0000,0.0000)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = 0$.\
*Strategy 2*\
The canonical dual function is $$\begin{aligned}
P^d(\bm \varsigma) = && 42 - \frac{1}{400}\varsigma^2_1 - \frac{1}{360}\varsigma^2_2 \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{1}{2} \Big(2, 40 - \varsigma_1, 2, 40 - \varsigma_2\Big)
\begin{pmatrix}
2 -2\varsigma_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 &20.2& 0 &19.8 \\
0 &0 & 2 - 2\varsigma_2 &0 \\
0 &19.8& 0 &20.2
\end{pmatrix}^{+}
\begin{pmatrix}
2\\
40 - \varsigma_1\\
2\\
40 - \varsigma_2
\end{pmatrix}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We select the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = (0.5,0.5)$ for the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:17\]), and after 6 iterations with 0.302655 seconds, we obtain $\bm \varsigma^{*} = (0.0000,0.0000)$. The corresponding $\mathbf{x}^\ast = G(\bm \varsigma^\ast)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma^\ast)= (1,1,1,1)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = 0$.\
*Strategy 3*\
We choose the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = (0.5,0.5)$ as initial point for $(-\mathcal{P}^d)$, and we can finally arrive at $\bm \varsigma^\ast = (0,0)$ with 9 iterations and 0.329829 seconds. The corresponding $\mathbf{x}^\ast = G(\bm \varsigma^\ast)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma^\ast)= (1,1,1,1)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = 0$.\
*Strategy 4*\
We choose the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = (0.5,0.5)$, and then we use the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = G(\bm \varsigma_0)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma_0)= (2.0000,0.9875,2.0000,0.9875)$ as initial point for $P(\mathbf{x})$, and we can finally arrive at $\mathbf{x}^\ast = (1,1,1,1)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = 0$ with 26 iterations and 0.354057 seconds.\
\
*Example 2* (Zettle function) $$\begin{aligned}
f_2 = (x^2_1 + x^2_2 - 2x_1)^2 + 0.25x_1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The landscape of Zettle function is given in Fig. \[fig:zettle\].
![Landscape of Zettle function[]{data-label="fig:zettle"}](f2.eps){width="80.00000%" height="60.00000%"}
\
Firstly, we rewrite it to the standard form, and then we can get $\alpha = 2, A = Diag\{2,2\}, b = [-2,0]^T, c = 0, Q = \mathbf{0}, f = [-0.25,0]^T$, and then $G(\bm \varsigma) = Diag\{2\varsigma_1,2\varsigma_1\}$.\
*Strategy 1*\
The generalized complementary function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm \varsigma) = (\frac{1}{2} (2 x_1^2+2 x_2^2)-2 x_1) \varsigma -\frac{\varsigma^2}{4} + 0.25 x_1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We select $\bm \varsigma_0 = 0.1$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$ and the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = G(\bm \varsigma_0)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma_0)$ $=(-0.2500,0)$ as initial point $(\mathbf{x}_0, \bm \varsigma_0)$ for the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:16\]), and after 3 iterations with 0.290396 seconds, we obtain $(\mathbf{x}^{*}, \bm \varsigma^{*}) = (-0.0299,0,0.1214)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -0.0038$.\
*Strategy 2*\
The canonical dual function is $$\begin{aligned}
P^d(\bm \varsigma) = -\frac{\varsigma^2}{4}-\frac{(2 \varsigma-0.25)^2}{4 \varsigma}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We select the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = 0.1$ for the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:17\]), and after 4 iterations with 0.290140 seconds, we obtain $\bm \varsigma^{*} = 0.1214$. The corresponding $\mathbf{x}^\ast = G(\bm \varsigma^\ast)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma^\ast)= -0.0299$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -0.0038$.\
*Strategy 3*\
We choose the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = 0.1$ as initial point for $(-\mathcal{P}^d)$, and we can finally arrive at $\bm \varsigma^\ast = 0.1214$ with 4 iterations and 0.319423 seconds. The corresponding $\mathbf{x}^\ast = G(\bm \varsigma^\ast)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma^\ast)= (-0.0299,0)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -0.0038$.\
*Strategy 4*\
We choose the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = 0.1$, and then we use the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = G(\bm \varsigma_0)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma_0)$ $=(-0.2500,0)$ as initial point for $P(\mathbf{x})$, and we can finally arrive at $\mathbf{x}^\ast = (-0.0299,0)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -0.0038$ with 5 iterations and 0.309056 seconds.\
\
*Example 3* (Styblinski-Tang function) $$\begin{aligned}
f_3 = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2}(x^4_i - 16x^2_i + 5x_i). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The landscape of Styblinski-Tang function is given in Fig. \[fig:st\].
![Landscape of Styblinski-Tang function[]{data-label="fig:st"}](f3.eps){width="80.00000%" height="60.00000%"}
\
At first, we rewrite it to the standard form, and then we can get $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = 1, A_1 = Diag\{2,0\}, A_2 = Diag\{0,2\}, b_1 = b_2 = \mathbf{0} , c_1 = c_2 = 0, Q = Diag\{-16,-16\}, f = [-2.5,-2.5]^T$, and then $G(\bm \varsigma) = Diag\{-16+2\varsigma_1,-16+2\varsigma_2\}$.\
*Strategy 1*\
The generalized complementary function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm \varsigma) = x_1^2 \varsigma_1+x_2^2 \varsigma_2-\frac{\varsigma_1^2}{2}-\frac{\varsigma_2^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2} \left(-16 x_1^2-16 x_2^2\right) + 2.5 x_1+2.5 x_2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We select $\bm \varsigma_0 = (8.1,8.1)$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$ and the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = G(\bm \varsigma_0)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma_0)$ $=(-12.5,-12.5)$ as initial point $(\mathbf{x}_0, \bm \varsigma_0)$ for the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:16\]), and after 8 iterations with 0.305630 seconds, we obtain $(\mathbf{x}^{*}, \bm \varsigma^{*}) = (-2.9035,-2.9035,8.4305,8.4305)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -78.3323$.\
*Strategy 2*\
The canonical dual function is $$\begin{aligned}
P^d(\bm \varsigma) = -\frac{\varsigma_1^2}{2}-\frac{\varsigma_2^2}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{6.25 \left(-16+2 \varsigma_1\right)}{256-32 \varsigma_1-32 \varsigma_2+4 \varsigma_1 \varsigma_2}+\frac{6.25 \left(-16+2 \varsigma_2\right)}{256-32 \varsigma_1-32 \varsigma_2+4 \varsigma_1 \varsigma_2}\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We select the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = (8.1,8.1)$ for the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:17\]), and after 8 iterations with 0.305489 seconds, we obtain $\bm \varsigma^{*} = (8.4305,8.4305)$. The corresponding $\mathbf{x}^\ast = G(\bm \varsigma^\ast)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma^\ast)= (-2.9035,-2.9035)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -78.3323$.\
*Strategy 3*\
We choose the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = (8.1,8.1)$ as initial point for $(-\mathcal{P}^d)$, and then we can finally arrive at $(\bm\varsigma^{\ast}) = (8.4305,8.4305)$ within 7 iterations and 0.320454 seconds. The corresponding $\mathbf{x}^\ast = G(\bm \varsigma^\ast)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma^\ast)= (-2.9035,-2.9035)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -78.3323$.\
*Strategy 4*\
We choose the same $\bm \varsigma_0 = (8.1,8.1)$, and then we use the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = G(\bm \varsigma_0)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma_0) = (-12.5,-12.5)$ as initial point for $P(\mathbf{x})$, we can finally arrive at $\mathbf{x}^\ast = (-2.9035, -2.9035)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = -78.3323$ with 10 iterations and 0.323847 seconds.\
\
*Example 4* (Rosenbrock function) $$\begin{aligned}
f_4 = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}[100(x_{i+1} - x_i^2)^2 + (x_i - 1)^2]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ At first, we rewrite it to the standard form, and then we can get $\alpha_k = 200, A_k = -2I_{k}, b_k = e_{k+1}, c_k = 0, Q = Diag\{\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{n-1},0\}, f = [\underbrace{2,2,\cdots,2}_{n-1},0]^T$, where $k = 1,2,\cdots,n-1$, $I_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is a diagonal matrix with all zeros except the position $(k,k)$ having value 1 and $e_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a unit vector with all zeros except the position $k$ having value 1. Then we can obtain $G(\bm \varsigma) = Q + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \varsigma_k A_k = Diag\{2 - 2\varsigma_1,2 - 2\varsigma_2,\cdots, 2-2\varsigma_{n-1},0\}$, $F(\bm \varsigma) = f - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \varsigma_k b_k = [2,2-\varsigma_1,\cdots,2-\varsigma_{n-2},-\varsigma_{n-1}]$.\
Without much loss of generality, $ n = 2$ is chosen for simple study, and its corresponding landscape is plotted in Fig.\[fig:1\], in which, the global minimum is located in a long, deep, narrow, banana shaped flat valley.
![Landscape of Rosenbrock function in two dimension[]{data-label="fig:1"}](f4.eps){width="80.00000%" height="60.00000%"}
\
*Strategy 1*\
The generalized complementary function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi(\mathbf{x},\varsigma) = \left(x_2-x_1^2\right) \varsigma-\frac{\varsigma^2}{400}+x_1^2-2 x_1 + 1 \nonumber
% \Xi(\mathbf{x},\bm \varsigma) = \left(x_2-x_1^2\right) \varsigma_1+\left(x_3-x_2^2\right) \varsigma_2-\frac{\varsigma_1^2}{400}-\frac{\varsigma_2^2}{400}+ x_1^2+ x_2^2-2 x_1-2 x_2 + 2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We select $\bm \varsigma_0 = -1$ to make sure that $G(\bm \varsigma_0) \succeq 0$. Using the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse, we can obtain the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = G(\bm \varsigma_0)^{-1} F(\bm \varsigma_0)$ $=(0.5,0)$. Taking $(\mathbf{x}_0, \bm \varsigma_0)$ as initial point for the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:16\]), and after 4 iterations with 0.304920 seconds, we obtain $(\mathbf{x}^{*}, \bm \varsigma^{*}) = (1,1,0)$ and $P(\mathbf{x}^\ast) = 0$.\
*Strategy 2*\
The canonical dual function is $$\begin{aligned}
P^d(\varsigma) = 1 -\frac{\varsigma^2}{400} - \frac{1}{2} \Big(2, -\varsigma \Big)
\begin{pmatrix}
2 -2\varsigma & 0\\
0 &0
\end{pmatrix}^{+}
\begin{pmatrix}
2\\
-\varsigma
\end{pmatrix}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Due to the singularity of matrix $G(\varsigma)$, we can not get a proper form of $P^d(\varsigma)$; thus it becomes difficult to solve the nonlinear equations in (\[eq:17\]).\
*Strategy 3*\
The same situation happens as above, we can choose some possible initial point $\varsigma_0$ to guarantee $G(\varsigma_0) \succeq 0$, but the calculation of the singular matrix is quite complicated.\
*Strategy 4*\
Instead, we choose the same $\varsigma_0$, and using the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse, we can obtain the corresponding $\mathbf{x}_0 = (0.5,0)$ for $P(\mathbf{x})$. Taking $\mathbf{x}_0$ as initial point for $P(\mathbf{x})$, we can finally reach $\mathbf{x}^{\ast} = (1,1)$ within 20 iterations and 0.352472 seconds, and then the corresponding $P(1,1) = 0$.\
Furthermore, we continue to consider the Rosenbrock function in terms of large dimensions. We choose $\bm \varsigma_0 = (-1,\cdots,-1)$ to guarantee $G(\bm\varsigma_0) \succeq 0$, and then get the corresponding initial point $\mathbf{x}_0 = (0.5,\underbrace{0.75,\cdots,0.75}_{n-2},0)$ for $P(\mathbf{x})$. General results of the Rosenbrock function by Strategy 4 are given in Table \[tab:Rosenbrock\].\
[ccccc]{} n & $\mathbf{x}^{\ast}$ & $P(\mathbf{x}^{\ast})$ & iterations & time(s)\
2 & (1,1) & 2.0269e-011 & 20 & 0.352472\
5 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 5.4958e-011 & 29 & 0.405747\
10 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 1.0633e-010 & 31 & 0.409724\
20 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 5.3688e-011 & 37 & 0.423663\
50 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 1.6986e-009 & 42 & 0.554678\
100 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 3.7337e-010 & 50 & 0.727062\
200 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 1.5632e-010 & 55 & 1.329283\
500 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 3.0872e-010 & 54 & 3.508815\
1000 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 5.0893e-010 & 56 & 8.763668\
2000 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 3.7200e-010 & 60 & 28.264277\
3000 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 7.3433e-010 & 62 & 57.669020\
4000 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 1.0350e-009 & 61 & 92.344600\
5000 & (1,$\cdots$,1) & 1.0340e-009 & 66 & 144.069188\
\
Compared the results for the Rosenbrock function with those gained by most popular stochastic methods, like PSO (CLPSO, APSO)[@liang; @zhan] and DE (SaDE)[@qin; @das], we can conclude that the strategy used in this paper by canonical duality theory is much more superior. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time to solve the Rosenbrock function optimization problem up to 5000 dimension in such a short time.\
\
*Example 5* (Dixon and Price function) $$\begin{aligned}
f_5 = (x_1 - 1)^2 + \sum_{i=2}^{n} i (2x_i^2 - x_{i-1})^2. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The landscape of Dixon and Price function is given in Fig. \[fig:dp\].
![Landscape of Dixon and Price function in two dimension[]{data-label="fig:dp"}](f5.eps){width="80.00000%" height="60.00000%"}
\
We firstly rewrite it to the standard form, and then we can get $a_k = 2(k+1)$, $A_k = 4 I_{k+1}$, $b_k = -e_k$, $c_k = 0$, $Q = Diag\{2,\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{n-1}\}$, $f = [2,\underbrace{0,\cdots,0}_{n-1}]^T$, where $k = 1,2,\cdots,n-1$, and then $G(\bm \varsigma) = Q + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \varsigma_k A_k = Diag\{2,4\varsigma_1,\cdots, 4\varsigma_{n-1}\}$, $F(\bm \varsigma) = f - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \varsigma_k b_k = [2+\varsigma_1,\varsigma_2,\cdots,\varsigma_{n-1},0]$.\
It is not difficult to find that, for any dual feasible solution $\bm\varsigma^{*}$, if we substitute back then we will find that the last component of the corresponding $\mathbf{x}^{*}$ will always be zero, which indicates that the first three strategies will be invalid. However, the fourth strategy can still survive if we make some minor revisions. For simplicity, we choose $\bm\varsigma_0 = (2,\cdots,2)$ to make sure $G(\bm\varsigma_0) \succeq 0$, and then get the corresponding initial point $\mathbf{x}_0 = (2,\underbrace{0.25,\cdots,0.25}_{n-2},0)$ for $P(\mathbf{x})$. We don’t use the $\mathbf{x}_0$ directly but translate the point to $\mathbf{x}_0 = \mathbf{x}_0 + 1 = (3,\underbrace{1.25,\cdots,1.25}_{n-2},1)$. Taking the revised initial point for the primal problem, the general results of the Dixon and Price function are given in Table \[tab:DixonPrice\].
[ccccc]{} n & $\mathbf{x}^{\ast}$ & $P(\mathbf{x}^{\ast})$ & iterations & time(s)\
2 & (1,0.7071) & 3.1388e-015 & 12 & 0.213785\
5 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5221) & 8.4890e-014 & 21 & 0.206739\
10 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5007) & 5.4620e-012 & 30 & 0.218370\
20 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 9.1666e-011 & 46 & 0.245217\
50 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 3.4299e-010 & 79 & 0.388959\
100 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 3.6424e-009 & 108 & 0.757873\
200 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 1.0303e-008 & 154 & 1.720907\
500 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 3.1588e-008 & 242 & 7.814894\
1000 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 6.8696e-008 & 342 & 28.862242\
2000 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 1.3657e-007 & 480 & 124.977932\
3000 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 2.4159e-007 & 581 & 270.350883\
4000 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 2.2758e-007 & 675 & 526.158263\
5000 & (1,$\cdots$,0.5000) & 3.5225e-007 & 747 & 854.212220\
Conclusion
==========
To efficiently apply the canonical duality theory for real world problems, four strategies are proposed to develop algorithms based on the theory. The former two strategies should calculate the staionary points, in other words, solving nonlinear equations, while the later strategies use numerical optimization algorithms based on unconstrained methods. Some experimental results are given to illustrate the details of using the four strategies for fourth-order polynomial benchmark functions, and we find that various strategies have different degrees of complexity. To some extent, the canonical duality theory can eliminate the gap between deterministic and stochastic methods. In our future work, we will try to use stochastic methods to design efficient algorithms for the powerful canonical duality theory.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Xiaojun Zhou’s research is supported by China Scholarship Council, and Chunhua Yang is supported by the National Science Found for Distinguished Young Scholars of China (Grant No. 61025015).
[99]{}
Bäck, T., Hammel, U. and Schwefel, H.P., 1997. Evolutionary computation: comments on the history and current state. [*IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation*]{}, 1(1), 3–17.
Bentley, P. J., Gordon, T. G. W., Kim J. and Kumar, S., 2001. New trends in evolutionary computation. [*Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation*]{}, 1, 162–169.
Das, S., Suganthan, P. N., 2011. Differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-the-art. [*IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation*]{}, 15(1), 4–31.
Fang, S.C., Gao D.Y., Sheu R.L. and Wu S.Y., 2008. Canonical dual approach for solving 0-1 quadratic programming problems. [*J. Ind. and Manag. Optim.*]{}, 4, 125–142.
Floudas C.A. and Gounaris C.E., 2009. A review of recent advances in global optimization. [*J.Glob.Optim.*]{}, 45, 3–38.
Gao, D.Y., 2000. [*Duality principles in nonconvex systems: Theory, methods and applications*]{}. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gao, D.Y., 2007. Solutions and optimality criteria to box constrained nonconvex minimization problems. [*Journal Of Industry And Management Optimization*]{}, 3(2), 293–304.
Gao, D.Y., 2009. Caonical duality theory: Unified understanding and generalized solution for global optimization problems. [*Computers and Chemical Engineering*]{}, 33, 1964–1972.
Gao, D.Y., Ruan, N., 2010. Solutions to quadratic minimization problems with box and integer constraints. [*J. Glob. Optim.*]{}, 47, 463–484.
Gao, D.Y., Ruan, N., Pardalos, P.M., 2012a. Canonical dual solutions to sum of fourth-order polynomials minimization problems with applications to sensor network localization. [*Sensors: Theory, Algorithms and Applications*]{}, 61(1), 37–54.
Gao, D.Y. and Sherali, H.D., 2009. Canonical duality: Connection between nonconvex mechanics and global optimization. [*[In]{}*]{}: [*Advances in Appl. Mathematics and Global Optimization*]{}, 249-316, Springer.
Gao, D.Y., Layne T. Watson, L.T., Easterling, D. R., and Thacker, W.I., 2012b. Canonical Dual Approach for Solving Box and Integer Constrained Minimization Problems via a Deterministic Direct Search Algorithm. [*Optim. Methods and Software*]{}, DOI:10.1080/10556788.2011.641125.
Gao, D.Y. and Yu, H.F., 2008. Multi-scale modelling and canonical dual finite element method in phase transitions of solids. [*Int. J. Solids and Structures*]{}, 45, 3660–3673.
Hendrix E.M.T., Toth B.G., 2010. [*Introduction to Nonlinear and Global Optimization*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY USA.
Latorre, V. and Gao, D.Y., 2012. Canonical Duality for Radial Basis Neural Networks. [*Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neural Information Procession*]{}, Nov. 12–15, Doha, Qatar, T. Huang, and C.D. Li (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer.
Liang, J. J., Qin A. K., Suganthan, P.N. and Baskar, S., 2006. Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer for global optimization of multimodal functions. [*IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation*]{}, 10(3), 281–295.
Martí, R., Moreno-Vega, J.M., Duarte, A, 2009. Advanced multi-start methods. [*[In]{}*]{}: [*Handbook of metaheuristics*]{}, Springer Heidelberg.
Qin, A.K., Huang, V.L. and Suganthan, P.N., 2009. Differential evolution algorithm with strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization. [*IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation*]{}, 13(2), 398–417.
Ruan, N. and Gao, D.Y., 2012. Canonical duality approach for non-linear dynamical systems. [*IMA J. Appl. Math*]{}, doi:10.1093/imamat/hxs067.
Santos, H.A.F.A. and Gao D.Y., 2011. Canonical dual finite element method for solving post-buckling problems of a large deformation elastic beam. [*Int. J. Nonlinear Mechanics*]{}, 47(2), 240–247, doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2011.05.012.
Shmoys D.B. and Swamy C., 2004. Stochastic optimization is (almost) as easy as deterministic optimization. [*[In]{}*]{}: [*Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, 228–237.
Sturn, J.F., 1999. Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones. [*Optim. Meth. Softw.*]{}, 11, 625–653.
Wang, Z.B., Fang, S.C., Gao, D.Y., Xing, W.X., 2012. Canonical dual approach to solving the maximum cut problem. [*Journal of Global Optimization*]{}, 54, 341-352.
Wolpert, D.H., 1997. No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. [*IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation*]{}, 1(1), 67–82.
Zhan, Z.H., Zhang, J., Li, Y. and Chung, H.S.H., 2009. Adaptive particle swarm optimization. [*IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-part B: cybernetics*]{}, 39(6), 1362–1381.
Zhang J., Gao, D.Y. and Yearwood, J., 2011. A novel canonical dual computational approach for prion AGAAAAGA amyloid fibril molecular modeling. [*Journal of Theoretical Biology*]{}, 284, 149–157, doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.06.024.
[^1]: $\dag$Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'bibrefs.bib'
---
\[lastpage\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is recalled that closed (isolated) systems are essentially reversible whilst open systems like the Earth, or living beings on it, are irreversible because they are not isolated. Earth and life irreversibility derives from the evolution of the universe, which is a consequence of its special initial conditions. It is stressed that, although relativity theory forbids that information travels faster than light, it does not forbid influences of an event on its past light cone. Therefore the violation of Bell inequalities in loophole-free experiments is compatible with relativity theory. A correlation formula, alternative to Bell’s, is proposed as the starting point for hidden variables models fitting in relativity.'
author:
- |
Emilio Santos\
Departamento de Física, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
date: 'December, 7, 2016 '
title: The arrow of time and the Bell inequalities
---
Introduction
============
Several recent experiments have exhibited the loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality[@Hensen],[@Shalm],[@Giustina]. The result has been interpreted as the “death by experiment for local realism”, this being the hypothesis that “the world is made up of real stuff, existing in space and changing only through local interactions ...about the most intuitive scientific postulate imaginable”[@Wiseman]. In this paper I will argue that the claimed death of local realism requires some refinements.
It is common wisdom that the most celebrated supporter of local realism was Albert Einstein, whence recalling his views may clarify the subject. His opinions about realism will not be commented here (see, e. g. [@Harrigan]), but it is appropriate to comment on his idea about (relativistic) locality, stated as “On one supposition we should, in my opinion, absolutely hold fast: the real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with the system S1 , which is spatially separated from the former.”[@Einstein]. This quotation is usually interpreted as Einstein's support for “relativistic causality”, this used as synonymous of locality. So for instance in the pioneer paper by John Bell[@Bell]. However this interpretation is misleading as explained in the following.
Causality is commonly viewed as the assumption that the present may influence the future, but not the past, which in (special) relativity would mean that an event may be influenced only by events in its past light cone, that is neither by spacelike separated events nor by events in the future light cone. However Einstein sentence did not exclude influences by events in the future light cone. Indeed he was well aware that the laws of physics do not distinguish future from past, as in the often quoted passage from his letter of condolences upon the death of his friend Michele Besso: “Michele has left this strange world just before me. This is of no importance. For us convinced physicists the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion, although a persistent one.”[@EinsteinBesso]. Indeed the concept of temporal causality, stating that an event may influence its future but not its past, is related to our experience as living beings, but it is alien to the laws of physics.
The main purpose of this paper is to stress that a (loophole-free) violation of a Bell inequality does not imply influences between spacelike separated events provided that we allow influences of the future on the past.
The arrow of time vs. microscopic reversibility
===============================================
The name “arrow of time” was introduced by Arthur Eddington in 1927. He wrote “I shall use the phrase time’s arrow to express this one-way property of time which has no analogue in space”[@Eddington]. Thus the arrow of time refers to the distinction between past and future that we observe in nature. At present it is used more specifically with reference to the problem of explaining the irreversibility that we experience, which is not trivial taking into account that the laws of nature are invariant under time reversal (except for a small violation in the decay of some elementary particles like $K$ mesons that will be ignored here). There are many books and articles devoted (or discussing) the arrow of time and a review is out of scope of this paper, where I will only discuss a few points that sometimes have been the source of confusion.
The existence of an arrow of time was formalized by Clausius with the concept of entropy and its postulated increase for any spontaneous evolution of an isolated system. The entropy was introduced in physics as a kind of measure of the “quality” of energy. For instance mechanical and gravitational energy have high quality because they may be transformed completely in other forms, but this is not the case for heat because only a part of it can be transformed in work (mechanical energy). In the particular case of energy transfer taking place exclusively in the form of heat, a simple quantitative calculation of the entropy change, $\Delta S,$ of a system is possible, namely $$\Delta S=\int \frac{dQ}{T}, \label{2.2}$$ $Q$ being the heat entering the system and $T$ the absolute temperature. For other cases the calculation is more involved. Clausius realized that in the processes that are possible in the laboratory the total entropy never decreases. This led to postulate that entropy never decreases in closed systems, that was the first scientific statement about the existence of an arrow of time. For instance if we put a hot body in contact with a cold one the heat goes spontaneously from the former to the latter until they have equal temperature. This fits in the increase of entropy as is easily derived from eq.$\left( \ref{2.2}\right) $ leading to $$\Delta S=\int \frac{dQ}{T_{cold}}-\frac{dQ}{T_{hot}}>0,$$ which is positive taking into account that $dQ>0$ ($dQ<0)$ is defined as energy that enters (leaves) the body and obviously $T_{hot}>T_{cold}.$
The fundamental step towards the solution of the apparent contradiction between the* irreversibility of spontaneous (macroscopic) evolution vs.* *reversibility of the fundamental (microscopic) laws of nature* was made by Boltzmann, who gave a microscopic interpretation of entropy. Boltzmann realized that irreversibility is always associated to macroscopic systems and he proposed that it is due to the tendency towards more probable states in the spontaneous evolution. Then Boltzmann introduced a relation between the entropy, $S$, of a composite system and the number $N$ of microscopic states of the system that correspond to a given macroscopic state, that is $$S=k_{B}\log N, \label{2.3}$$ where $k_{B}$ is today named Boltzmann constant. A standard example is a box divided in two equal parts by a wall with a small hole on it, filled with an amount of gas consisting of $n$ molecules. If we define a microscopic state by specifying which gas molecules are present in each part of the box, there is only one state with all molecules in the left (or in the right). In this state $N=1$ and eq.$\left( \ref{2.3}\right) $ gives $S=0.$ If at time $t=0$ the box starts in this state, after some time $t=T$ there will be several, say $j,$ molecules on the left and $n-j$ on the right. Hence the number of microstates equals the number of ways to choose $j$ molecules amongst $n$, that is $$N=\frac{n!}{j!(n-j)!}>1\Rightarrow S>0.$$ The most probable state will correspond to $j=n/2$ whence, $$S_{\max }=k_{B}\log N_{\max }\simeq k_{B}n\log 2.$$
Boltzmann’s work was one of the great achievements in the history of physics, but it did not solve the problem of the arrow of time as was soon pointed out by several authors, in particular Loschmidt and Poincaré. I think that in order to clarify the subject it is important to distinguish between the evolution of systems in experiments made in the laboratory and whot happens on Earth.
Evolution of closed systems in the laboratory
=============================================
I will speak about LAB experiments in a wide sense, including processes induced by human beings like those of chemical industry. In any case I will refer only to evolution of isolated systems because it is obvious that evolution subject to external influences may present irreversibility induced by them. In the example of the box, commented in the previous section, the irreversibility is related to $$S(T)>S(0).$$ The Loschmidt argument applied to this example is as follows. If the system was isolated since well before $t=0$ it is the case that at time $t=-T$ the gas would be filling both parts of the box. In fact the evolution backwards in time between $t=0$ and $t=-T$ would be identical to the evolution forward in time between between $t=0$ and $t=T$ with all velocities reversed at time $t=0$. Therefore in terms of the entropy we may write $$S(-T)=S(T)>S(0).$$ The reversal of velocities is appropriate for classical mechanical systems consisting particles. In quantum physics the complex conjugation of the wavefunction is substituted for the velocities reversal.
Any reader will immediatily argue that nobody has ever seen an isolated box with a quantity of gas having an homogeneous density (say at time $t=-T$) to evolve spontaneously towards a state with all the gas concentrated in a part of the box (at time $t=0$). This is true, but the point is that we, human beings, are able to prepare a box having gas in only one part and then observe the evolution towards the future, $t=T$, but we are unable to observe towards the past, $t=-T$, the evolution of an isolated system prepared at time $t=0.$* That is, the irreversibility in the LAB is not a feature of the material systems themselves, but it derives from our fundamental irreversibility as living beings.* This irreversibility constrains us to observe what happens at times $t>0$ to a system prepared by us at time $t=0$, but we are unable to prepare an isolated system in such a way that we could observe its evolution towards the past. In section 5 we shall see that apparently there are experiments where it is possible to derive the existence of influences “towards the past” from actual experiments.
The conclusion is that closed (isolated) systems are reversible, this being a straightforward consequence of the reversibility of the fundamental laws of physics. In particular if a system is isolated between times $-T$ and $T$ and at time $t=0$ it is out of equilibrium, then it will be more close to equilibrium both at time $T$ and at time $-T$. Of course this does not apply to the Earth as a whole or to the living beings, including humans, because they are not isolated. This point will be commented in more detail in the next section.
The irreversibility of the Earth, the living beings and the universe.
=====================================================================
Explaining the irreversibility of living beings, including humans, is rather trivial once we know that the universe is expanding. The universe may be assumed an isolated system, governed by reversible laws, but its initial state was very special. In that state it was far from equilibrium and consequently its evolution has been irreversible. The expansion combined with the attractive nature of gravity caused that the initial almost homogeneous plasma evolved giving rise to galaxies and stars. The stars frequently have associated planets giving rise to solar systems. Every planet receives energy from its star, this causing irreversible evolution. Incidentally in a stationary universe the existence of (irreverible) living beings would be difficult to explain except introducing additional assumptions.
Our solar systems was formed about 5 billion years ago. After some period the Earth, initially very hot, became cold arriving at an approximate stationary state with a separation of the solid crust, the sea and the atmosphere. In that cold Earth life surged and then evolved until the appearance of human beings. The evolution in that period has been clearly irreversible and the reason is obvious. The (stationary) Earth is not an isolated system. Asides from minor perturbations, the main cause of irreversibility is the fact that it is receiving energy at high temperatura ($T_{in}\simeq 5800K$) from the Sun and sending away a similar power by radiation at lower temperatura ($T_{out}\simeq 300K$). This produces a net increase of entropy of the universe at a rate $$\frac{dS}{dt}=\frac{W}{T_{out}}-\frac{W}{T_{in}}>0,$$ where $W$ is the average power received from the Sun or emitted by the Earth to outer space. The irreversibility of Earth is responsible for the irreversibility of the living beings, including us. That is life in Earth is an irreversible process because living beings are interacting with the environment and the process increases the entropy.
In summary all closed (isolated) systems are reversible. However any macroscopic system that at a given time, say $t=0$, is out of equilibrium would evolve towards equilibrium both for the past and the future as far as the system remains isolated. This implies that, if we study the system only towards de future it will evolve irreversibly approaching equilibrium. This is the case for the universe as a whole that we can study only *after* the big bang.
Acausality in Bell experiments
==============================
The consequence of the facts commented in the previous sections is that locality interpreted as *relativistic (temporal) causality does not follow from relativity theory* because the theory is time reversal invariant. Therefore if two events $A$ and $B$ are timelike separated it is equally correct to say that $A$ is the cause of $B$ or that $B$ is the cause of $A$. That is the fact that $B$ happens later or earlier than $A$ is irrelevant. Thus in physics we should speak about correlation between timelike events rather than causality. In sharp contrast, in biology or social sciences the concept of causality attached to time ordering is very relevant, the systems studied by these sciences being essentially open and, consequently, irreversible.
In a Bell experiment[@Shalm],[@Giustina] there are two parties, Alice and Bob, measuring some observable property of one particle each. I will label $A(B)$ the observable measured by Alice (Bob). Typically $A$ may be one of two possible photon polarizations and similar for $B$. I shall label the results of the measurements $a$ and $b$ respectively. Pairs of particles in an appropriate (entangled) state are produced in the source. Bell’s proposal for the expectation of the product of observables, $%
\left\langle AB\right\rangle ,$ in what he named “local hidden variables (LHV) model”, was $$\left\langle AB\right\rangle =\int \rho (\lambda )a\left( A,\lambda \right)
b\left( B,\lambda \right) d\lambda , \label{4.0}$$ where $\lambda $ labels the state produced in the source (typically two entangled photons), $\rho $ is the probability density of states and $a(b)$ is the result obtained by Alice (resp. Bob), typically $a=1$ (detection) or $%
a=0$ (absence of detection) and similar for $b$. (Bell considered deterministic LHV models[@Bell], but the generalization to probabilitic models is straightforward[@Santos]). Bell pointed out that the result $a$ should not depend on what Bob is measuring, say $B$, and similarly $b$ should not depend on $A$. In loophole-free tests these conditions are carefully implemented via performing the measurements by Alice and Bob in spacelike separated regions. This requirement was strongly supported by Einstein in the paragraph that we reproduce in the introduction of this paper[@Einstein]. However Bell also demanded that $\rho $ should not depend on $A$ or $B$ (neither on $a$ or $b$), the reason being the fact that the measurements are in the future light cone of the state production on the source, a condition that Bell included under the concept of locality. In order to see more clearly how Bell’s locality condition agrees with (relativistic) causality, we may substitute $\sigma \left( \lambda ,\mu
\right) $ for $\rho (\lambda )$ in eq.$\left( \ref{4.0}\right) $, where $\mu
$ represents all relevant events in the backward light cone with influence in the state preparation (e.g. the properties of the laser and the nonlinear crystal where the entangled photon pair is produced). Therefore Bell’s correlation formula eq.$\left( \ref{4.0}\right) $ may be written more explicitly $$\left\langle AB\right\rangle =\int d\lambda \int d\mu \sigma (\lambda ,\mu
)a\left( A,\lambda \right) b\left( B,\lambda \right) . \label{4.2}$$ It is easy to see that eq.$\left( \ref{4.2}\right) $ implies eq.$\left( \ref
{4.0}\right) $ provided that we identify $$\int d\mu \sigma (\lambda ,\mu )=\rho (\lambda ). \label{4.3}$$
However *influences from the forward light cone are not forbidden by relativity theory*. Thus we should substitute $$\left\langle AB\right\rangle =\int d\lambda \int d\mu \sigma (\lambda ,\mu
,a,b)a\left( A,\lambda \right) b(B,\lambda )$$ for eq.$\left( \ref{4.2}\right) ,$ thus including the possible influence of the most relevant events in the future of the state preparation, namely the absoption, or not, of the corresponding photon by Alice or Bob. With the identification eq.$\left( \ref{4.3}\right) $ this becomes $$\left\langle AB\right\rangle =\int \rho (\lambda ,a,b)a\left( A,\lambda
\right) b\left( B,\lambda \right) d\lambda , \label{4.1}$$ rather than eq.$\left( \ref{4.0}\right) ,$ as appropriate for models of correlation. It may be interpreted saying that the probability of the state in the source depends on whether the photons will be detected or not, which of course depends on what measurement are to perform Alice and Bob, this being governed by the results of two independent random generators[@Shalm],[@Giustina]. In actual experiments the state created in the source is spacelike separated from both random generations and these are spatially separated from each other. However both the state production in the source and Alice's random generation are in the past light cone of Alice measurement, and similar for Bob. Hence eq.$\left( \ref{4.1}\right) $ is consistent with no influences between spacelike separated events, which should be the real meaning of locality.
The experiments[@Shalm],[@Giustina] have refuted eq.$\left( \ref{4.0}%
\right) $ because they have violated its consequence, namely the Bell inequality. In sharp contrast a Bell inequality cannot be derived from eq.$%
\left( \ref{4.1}\right) $. Therefore the theoretical arguments provided in this paper show that the empirical evidence support the thesis that eq.$%
\left( \ref{4.1}\right) $ rather than eq.$\left( \ref{4.0}\right) $ is the correct starting point to understand correlations, including quantum correlations associated to entanglement. Consequently eq.$\left( \ref{4.1}%
\right) $ should be the basis for hidden variables models consistent with relativity theory.
Many people are aware of the fact that the (loophole-free) violation of a Bell inequality seems to create a conflict with relativity theory. The most popular scapes to this conclusion are the following [@Brunner]. Some authors simply reject the need (or even the possibility) of hidden variables models. For other people the solution is more sophisticated, they distinguish superluminal influences from superluminal signals and assume that only the latter are forbidden by relativity theory. Indeed superluminal signals are also forbidden by quantum mechanics (no-signalling theorem). Other solutions less popular are the absolute determinism or the assumption that some (causal) common influence correlates the random generations with the system preparation in the source. The latter would amount to assume that $\lambda $ is correlated with $A$ and/or $B$ due to some events in the common backward light cone, a possibility certainly compatible with relativity but more implausible than eq.$\left( \ref{4.1}\right) $ in my opinion.
In conclusion I propose that the loophole-free violation of the Bell inequality should be interpreted as showing that an event may influence other events on its *past* light cone, whence eq.$\left( \ref{4.1}%
\right) $, rather than the more restrictive eq.$\left( \ref{4.0}\right) ,$ should be the basis for hidden variables models compatible with relativity$.$ Eq.$\left( \ref{4.1}\right) $ might be interpreted in “human language” saying that the system in the source “knows” in advance whether every photon will be “later” detected or not. This statement sounds rather counterintuitive, but it fits in relativity theory. In contrast suggesting that influences may travel with superluminal speed may sound less counterintuitive, but in my opinion violates relativity theory.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics that takes into account the possible influence of the future on the past has been proposed with the name *transactional interpretation* [@Cramer]. The relation of that interpretation with the proposal made here will not be discussed further in this paper.
[99]{} B. Hensen et al., Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km, doi.org/10.1038/*nature* 15759 (2015); arXiv: 1508.05949.
L. K. Shalm et al., A strong loophole-free test of local realism, *Phys. Rev. Lett*. **115**, 250402 (2015); arXiv: 1511.03189.
M. Giustina et al., A significant loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 250401 (2015); arXiv: 1511.03190.
H. Wiseman, Death by experiment for local realism, doi:10.1038/*nature* 15631 (2015).
N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens, Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states, *Found. Phys*. **40**, 125-157 (2010). arXiv: 0706.2661
A. Einstein in *Albert Einstein, Philosopher Scientist,* (Edited by P. A. Schilp) p. 85, Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois, 1949.
J. S. Bell, On the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox, *Physics*, **1,** 195-200 (1964).
A. Einstein in *Correspondence with Michele Besso 1903-1955*, Hermann, Paris, 1979.
A. S. Eddington, *The Nature of the Physical World,* 1928*.* Reprinted University of Michigan, 1981.
E. Santos, Mathematical and physical meaning of the Bell inequalities, *Eur. J. Phys.* **37**, 055402 (2016).
N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani and S. Wehner, Bell
nonlocality. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **86**, 419478 (2014).
J. Cramer, The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, **58**, 647-688 (1968).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a simple and convenient method to yield cylindrical vector (CV) beams and realize its polarization evolution on higher-order Poincaré sphere based on inhomogeneous birefringent metasurface. By means of local polarization transformation of the metasurface, it is possible to convert a light beam with homogeneous elliptical polarization into a vector beam with any desired polarization distribution. The Stokes parameters of the output light are measured to verify our scheme, which show well agreement with the theoretical prediction. Our method may provide a convenient way to generate CV beams, which is expected to have potential applications in encoding information and quantum computation.'
author:
- Yachao Liu
- Xiaohui Ling
- Xunong Yi
- Xinxing Zhou
- Hailu Luo
- Shuangchun Wen
title: 'Realization of polarization evolution on higher-order Poincaré sphere with metasurface'
---
Cylindrical vector (CV) beams are light beams of which the polarization states are arranged with cylindrical symmetry in the beam cross section [@Zhan2009]. A plenty of unique properties originated from their special intrinsic symmetry have distinguished the CV beams from general optical beams with homogeneous polarization. For example, the radially polarized light, a subset of the CV beams, can lead to a strong longitudinal field in the case of strong focusing [@Novotny2001; @Dorn2003]. Because of these particularities, CV beams are expected with a broad applications such as particle trapping [@Zhan2004], high resolution imaging [@Novotny2001], particle acceleration [@Varin2002], and microscopy [@Abouraddy2006].
Similar to the geometric representation of homogeneous polarizations on Poincaré sphere, a prominent geometric representation of the CV beams is provided by the so-called higher-order Poincaré sphere (HOPS) [@Holleczek2011; @Milione2011]. In this geometrical representation rule, higher-order Pancharatnam-Berry phase is demonstrated by cyclic transformation of the CV beams on the HOPS [@Berry1984; @Milione2012]. This phase is geometric in nature and differs significantly from a dynamic phase, which is proportional to light’s total angular momentum. This state evolution will provide an advantage solution to create optical qubits, a single photon carrying several bits of information, which is expected to improve the flexibility of information encoding and simplify quantum computation [@Leek2007]. Nevertheless, there is still not an effective method to generate all the states on HOPS and realize the state evolution. Most efforts including using subwavelength nanostructure [@Bomzon2001; @Beresna2011; @Iwami2012], orientation-tailored liquid crystal [@Marrucci2006; @Chen2011; @Ling2012], interferometry [@Wang2007; @Ruiz2013], laser intracavity devices [@Oron2000], and fiber laser [@Fridman2008; @Zhou2009] have been made to obtain the radial and azimuthal polarized beams, however, the other states are seldom referred to.
In this work, we demonstrate a simple and convenient method to generate the CV beams and realize the evolution of polarization states on the HOPS. It is well known that the cascaded polarizer, quarter-wave plate (QWP), and half-wave plate (HWP) can generate any elliptical polarization state at will [@Damask2005]. Furthermore, by modulating the direction of the optical axis of the QWP/HWP, the polarization can evolve along the longitude/latitude on the surface of the fundamental Poincaré sphere. Analogously, while it comes to the CV beams whose polarization distribution are location-related, a special waveplate with space-variant optical axes should be employed. Fortunately, as a two dimensional electromagnetic nanostructure, metasurface with tailorable structure geometry posseses unparalleled advantages in optical phase [@Ni2013; @Huang2013] and polarization [@Chen2012] manipulation, especially in subwavelength scale [@Yu2011; @Kildishev2013; @Shitrit2013], and is particularly amenable to produce and manipulate the CV beams.
![\[Fig1\] Schematic illustration of the HOPS with (a) $l=+1$ and (b) $l=-1$, respectively. The polarization distribution of four different points on each sphere are shown, and ($\theta$, $\varphi$) are the spherical coordinates of HOPS.](Fig1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
We first consider the polarization transformation of a HWP with its fast and slow optical axes lying parallel to the $xy$ coordinate plane. The Jones matrix of a HWP can be written as $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos{2\Phi} & \sin{2\Phi} \\
\sin{2\Phi} & -\cos{2\Phi}
\end{array} \right),$$ where $\Phi$ is the orientation of the fast optical axis. Without loss of generality, a homogeneous elliptical polarization light is taken into account. It can be represented geometrically on the fundamental Poincaré sphere and algebraically described by the following equation in terms of the azimuthal and polar angles ($\vartheta$, $\alpha$) in the sphere, $$|{\psi}({\vartheta},{\alpha})\rangle=\cos{\left(\frac{\vartheta}{2}\right)}|{R}\rangle{e}^{\textit{i}\sigma\frac{\alpha}{2}}
+\sin{\left(\frac{\vartheta}{2}\right)}|{L}\rangle{e}^{-\textit{i}\sigma\frac{\alpha}{2}}\label{1}.$$ Here $|{R}\rangle=(\hat{x}+\textit{i}\hat{y})/\sqrt{2}$ and $|{L}\rangle=(\hat{x}-\textit{i}\hat{y})/\sqrt{2}$ are respectively the right and left circular polarizations. The constant $\sigma=\pm1$ is associated with the spin angular momentum with $\sigma\hbar$ per photon. When this beam impinges on the HWP at normal incidence, the resulting polarization is still elliptical with its polarization given by $$|{\psi}({\vartheta'},{\alpha'})\rangle=\cos{\left(\frac{\vartheta'}{2}\right)}|{R}\rangle{e}^{-\textit{i}(\sigma\frac{\alpha'}{2}+2\Phi)}
+\sin{\left(\frac{\vartheta'}{2}\right)}|{L}\rangle{e}^{\textit{i}(\sigma\frac{\alpha'}{2}+2\Phi)}\label{2},$$ where $\vartheta'=\pi-\vartheta$, $\alpha'=-\alpha$. It also represents an elliptical polarization located on the point ($\vartheta', \alpha'$) of the fundamental Poincaré sphere. Actually, all the left-handed photons transform into right-handed photons and acquire an additional phase $\exp(\pm2\Phi)$, and vice versa. As a result, the magnitude of the two components have also exchanged.
![\[Fig2\] (a) The experiment setup to generate CV beams. The He-Ne laser produces a linearly polarized light at 632.8nm wavelength (17 mW, Thorlabs HNL210L-EC). GLP, Glan laser polarizer; HWP, half waveplate; QWP, quarter waveplate; CCD, charge-coupled device (Coherent LaserCam HR). (b) Schematic drawing of the optical axes in metasurface. (c) The angular dependence of GLP, QWP, and the generated elliptical polarization.](Fig2.eps){width="8.5cm"}
More interestingly, providing the HWP exhibits a space-variant optical axis direction, e.g., $\Phi=q\phi$ with $\phi=\arctan(y/x)$ the local azimuthal angle and $q$ is an integer or a semi-integer, the phase factor $\exp(\pm2\Phi)$ indicates an optical vortex with its topological charge $l=\pm2q$. As the two orthogonal circular polarization components carry just opposite vortex phase, their coherent superposition actually forms a space-variant, inhomogeneous polarization beam, i.e., CV beam. In this case, Eq. (\[2\]) represents an arbitrary elliptical CV beam on the HOPS (see Fig. \[Fig1\]). This involves three free parameters $\vartheta'$, $\alpha'$, and $\Phi$, which serve as effective ways to manipulate the CV beams. The first two parameters are related to the incident polarization which can be controlled by a polarizer and a QWP \[see Fig. \[Fig2\](a)\]. As $\Phi$ determines the topological charge, with different $\Phi$, the CV beams located on the HOPS with different topological charges $l$. Once the inhomogeneous HWP is manufactured, we can obtain any desired CV beam with a fixed topological charge and realize the polarization evolution on the HOPS.
We now can derive what kind of incident homogenous polarization on the fundamental Poincaré sphere should be given, when a CV beam located on the point ($\vartheta', \alpha'$) of the HOPS is desired. Comparing the Eq. (\[2\]) to (\[1\]), we can easily obtain the relationship: $\vartheta=\pi-\vartheta'$ and $\alpha=-\alpha'$. However, in most cases, it is more effective to characterize the elliptical polarization with azimuth angle $\eta$ and elliptical angle $\delta$. According to our calculation, the $\eta$ and $\delta$ of incident light can be associated with the spherical coordinates ($\vartheta$, $\alpha$) of HOPS in the forms, $${\eta=\alpha'=-\alpha},$$ $${\delta=-\frac{1}{2}(\vartheta-\frac{\pi}{2})}.$$
We implement an experiment to demonstrate this idea. The experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. \[Fig2\](a). First, an elliptical polarization beam is produced by a polarizer (GLP1) and a quarter-wave plate (QWP1), and then passes through a inhomogeneous HWP. The inhomogeneous HWP now can be conveniently realized by an artificial inhomogeneous metasurface which is fabricated by etching space-variant grooves on a fused silica sample using a femtosecond laser [@Beresna2011]. This artificially creates an inhomogeneous form birefringence on the isotropic sample, and the local direction of the optical axes (slow and fast axes) are perpendicular and parallel to the grooves, respectively. This dielectric-based metasurface makes up a converter which can generate a CV beam when an elliptically polarized light is illuminated. To verify the viability of our scheme, we select a metasurface with $q=0.5$ and homogeneous $\pi$ retardation (Altechna). Figure \[Fig2\](b) shows the schematic drawing of the local optical axes. The Stokes parameters of the resulting beam is measured by a typical setup (QWP2, GLP2, and CCD).
By simply rotating the GLP1 or the QWP1, the azimuth angle or the ellipticity of the output elliptical polarization will change continuously, and we can get any elliptical polarization states from the first part of the setup, which is summarily illustrated in the Fig. \[Fig2\](c). The azimuth angle $\eta$ of the output polarization ellipse is the same as the optical axis direction of the QWP1 and the ellipticity angle $\delta$ equals to the relative optical axis direction of the GLP1 and the QWP1. At the same time, the final state output from the metasurface will evolve on HOPS along the latitude or the longitude. In this way, we can generate arbitrary states on HOPS and realized the polarization state evolution on the HOPS.
![\[Fig3\] Normalized Stokes parameters $s_{0}$, $s_{1}$, $s_{2}$, and $s_{3}$. The first and second rows are theoretical and experimental results of point the (1, 0, 0), respectively. The third and forth rows are the theoretical and experimental results corresponding to the point (0, 0, 1). Both points are on the surface of the HOPS ($l=+1$).](Fig3.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![\[Fig4\] The polarization and intensity distribution of the theoretical and experimental results. The first and second rows are respectively the theoretical and experimental results of the points $(1,~0,~0)$, $(-1,~0,~0)$, $(0,~1,~0)$, and $(0,~-1,~0)$ in the order from left to right. The third and forth rows are the corresponding theoretical and experimental results of points $(0,~0,~1)$, $(0,~0,~-1)$, $(0,~\sqrt{2}/{2},~\sqrt{2}/{2})$, and $(0,~\sqrt{2}/{2},~-\sqrt{2}/{2})$. All the points are on the surface of the HOPS ($l=+1$).](Fig4.eps){width="8.5cm"}
To effectively analyze the emerging polarization states, we measured the Stokes parameters. They are a set of indices ($S_0$, $S_1$, $S_2$, and $S_3$) that describe the polarization of light. When the optical axes of the QWP2 and polarizer (GLP2) make up the following combinations, what we get in the CCD camera are exactly the parameters [@Born1997], $$S_{1}=I(0^\circ,0^\circ)-I(90^\circ,90^\circ),$$ $$S_{2}=I(45^\circ,45^\circ)-I(135^\circ,135^\circ),$$ $$S_{3}=I(-45^\circ,0^\circ)-I(45^\circ,0^\circ),$$ where $I(\alpha,\beta)$ represents the intensity what we get when the optical axis of QWP2 is $\alpha$ with the fixed $x$ axis and the polarization direction of GLP2 is $\beta$ with respect to the same $x$ axis. The first Stokes parameter $S_{0}$ is the intensity distribution of the output beam which can be recorded by the CCD without QWP2 and GLP2.
Figure \[Fig3\] shows the normalized Stokes parameters $s_i=S_i/S_0$ ($i=1,2,3$) of two points on the HOPS ($l=+1$). It is known to all that $s_1$ describes the linear polarization in $x$ ($s_i=+1$) or $y$ ($s_i=-1$) direction, $s_2$ linear polarization in $\pm45^{\circ}$ ($s_2=\pm1$) respect to the $x$ direction, and $s_3$ the degree of the circular polarization with $s_3=\pm1$ corresponding to left- and right-handed polarization, respectively. Point (1, 0, 0) on the HOPS represents the radially polarization with axial symmetry \[see Fig. \[Fig1\](a)\]. The $s_1$ and $s_2$ show a four-lobe pattern, with alternative $+s_{1,2}$ and $-s_{1,2}$ components. In this case $s_3$ equals to 0, because the light beam is essential a linear polarization. While for point (0, 0, 1) which locates on the north pole of the HOPS, represents the circularly polarized vortex, so the $s_{1,2}=0$ and the $s_3$ equals to the total intensity of the light ($s_0$). In comparison with the theoretical distribution, the experimental results evidenced that the emerging beams are the desirable CV beams. For further verification, we mapped the polarization distribution. Firstly, we extracted the exact parameter values of any states from the Stokes parameters. Then, according to the relationship of the Stokes parameters and the polarization, the polarization states of the emerging beams are worked out. By depicting the graph of polarization distribution, we intuitively verify that the output beams are the desired CV beams. Figure \[Fig4\] theoretically and experimentally record the polarization states of eight points on the HOPS ($l=+1$). These points compose of two special paths on the sphere, one is on the equator and the other is on the longitude of azimuth angle $\varphi=45^{\circ}$. Comparatively, the experimental results agree well with the theory. The deviation of the experimental results is because that, when extracting the parameter values, it is difficult to ensure the pictures located at the same pixel.
Although our experiments are limited to realizing the state evolution on HOPS with $l=+1$, our scheme is able to produce the states on HOPS with $l=-1$ \[Fig. \[Fig1\](b)\] and other larger $|l|$. It is well known that HWP would inverse the chirality of the passing light [@Damask2005]. By inserting a HWP after the metasurface in our setup, we can change the sign of the topological charge. To generate vector beams with larger topological charge $|l|$, a metasurface with a larger $q$ is needed. In general, it is theoretically possible to produce any states on all HOPSs, by inserting a HWP and a metasurface with suitable $q$ values in our setup.
In conclusion, we have presented a simple and flexible method to produce arbitrary states on HOPS by using a birefringent metasurface. Within our setup, corresponding elliptical polarization can be converted to the desirable CV beam. The experimental results show well agreement with the theoretical ones, which is proved by measuring the Stokes parameters of the tested states. Furthermore, by simply rotating a GLP or QWP in our setup, the produced state will evolve along the latitude or longitude of the HOPS. It is believed that our scheme shall have potential applications in designing vector beams with more complex polarization distribution, encoding information, and quantum computation.
This research was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants Nos. 61025024, 11274106 and 11347120), and the Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department of China (Grant No. 13B003).
Q. Zhan, Adv. Opt. Photon **1**, 1 (2009).
L. Novotny, M. R. Beversluis, K. S. Youngworth, and T. G. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 5251 (2001).
R. Dorn, S. Quabis, and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 233901 (2003).
Q. Zhan, Opt. Express **12**, 3377 (2004).
C. Varin and M. Piche, Appl. Phys. B **74**, S83 (2002).
A. F. Abouraddy and K. C. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 153901 (2006).
A. Holleczek, A. Aiello, C. Gabriel, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Opt. Express **19**, 9714 (2011).
G. Milione, H. I. Sztul, D. A. Nolan, and R. R. Alfano, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 053601 (2011).
M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. A **392**, 45 (1984).
G. Milione, S. Evans, D. A. Nolan, and R. R. Alfano, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 190401 (2012).
P. J. Leek, J. M. Fink, A. Blais, R. Bianchetti, M. Goppl, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and A. Wallra, Science **318**, 1889 (2007).
Z. Bomzon, V. Kleiner, and E. Hasman, Appl. Phys. Lett. **79**, 1587 (2001).
M. Beresna, M. Gecevičius, P. G. Kazansky, and T. Gertus, Appl. Phys. Lett. **98**, 201101 (2008).
K. Iwami, M. Ishii, Y. Kuramochi, K. Ida, and N. Umeda, Appl. Phys. Lett. **101**, 161119 (2012).
L. Marrucci, C. Manzo, and D. Paparo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 163905 (2006).
H. Chen, J. Hao, B. Zhang, J. Xu, J. Ding, and H. Wang, Opt. Lett. **36**, 3179 (2011).
X. Ling, X. Zhou, H. Luo, and S. Wen, Phys. Rev. A. **86**, 053824 (2012).
X. Wang, J. Ding, W. Ni, C. Guo, and H. Wang, Opt. Lett. **32**, 3549 (2007).
U. Ruiz, P. Pagliusi, C. Provenzano, and G. Cipparrone, Appl. Phys. Lett. **102**, 116104 (2013).
R. Oron, S. Blit, N. Davidson, and A. A. Friesem, Appl. Phys. Lett. **77**, 3322 (2000).
M. Fridman, G. Machavariani, N. Davidson, and A. A. Friesem, Appl. Phys. Lett. **93**, 191104 (2008).
R. Zhou, B. Ibarra-Escamilla, J. W. Haus, P. E. Powers, and Q. Zhan, Appl. Phys. Lett. **95**, 191111 (2009).
J. N. Damask, *Polarization Optics in Telecommunications* (Springer, 2005).
X. Ni, A. V. Kildishev, and V. M. Shalaev, Nat. Commun. **4**, 2807 (2013).
L. Huang, X. Chen, H. Mühlenbernd, H. Zhang, S. Chen, B. Bai, Q. Tan, G. Jin, K. Cheah, C. Qiu, J. Li, T. Zentgraf, and S. Zhang, Nat. Commun. **4**, 2808 (2013).
X. Chen, L. Huang, H. Mühlenbernd, G. Li, B. Bai, Q. Tan, G. Jin, C. Qiu, S. Zhang, and T. Zentgraf, Nat. Commun. **3**, 1198 (2012).
N. Yu, P. Genevet, M. A. Kats, F. Aieta, J.-P. Tetienne, F. Capasso, Z. Gaburro, Science **334**, 333 (2011).
A. V. Kildishev, A. Boltasseva, V. M. Shalaev, Science **339**, 1232009 (2013).
N. Shitrit, I. Yulevich, E. Maguid, D. Ozeri, D. Veksler, V. Kleiner, E. Hasman, Science **340**, 724 (2013).
M. Born and E. Wolf, *Principles of Optics* (University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We examine the $X$-ray spectrum from the decay of the dark-matter moduli with mass $\sim {\cal O}(100)$keV, in particular, paying attention to the line spectrum from the moduli trapped in the halo of our galaxy. It is found that with the energy resolution of the current experiments ($\sim 10$%) the line intensity is about twice stronger than that of the continuum spectrum from the moduli that spread in the whole universe. Therefore, in the future experiments with higher energy resolutions it may be possible to detect such line photons. We also investigate the $\gamma$-ray spectrum emitted from the decay of the multi-GeV moduli. It is shown that the emitted photons may form MeV-bump in the $\gamma$-ray spectrum. We also find that if the modulus mass is of the order of 10 GeV, the emitted photons at the peak of the continuum spectrum loses their energy by the scattering and the shape of the spectrum is significantly changed, which makes the constraint weaker than that obtained in the previous works.'
address:
- 'Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Tanashi 188-8502, Japan'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan'
- 'Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Tanashi 188-8502, Japan'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan'
author:
- 'T. Asaka'
- 'J. Hashiba'
- 'M. Kawasaki'
- 'T. Yanagida'
title: 'Spectrum of Background X-rays from Moduli Dark Matter'
---
Introduction
============
Superstring theories[@Green], which may be the most attractive candidates to unify all known interactions including gravity, have a number of flat directions, called moduli fields, in a large class of classical ground states[@Green]. These moduli fields $\phi$ continuously connect infinitely degenerate supersymmetric vacua and they are generally expected to acquire their masses $m_\phi$ of the order of the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ once supersymmetry breaking effects are included[@Carlos-Casas-Quevedo-Roulet].
These moduli fields cause different kinds of cosmological problems [@Coughlan; @K-Y] depending on values of their masses. At present the thermal inflation proposed by Lyth and Stewart [@Lyth-Stewart] seems to be the most plausible solution to the problems. In recent articles[@H-K-Y; @A-H-K-Y], we have shown by postulating the thermal inflation that only two regions of the moduli masses, $m_\phi \lesssim $ 500 keV and $m_\phi \gtrsim {\cal O}$(100) GeV, are cosmologically viable. In particular, the lighter mass region is more interesting since the original Affleck-Dine baryogenesis [@Affleck-Dine] does work here as shown first by de Gauvêa, Moroi and Murayama[@G-M-M]. On the contrary, for $m_\phi \gtrsim {\cal O}$(100) GeV we must invoke a variant type of Affleck-Dine baryogenesis[@S-K-Y] which has not been, however, well investigated yet.
If the moduli masses lie indeed in the region $m_\phi \simeq 10^{-2}$ keV–200 keV there is an intriguing possibility[@A-H-K-Y] that the moduli fields are the dark matter in our universe. Since the thermal inflation produces a tremendous amount of entropy at the late epoch of the universe’s evolution to dilute the moduli density substantially, there seems to be no candidate left for the dark matter beside the moduli themselves [^1]. This would encourage us to consider the hypothesis of moduli being the dark matter in the universe.
In this paper we calculate spectrum of background X-rays emitted from the moduli dark matter and find that the spectrum is constituted of two distinct parts: one comes from the cosmic moduli filling homogeneously the whole universe and the other from the moduli condensed on the dark halo in our galaxy. The former has a relatively broad spectrum due to the redshift effect and the latter has a peak in the energy spectrum. We show that the peak in the X-ray spectrum can be detectable in future experiments if the moduli masses $m_\phi$ are around 100 keV. We also briefly comment on $\gamma$-ray spectrum emitted from more massive moduli of $m_\phi \simeq$ 1 – 10GeV, since this multi-GeV mass region is marginally allowed [@H-K-Y; @A-H-K-Y] if one assumes somewhat smaller values of the initial amplitudes of moduli fields, $\phi_0 \simeq$ (0.01 – 0.1)$M_G$, where $M_G$ is the gravitational scale $M_G \simeq 2.4 \times 10^{18}$ GeV. We find that the $\gamma$-rays emitted from such moduli make a large bump in multi-MeV region and the shape of the spectrum depends heavily on the masses of moduli.
Cosmological moduli problem and the thermal inflation
=====================================================
In this section we briefly review the previous works [@H-K-Y; @A-H-K-Y] and show that only two mass regions such as $m_\phi \lesssim$ 500 keV and $m_\phi \gtrsim {\cal O}$(100) GeV survive various cosmological constraints. We assume $m_\phi \simeq m_{3/2}$ throughout this paper.
Let us start with the cosmological moduli problems. As mentioned in the introduction the moduli fields of masses in the range of keV-TeV cause different kinds of cosmological problems [@Coughlan; @Carlos-Casas-Quevedo-Roulet; @K-Y] depending on their masses. On one hand, the moduli with masses ${\cal O}$(100) GeV $
\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim {\cal O}$(1) TeV decay soon after nucleosynthesis and in consequence spoil the success of big-bang nucleosynthesis. On the other hand, the moduli with masses $m_\phi
\lesssim$ 1 GeV are entangled with the problem that the abundance of moduli themselves overcloses the present universe, or the radiation expected from their decay may exceed the observed cosmic X($\gamma$)-ray backgrounds. In any case, one finds it difficult to solve these problems as far as one is concerned with the standard cosmology.
We give now a brief account of the thermal inflation which is thought to be the only mechanism to overcome the above problems. In their original paper, Lyth and Stewart[@Lyth-Stewart] proposed a solution for the case of moduli masses ${\cal O}$(100) GeV $ \lesssim
m_\phi \lesssim {\cal O}$(1) TeV, that corresponds to hidden sector supersymmetry breaking models [@Nilles]. Thus, let us restrict ourselves in the following discussion to the mass region $10^{-2}$ keV $\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim$ 10 GeV, that is relevant to gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking models [@Giudice].[^2] When we discuss the abundance of moduli energy density $\rho_\phi$, it is convenient to introduce a ratio $\rho_\phi / s$, where $s$ is the entropy density, since this quantity is invariant under the universe’s evolution as long as no entropy is produced. Then the problems stated above are reexpressed as that the present value of the ratio $\rho_\phi / s$ is predicted to be greater than the ratio $\rho_c / s$, where $\rho_c$ is the critical density of the present universe, by typical factors of $10^{11}$ – $10^{16}$. If the thermal inflation takes place, however, a significant increase in the entropy density leads to an extreme reduction of the quantity $\rho_\phi / s$.
The existence of flaton fields is required to provide vacuum energy, which is responsible for the thermal inflation to occur, and to produce entropy by their decay into radiation. The potential of the flaton $X$ is given by [@Lyth-Stewart; @H-K-Y][^3] $$V = V_{0} - m_{0}^{2}|X|^{2} + \frac{1}{M_{*}^{2n}}
|X|^{2n+4},
\label{flaton-pot}$$ where $-m_{0}^{2}$ is a negative mass squared induced by SUSY breaking effect and $M_{*}$ a cut-off scale of this effective theory. the vacuum energy density $V_{0}$ is determined so that the cosmological constant vanishes at the true vacuum.
If the flaton $X$ couples to some fields which are in thermal bath, the flaton potential (\[flaton-pot\]) with finite temperature effects taken into account reads $$V_{{\rm eff}} = V_{0} + (cT^2 - m_{0}^{2})|X|^{2}
+ \frac{1}{M_{*}^{2n}}|X|^{2n+4}.
\label{flaton-eff-pot}$$ Here, $T$ is the cosmic temperature and $c$ a constant of ${\cal O}$(1). As be easily seen from the form of the effective potential (\[flaton-eff-pot\]), the flaton sits near the origin at the temperature $T > T_c \simeq m_{0}$, and gives rise to the vacuum energy density $V_{0}$. This vacuum energy becomes greater than the radiation energy at the temperature $T < T_* \simeq V_{0}^{1/4}$, since the radiation energy density is given by $\rho_{{\rm rad}}=(\pi^{2}/30)g_{*}T^4$, where $g_{*}$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom. Therefore, for the temperature $T_c < T < T_*$ the flaton vacuum energy density dominates the cosmic energy density, and the thermal inflation takes place.
When the cosmic temperature becomes lower than the critical temperature, i.e. $T < T_c$, the flaton begins rolling down towards the true minimum of the potential (\[flaton-pot\]), and oscillates around it. The flaton coherent oscillation energy is eventually transferred to the radiation energy through the flaton decay and reheats the universe, increasing the entropy density by a factor of $$\Delta \simeq \frac{4V_{0}/3T_{R}}
{(2\pi^2/45)g_{*}T_{c}^{3}}
\simeq \frac{V_{0}}{70T_{R}T_{c}^{3}},
\label{dilution}$$ where $T_{R}$ is the reheating temperature.
We are now at the point to evaluate the moduli energy density, with the notable effects of the thermal inflation considered. We assume only one modulus $\phi$ to exist for simplicity. The generalization to the case of many moduli is straightforward, however.
When the Hubble parameter $H$ becomes comparable to the modulus mass $m_\phi$, the coherent oscillation of the modulus, which we refer to as ‘big-bang modulus’, starts with the initial amplitude $\phi_0$ which is likely to be of the order $M_G$. Then, the abundance of ‘big-bang modulus’ after the thermal inflation is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right)_{{\rm BB}} &\simeq&
\frac{m_{\phi}^{2}\phi_{0}^{2}/2}{8.6m_{\phi}^{3/2}M_{G}^{3/2}}
\frac{1}{\Delta}, \nonumber\\ &\simeq& 4
\left(\frac{T_{c}}{m_0}\right)^{3}
\left(\frac{\phi_{0}}{M_{G}}\right)^{2}
\frac{M_{G}^{1/2}m_{\phi}^{1/2}m_0^{3}T_{R}}{V_{0}}.
\label{bb-moduli}\end{aligned}$$ We should not forget ‘thermal inflation modulus’ that is a secondary oscillation, which begins after the thermal inflation, stimulated by the shift $\delta \phi \sim (V_{0}/m_{\phi}^2M_{G}^2)\phi_{0}$ from the true minimum of the modulus potential. The abundance of this ‘thermal inflation modulus’ is $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right)_{{\rm TI}} &\simeq&
\frac{m_{\phi}^{2}(\delta\phi)^{2}/2}{(2\pi^2/45)g_{*}T_{c}^{3}}
\frac{1}{\Delta}, \nonumber\\ &\simeq&
\frac{3}{8} \left(\frac{\phi_{0}}{M_{G}}\right)^{2}
\frac{V_{0}T_{R}}{m_{\phi}^{2}M_{G}^{2}}.
\label{ti-moduli}\end{aligned}$$ The total energy density of the modulus $\phi$ is then given by $$\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s} \simeq
\max \left[\left(\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right)_{{\rm BB}},
\left(\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right)_{{\rm TI}}\right].
\label{moduli-density}$$
In Ref.[@H-K-Y], we regarded $m_0$ and $M_*$ as free parameters and obtained the theoretically predicted lower bound of (\[moduli-density\]), under the condition $T_{R} \gtrsim$ 10 MeV that is required in order for the radiation created by the flaton decay not to upset the nucleosynthesis. As a result, we have shown that for all the region $10^{-2}$ keV $\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim$ 10 GeV the lower bound of $\Omega_\phi h^2 \equiv \rho_\phi h^2/\rho_c$ ($h$ is the present Hubble parameter $H_0$ in units of 100km/sec/Mpc) could be taken below the critical density $\Omega h^2 \simeq 0.25$.
A constraint from the observed X($\gamma$)-ray backgrounds, however, can be more stringent[@K-Y] than that from the critical density in a certain modulus mass region. The modulus decays into two photons dominantly. Thus, we can derive another constraint on $\Omega_\phi
h^2$ by requiring that the maximum value of the predicted photon flux should be less than the observed X($\gamma$)-ray backgrounds. It has been shown in [@H-K-Y] that this constraint excludes an interesting mass region 500 keV $\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim$ 10 GeV.
Let us summarize the conclusions that were obtained in [@H-K-Y; @A-H-K-Y]. First, we have found that only the theories with modulus mass $10^{-2}$ keV $\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim$ 500 keV could survive the cosmological constraints.[^4] Second, we have pointed out that the modulus with mass $m_\phi \simeq$ 1 – 10 GeV also had a chance to be allowed cosmologically if we could take $\phi_0 \simeq$ (0.01 – 0.1)$M_G$. The final one, which has motivated us to work on this paper, is that in the modulus mass region $10^{-2}$ keV $\lesssim
m_\phi \lesssim$ 200 keV the equality $\Omega_\phi h^2 \simeq {\cal
O}$(1) could be fulfilled [@A-H-K-Y] because in this region the constraint from X($\gamma$)-ray backgrounds is weaker than that from the critical density. This observation is none other than the reason why we have stressed in the introduction that the moduli could be the dark matter in our universe.
X-ray Spectrum from Moduli Dark Matter
======================================
As shown in previous section, the modulus field with mass $m_\phi
\simeq$ $10^{-2}$keV – 200 keV is a candidate for the dark matter of our universe. This upper limit of the modulus mass originates from the constraint of the observed cosmic photon backgrounds. The modulus field decays most likely to two photons through non-renormalizable interaction suppressed by the gravity scale.[^5] The lifetime of the modulus is estimated as[@K-Y; @H-K-Y] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tau-phi}
\tau_\phi ~\simeq~
\frac{ 64 \pi }{ b^2 } \frac{ M_G^2 }{ m_\phi^3 }
~ \simeq ~
7.6 \times 10^{23} ~ \mbox{sec}~\frac{1}{b^2}
\left( \frac{ 1 ~\mbox{MeV} }{ m_\phi } \right)^3,\end{aligned}$$ where $b$ denotes a parameter of order one which depends on the models of the superstring. In the following we take $b$ = 1. From eq.(\[tau-phi\]) the modulus with mass $m_\phi \lesssim$ 100 MeV has a lifetime longer than the age of the present universe. However, such modulus is continuously decaying at the rate of $1/\tau_{\phi}$ and produce photons which contribute to the diffuse photon backgrounds. This excludes the region 500 keV $\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim$ 1 GeV. Furthermore, when we assume the cosmic modulus field as the dark matter of our universe ($\Omega_\phi \simeq {\cal O}$(1)), a region $10^{-2}$keV $\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim$ 200 keV survives from the cosmological constraints.
If the modulus field is indeed the dark matter, it would be the other contribution to the photon backgrounds. Some of the dark-matter moduli should be trapped in the halo of our galaxy. Since the Doppler spread due to the velocities of the moduli is negligible in this case, the narrow line spectrum is expected by the decay of the dark-matter moduli in our halo.
In this section we consider the dark-matter moduli with mass $m_\phi
\sim$ 100 keV and investigate the $X$-ray spectrum of the produced photons in the decay, since such $X$-ray may be observable in the future experiments as we will describe below.
First we discuss the $X$-ray spectrum by the decay of the cosmic moduli distributed uniformly over the whole universe. Through the modulus decay two monochromatic photons with energy $E_\gamma =
m_\phi/2$ are produced. When we integrate such line spectrum from the past to the present, the continuum spectrum below the energy $m_\phi /
2$ is observed today. In Refs.[@K-Y; @H-K-Y; @A-H-K-Y] the photon flux from the decay of the moduli in the whole universe is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F_U}
F_U( E_\gamma ) ~\simeq~
\frac{1}{4\pi}
\frac{ 2 \Omega_\phi }{ \tau_\phi m_\phi}
\frac{ \rho_c }{ H_0 }
\left( \frac{ 2 E_\gamma}{m_\phi } \right)^{3/2}
f(m_{\phi}/2E_{\gamma})
\exp(-t(z=m_{\phi}/2E_{\gamma}-1)/\tau_{\phi}),\end{aligned}$$ with $$f(x) = [\Omega_0 + (1-\Omega_0 - \Omega_{\lambda})/x
+ \Omega_{\lambda}/x^3]^{-1/2},$$ where $\Omega_{\lambda}$ is the density parameter of the cosmological constant, $z$ the redshift and $t(z)$ the cosmic time at $z$. This flux takes its maximal value at the photon energy $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm max} ~\simeq~ \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{ m_\phi }{ 2 }
&\mbox{for}~~ \tau_{\phi} > t(z=0)\\
\frac{ m_{\phi} }{ 2 }
\left( \frac{ 3 \tau_{\phi} H_{0}\sqrt{\Omega_0}}{ 2 }
\right)^{2/3}
~~~~~~~
&\mbox{for}~~ \tau_{\phi} < t(z=0)
\end{array}\right..\end{aligned}$$ In particular, when the modulus field is the dark matter, $\tau_{\phi}
\gg t(z=0)$ and $F_U(E_{\rm max})$ is given by $$F_U(E_{\rm max}) = \frac{1}{4\pi}
\frac{ 2 \Omega_\phi }{ \tau_\phi m_\phi}
\frac{ \rho_c }{ H_0 }.$$ It should be notice that this equation is independent of $\Omega_0$ and $\Omega_{\lambda}$.
In Fig.1 we show the spectrum of the photon flux (\[F\_U\]) for various moduli masses. Then the $X$-ray intensity from the whole universe is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{continuos}
I_U(E_\gamma)~\simeq~
\frac{1}{E_\gamma} F_U(E_\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ As shown in Fig.1, the flux from the moduli decay is comparable to the observed $X$-ray backgrounds if the mass of the modulus is $\sim 100$keV.
Next we consider the $X$-ray spectrum coming from the dark-matter moduli trapped in the our galactic halo. Since the cosmological redshift is negligible in this case, the photons produced by the decay have a monochromatic energy $m_{\phi}/2$. Here we estimate the intensity of this line spectrum. The mass density of the halo of our galaxy at the distance $r$ from the center of the galaxy is expressed as[@Halo-Density] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rho_halo}
\rho_H (r) ~\simeq~
\frac{ \rho_0 }{ 1 + \frac{ r^2 }{ r_c^2 } },\end{aligned}$$ where $r_c \simeq 2$ kpc and the halo density in the solar neighborhood ($r \simeq R_0 \simeq$ 8.5 kpc) is $\rho_H(R_0) \simeq$ 0.38 GeV/cm$^3$. Then the density of the modulus component in the halo is given by $\rho_H(r) \times ( \Omega_\phi / \Omega_0 )$. Using the halo density (\[rho\_halo\]) the line flux is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
F_H ~\simeq~
\frac{ 1 }{ 4 \pi }
\frac{ 2 }{ \tau_\phi m_\phi }
\int dx
\frac{ \Omega_\phi }{ \Omega_0 }
\frac{ \rho_0 r_c^2 }
{ ( x - R_0 \cos b \cos l )^2
+ R_0^2 ( 1 - \cos^2 b \cos^2 l )
+ r_c^2 },\end{aligned}$$ where $x$ is the distance to the modulus particle from the sun and $l$ ($b$) is the galactic longitude (latitude). After the $x$ integration, we obtain the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
F_H ~\simeq~
\frac{ 1 }{ 4 \pi }
\frac{ 2 }{ \tau_\phi m_\phi }
\frac{ \Omega_\phi }{ \Omega_0 }
\frac{ ( R_0^2 + r_c^2 ) \rho_H(R_0) }{ R_{eff} }
\left[
\frac{ \pi }{2}
+ \tan^{-1}
\left( \frac{ R_0 \cos b \cos l }{ R_{eff} }
\right)
\right], \end{aligned}$$with $R_{eff}^2 = R_0^2 ( 1 - \cos^2 b \cos^2 l ) + r_c^2$. Then the diffuse line intensity from the galactic halo is given by $$\begin{aligned}
I_H ~\simeq~ \frac{F_H}{ \Delta E},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta E$ denotes the energy resolution at $E_\gamma \simeq
m_\phi/2$ of the experiment. Here it should be noted that the line flux depends on the direction of the incoming photon, i.e. $b$- and $l$-dependence, and that the intensity of the line $X$-ray spectrum from the galactic halo becomes more significant in the experiments with higher energy resolution, which contrasts to the continuous spectrum produced by the decay of the moduli in the whole universe.
Then we compare the line intensity from the moduli in our galactic halo to the maximum value of the $X$-ray intensity from the moduli that spread over the whole universe. For this end it is convenient to introduce the ratio $R_I$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ratio-intensity}
R_I(b,l) &=& I_H/I_U(E_{\rm max}).\end{aligned}$$ For the dark-matter moduli this ratio $R_I$ is almost independent on the modulus mass $m_\phi$ since we can neglect the exponential factor in eq.(\[F\_U\]). If we see the direction of the north or south galactic poles, this ratio becomes $$\begin{aligned}
R_I(b=\pm \pi/2, l)
~\simeq~
0.16 \frac{ 1 }{ \Omega_0 }
\left( \frac{ E_{\rm max} }{ \Delta E } \right).\end{aligned}$$
In Fig.2 we show the contour of the ratio $R_I$ in the $b$-$l$ plane for the case $m_\phi \simeq$ 200 keV (i.e. $E_\gamma$ = 100 keV) and $\Delta E/E$ = 10 %.[^6] We find that the line intensity is about two times stronger than the peak of the continuum spectrum in the wide region of the sky. In Fig.3 we also show the intensity of the line photons in the direction $b=\pi/2$ together with the continuous spectrum (\[continuos\]) for the energy resolution $\Delta E/E=10$% and 5% and for the modulus mass 100keV and 200keV. It is seen that the photon intensity from the moduli in the whole universe is below or marginal to the observed one for $m_{\phi} = 100$keV or 200keV, but the line intensity from the halo moduli is above the observed one. Thus, future experiments with energy resolution $\Delta E/E \lesssim 10$% at energy around $E_\gamma = m_\phi/2$ can detect the line intensity from the dark-matter moduli in our halo for $m_\phi \gtrsim 100$keV. Furthermore, by observing the $b$- or $l$-dependence of the $X$-ray intensity of the peak, we may confirm the origin of the peak, i.e. it originates from the line spectrum produced by the decay of the dark-matter moduli in the halo of our galaxy.
$\gamma$-ray Spectrum from Cosmic Multi-GeV Moduli
==================================================
The cosmic modulus field with multi-GeV mass decays into two photons until the present. Since the produced photons are redshifted by the cosmic expansion, they form the continuum spectrum which takes it maximal value at MeV region. Thus the decay of the multi-GeV modulus field may be observed as a MeV-bump in the spectrum of the background $\gamma$-rays if the produced photons reach us directly. However, such high energy photons may be scattered off the background photons and its spectrum may be deformed. For the case of the multi-GeV modulus, we can neglect the double photon pair creation process: $\gamma +
\gamma_{BG} \rightarrow e^{+} e^{-}$ because the energy of the produced photons is below the effective threshold $E_{*} \simeq
m_e^2/(22T)$($m_e$: electron mass, $T$: background temperature) [@Kawasaki]. Thus we take into account only the photon photon scattering process: $\gamma + \gamma_{BG} \rightarrow
\gamma + \gamma$ by which the emitted photons from the moduli lose their energy. Since the total cross section of the photon photon scattering is proportional to $E_\gamma^3$, ($E_\gamma$ denotes an energy of the emitted photon.), this process becomes significant only for modulus with mass larger than $O(1)$GeV. In this section we estimate the photon spectrum emitted from the multi-GeV moduli including the effect of the scattering with the background’s photons.
In order to obtain the photon spectrum we solve the following Boltzmann equation for the distribution function $f_\gamma$ [@Svensson]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \partial f_\gamma(E_\gamma) }{ \partial t }
&=&
\frac{1112}{10125 \pi} \frac{\alpha^4}{m_e^8}
\int_{E_\gamma}^{\infty} d \epsilon_\gamma ~
f_\gamma(\epsilon_\gamma) \epsilon_\gamma^2
\left[ 1 - \frac{E_\gamma}{\epsilon_\gamma}
+ \left(\frac{E_\gamma}{\epsilon_\gamma}\right)^2
\right]^2
\int_0^{\infty} d \overline{\epsilon} ~
\overline{\epsilon}^3 ~\overline{f}(\overline{\epsilon})
\nonumber \\
&-&
\frac{1946}{50625 \pi} \frac{\alpha^4}{m_e^8}
E_\gamma^3 f_\gamma(E_\gamma)
\int_0^\infty d \overline{\epsilon} ~
\overline{\epsilon}^3 ~\overline{f}(\overline{\epsilon})
\nonumber \\
&-&
2 H f_\gamma(E_\gamma)
\nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{1}{4 \pi} \frac{ 2 \rho_{\phi} }{ \tau_\phi m_\phi }
\mbox{e}^{ - \frac{t}{\tau_\phi} }
\delta \left( E_\gamma - \frac{m_\phi}{2} \right),
\label{bz-eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{f}$ denotes the distribution function of the background photon at temperature $T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{f}(\epsilon) = \frac{\epsilon^2}{\pi^2} \times
\frac{ 1 }{ \exp(\epsilon/T) - 1 }.\end{aligned}$$ We solve the Boltzmann equation (\[bz-eq\]) numerically including the evolution of the universe. The continuum $\gamma$-ray spectrum of the modulus decay is obtained using the present distribution function as $I_{U}(E_{\gamma})$ = $\left. f_{\gamma}(E_{\gamma}) \right|_{t =
t_{0}}$.
We show the spectra for $\Omega_{\phi}h^2 = 1$ and $m_{\phi} = 1, 10$ and $20$GeV in Fig.4. The effect of the photon photon scattering off the background photons is negligible for $m_{\phi} \sim
1$GeV. On the other hand, for the modulus with mass $m_{\phi} \gtrsim
10$ GeV, we find that photons at the peak of the spectrum significantly lose their energy by the scattering and the peak of the spectrum moves to a lower energy region. Therefore, comparing with the observed background photon spectrum, it is found that the constraint becomes slightly weaker for the modulus with mass $m_{\phi}
= {\cal O}(10)$ GeV than that obtained in Ref.[@A-H-K-Y].
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have examined the photon spectra from the decay of the cosmic modulus field. First we have considered the modulus mass region $m_{\phi} \simeq$ $10^{-2}$keV–200 keV. This region is interesting because the modulus field can be the dark matter in our universe. We have calculated the $X$-ray continuum spectrum from the decay of the dark-matter moduli that spread homogeneously in the whole universe and the line spectrum from the dark-matter moduli trapped in the halo of our galaxy. It is found that with the energy resolution of the current experiments ($\sim
10$%) the line intensity is about twice stronger than that of the continuum spectrum in the wide region of the sky. If the modulus mass is around 100 keV, both intensities are comparable with the present observed photon backgrounds. Therefore, in the future experiments with higher energy resolutions it may be possible to detect the line photons produced by the decay of dark-matter moduli in our halo. Moreover, by measuring the dependence of the line intensity on the galactic longitude and latitude, we will be able to confirm the origin, i.e. it comes from the halo of our galaxy rather than from the whole universe.
We have also investigated the $\gamma$-ray spectrum emitted from the decay of the multi-GeV modulus field. In this modulus mass region, the emitted photons are redshifted and have a peak in the MeV region of the spectrum. Thus we may observed those photons as a MeV-bump in the $\gamma$-ray backgrounds.
The produced high energy photon may be scattered off the background photons and lose their energy. It is found that the effect of the scattering is negligible for modulus with mass less than ${\cal
O}(1)$GeV. However, if the modulus mass is of the order of 10 GeV, the emitted photons at the peak of the continuum spectrum loses their energy by the scattering and the shape of the spectrum is significantly changed. This makes the constraint from the present observed $\gamma$-ray backgrounds weaker than the result in Ref.[@A-H-K-Y].
We would like to thank T. Kamae for useful comments and encouragement.
M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz and E. Witten, [*Superstring Theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1987). B. de Carlos, J.A. Casas, F. Quevedo and E. Roulet, [Phys. Lett.]{}, [**B318**]{}, [447]{}(1993). G.D. Coughlan, N. Fischler, E.W. Kolb, S.Raby and C.G. Ross, [Phys. Lett.]{}, [**B131**]{}, [59]{}(1983); T. Banks, D.B. Kaplan and A.E. Nelson [Phys. Rev.]{}, [**D49**]{}, [779]{}(1994). M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida, [Phys. Lett.]{}, [**B399**]{}, [45]{} (1997). D.H. Lyth and E.D. Stewart, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, [**75**]{}, [201]{}(1995); [Phys. Rev.]{}, [**D53**]{}, [1784]{}(1996). For a review, H.P. Nilles Phys. Rep. [**110**]{}, 1 [1984]{}. For a review, G.F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, hep-ph/9801271. J. Hashiba, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida, hep-ph/9708226, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, [**79**]{}, [4525]{}(1997) T. Asaka, J. Hashiba, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida, hep-ph/9711501. I. Affleck and M. Dine, [Nucl. Phys.]{}, [**B249**]{}, [361]{}(1985). A. de Gauvêa, T. Moroi and H. Murayama, hep-ph/9701244. E.D. Stewart, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**D54**]{}, 6032 (1996). M. Kawasaki, T. Moroi and T. Yanagida, [Phys. Lett.]{}, [**B383**]{}, [313]{} (1996); G. Lazarides, R. Shaefer, D. Seckel and Q. Shafi, [Nucl. Phys.]{}, [**B346**]{}, [193]{} (1990); M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida, [Prog. Theor. Phys.]{}, [**97**]{}, [809]{} (1997). J.N. Bahcall and R.M. Soneira, [Astrophys. J. Suppl.]{}, [**44**]{}, [73]{} (1980).
R.L. Kinzer, G.V. Jung, D.E. Gruber, J.L. Mattenson, and L.E. Peterson, [Astrophys. J.]{}, [**475**]{}, [361]{} (1997). M. Kawasaki and T. Moroi, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**93**]{}, 879 (1995) and references therein. R. Svensson and A.A. Zdziarski, Astrophys. J. [**349**]{}, 415 (1990). T. Asaka et al, in preparation.
[^1]: The axion with high values of decay constant $F_a \simeq 10^{15}$–$10^{16}$ GeV could be another candidate for the dark matter[@L-S-S-S].
[^2]: The detailed analysis has been carried out in [@H-K-Y]. For a more complete version, see Ref.[@A-H-K-Y].
[^3]: The imaginary part of the complex scalar field $X$ can be interpreted as a massless NG boson originating from the U(1) symmetry possessed by the potential (\[flaton-pot\]). The NG bosons produced by the flaton decay diminish drastically the dilution effect of the thermal inflation. We have given in [@A-H-K-Y] such a modification of the original thermal inflation model that this unfavorable decay mode is suppressed. It has been found, however, that the modification did not affect the original dynamics in Ref.[@H-K-Y]
[^4]: If we take the cut off scale $M_\ast$ in Eq.(\[flaton-pot\]) as $M_\ast \gtrsim M_G$, which is a natural choice, only the modulus with $m_\phi \sim$ 100 keV is cosmologically allowed for $m_\phi \lesssim$ 500 keV and becomes the dark matter of our universe [@Asakaetal].
[^5]: The modulus decay into two neutrinos is suppressed due to the chirality flip.
[^6]: The $X$-ray backgrounds at energy $E_\gamma \simeq 100$ keV were measured by $HEAO$-I experiment[@HEAO-I] whose energy resolution $\Delta E/E$ is about 10 %.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Magnetic electric effects in ferromagnetic metals are discussed from the viewpoint of effective spin electromagnetic field that couples to conduction electron spin. The effective field in the adiabatic limit is the spin Berry’s phase in space and time, and it leads to spin motive force (voltage generated by magnetization dynamics) and topological Hall effect due to spin chirality. Its gauge coupling to spin current describes the spin transfer effect, where magnetization structure is driven by an applied spin current. The idea of effective gauge field can be extended to include spin relaxation and Rashba spin-orbit interaction. Voltage generation by the inverse Edelstein effect in junctions is interpreted as due to the electric component of Rashba-induced spin gauge field. The spin gauge field arising from the Rashba interaction turns out to coincides with troidal moment, and causes asymmetric light propagation (directional dichroism) as a result of the Doppler shift. Rashba conductor without magnetization is shown to be natural metamaterial exhibiting negative refraction.'
address: |
RIKEN Center for Emergent Matter Science (CEMS)\
2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan\
$^*$E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- Gen Tatara
title: Theory of electron transport and magnetization dynamics in metallic ferromagnets
---
Introduction
============
Our technology is based on various electromagnetic phenomena. For designing electronics devices, the Maxwell’s equation is therefore of essential importance. The mathematical structure of the electromagnetic field is governed by a U(1) gauge symmetry, i.e., an invariance of physical laws under phase transformations. The gauge symmetry is equivalent to the conservation of the electric charge, and was established when a symmetry breaking of unified force occured immediately after the big bang. The beautiful mathematical structure of charge electromagnetism was therefore determined when our universe started, and there is no way to modify its laws.
Interestingly, charge electromagnetism is not the only electromagnetism allowed in the nature. In fact, electromagnetism arises whenever there is a U(1) gauge symmetry associated with conservation of some effective charge. In solids, there are several systems which have the U(1) gauge symmetry as a good approximation. Solids could thus display several types of effective electromagnetic fields. A typical example is a ferromagnetic metal. In ferromagnetic metals, conduction electron spin (mostly $s$ electron) is coupled to the magnetization (or localized spins of $d$ electrons) by an interaction called the $sd$ interaction, which tends to align the electron spin parallel (or anti-parallel) to the localized spin. This interaction is strong in most 3$d$ ferromagnetic metals, and as a result, conduction electron’s spin originally consisting of three components, reduces to a single component along the localized spin direction. The remaining component is invariant under a phase transformation, i.e., has a U(1) gauge symmetry just like the electric charge does. A spin electromagnetic field thus emerges that couples to conduction electron’s spin.
![ The spin of a conduction electron is rotated by a strong $sd$ interaction with magnetization as it moves in the presence of a magnetization texture, resulting in a spin gauge field. Magnetization texture is therefore equivalent to an effective electromagnetic field for conduction electron spin. []{data-label="fig1"}](skyrmion_berryphase_s){width="0.5\hsize"}
The subject of the present paper is this spin electromagnetic field. Spin electromagnetic field drives electron’s spin, and thus plays essential roles in spintronics. There is a gauge field for the spin electromagnetic field, a spin gauge field, which couples to spin current of the conduction electron. The gauge coupling describes the effects of spin current on the localized spin dynamics. As we shall see, when a spin-polarized electric current is applied, the adiabatic spin gauge field leads to spin-transfer torque and moves the magnetization structure (Sec. \[SECmagdynamics\]). The world of spin electromagnetic field is richer than that of electric charge, since the electron’s spin in solids is under influence of various interactions such as spin-orbit interaction. We shall show that even magnetic monopoles can emerge (Sec. \[SEC:adiabatic\])
A spin electromagnetic field was first discussed in the context of a voltage generated by a canting of a driven domain wall by L. Berger [@Berger86], and mathematically rigorous formulation was given by G. Volovik [@Volovik87]. The idea of effective gauge field was shown to be extended to the cases with spin relaxation [@Duine08], and Rashba interaction [@Takeuchi12; @Kim12; @Tatara_smf13; @Nakabayashi14].
Some of the phenomena discussed in this paper overlaps those in the paper by R. Raimondi in this lecture series, studied base on the Boltzmann equation approach [@RaimondiLec17].
![Ferromagnetic metals have magnetization and conduct electricity, indicating existence of localized spins and conduction electrons. \[FIGFM\]](magnet_single2_light){width="0.4\hsize"}
Ferromagnetic metal
===================
Let us start with a brief introduction of ferromagnetic metals (Fig. \[FIGFM\]). Ferromagnets have magnetization, namely, an ensemble of localized spins. Denoting the localized spin as $\Sv$, the magnetization is $\Mv=-\frac{\hbar \gamma}{a^3}\Sv$, where $\gamma(>0)$ and $a$ are gyromagnetic ratio and lattice constant, respectively. As the electron has negative charge, the localized spin and magnetization points opposite direction. In $3d$ transition metals, localized spins are aligned spins of $3d$ electrons. Ferromagnetic metals have finite conductivity, indicating that there are conduction electrons, mainly $4s$ electrons. The conduction electrons and $d$ electrons are coupled via $sd$ mixing. As a result, there arises an exchange interaction between conduction electron spin, $\sev$, and localized spin, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Hsd=-\Jsd \Sv\cdot\sev,\label{Hsd}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Jsd$ represents the strength. In this article, the localized spin is treated as classical variable, neglecting the conduction of $d$ electrons.
The dynamics of localized spin is described by the Landau-Lifshiz-Gilbert (LLG) equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\nv}&=\gamma\Bv\times\nv+\alpha\nv\times\dot{\nv}, \label{LLG}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nv\equiv \Sv/S$ is a unit vector representing the direction of localized spin, $\Bv$ is the total magnetic field acting on the spin. The last term of the right hand side represents the relaxation (damping) of localized spin, called the Gilbert damping effect and $\alpha$ is the Gilbert damping constant. The Gilbert damping constant in most metallic ferromagnets are of the order of $10^{-2}$.
We shall now start studying phenomena arising from the exchange interaction, Eq. (\[Hsd\]), between localized spin and conduction electron.
![Schematic figures showing conduction electron injected to a domain wall. (a): In the adiabatic limit, i.e., for a large domain wall width, the electron goes through the wall with a spin flip (left). (b): Non adiabaticity due to finite domain wall width leads to reflection and electric resistance (right). \[FIGDWelec\]](DW_el_transmit_l "fig:"){width="0.3\hsize"} ![Schematic figures showing conduction electron injected to a domain wall. (a): In the adiabatic limit, i.e., for a large domain wall width, the electron goes through the wall with a spin flip (left). (b): Non adiabaticity due to finite domain wall width leads to reflection and electric resistance (right). \[FIGDWelec\]](DW_el_reflect "fig:"){width="0.3\hsize"}
Electron transport through magnetic domain wall : phenomenology
================================================================
We consider a ferromagnetic domain wall, which is a structure where localized spins (or magnetization) rotate spatially (Fig. \[FIGDWelec\]). Its thickness, $\lambda$, in typical ferromagnets is $\lambda=10-100$nm. Let us consider here what happens when a conduction electron goes through a domain wall. The wall is a macroscopic object for electrons, since thickness is much larger than the typical length scale of electron, the Fermi wavelength, $1/\kf$, which is atomic scale in metals. The electron is interacting with localized spin via the $sd$ exchange coupling, Eq. (\[Hsd\]). We consider the case of positive $\Jsd$, but the sign does not change the scenario. The $sd$ interaction tends to align parallel the localized spin and conduction electron spin. If localized spin is spatially uniform, therefore, the conduction electron is also uniformly polarized, and electron transport and magnetism are somewhat decoupled. Interesting effects arise if the localized spins are spatially varying like the case of a domain wall. We choose the $z$ axis along the direction localized spins change. The lowest energy direction (magnetic easy axis) for localized spins is chosen as along $z$ axis. (The mutual direction between the localized spin and direction of spin change is irrelevant in the case without spin-orbit interaction.) The wall in this case is with localized spins inside the wall changing within the plane of localized spin, and such wall is called the Nèel wall. At $z=\infty$ the localized spin is $S_z=S$, and is $S_z=-S$ at $z=-\infty$, and those states are represented a $\ra$ and $\la$, respectively. For $\leftarrow$ electron, the potential in the left regime is low because of $sd$ exchange interaction, while that in the right region is high (dotted lines in Fig. \[FIGDWpotentialenergy\]).
![Potential energy $V(z)$ for conduction electron with spin $\ra$ and $\la$ as a result of $sd$ exchange interaction. Dotted lines are the cases neglecting spin flip inside the wall, while solid lines are with spin flip. \[FIGDWpotentialenergy\]](DWscattering_split2){width="0.4\hsize"}
That is, the localized spin structure due to a domain wall acts as a spatially varying magnetic field, resulting in potential barriers, $V_\rightarrow(z)=-\Jsd S_z(z)$ and $V_\leftarrow(z)=\Jsd S_z(z)$. Considering the domain wall centered at $x=0$ having profile of $$\begin{aligned}
S_z(z)&=S\tanh\frac{z}{\lambda}, \;\;\; S_x(z)=\frac{S}{\cosh\frac{z}{\lambda}},\;\;\; S_y=0 ,
\label{DWsolrest}\end{aligned}$$ conduction electron’s Schrödinger equation with energy $E$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\lt[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dz^2}-\Jsd S
\lt(\sigma_z \tanh\frac{z}{\lambda}+\sigma_x \frac{1}{\cosh\frac{z}{\lambda}}\rt) \rt]\Psi=E\Psi,
\label{elecSeqinDW}\end{aligned}$$ $\Psi(z)=(\Psi_\rightarrow(z),\Psi_\leftarrow(z))$ begin the two-component wave function. If the spin direction of the conduction electron is fixed along the $z$ axis, the potential barrier represetned by the term proportional to $\sigma_z$ leads to reflection of electron, but in reality, the electron spin can rotate inside the wall as a result of the term proportional to $\sigma_x$ in Eq. (\[elecSeqinDW\]). The mixing of $\leftarrow$ and $\rightarrow$ electron leads to the smooth potential barrier plotted as solid lines in Fig. \[FIGDWpotentialenergy\].
Let us consider an incident $\leftarrow$ electron from the left. If the electron is slow, the electron spin can keep the lowest energy state by gradually rotating its direction inside the wall. This is the adiabatic limit. As there is no potential barrier for the electron in this limit, no reflection arises from the domain wall, resulting in a vanishing resistance (Fig. \[FIGDWelec\](a)) In contrast, if the electron is fast, the electron spin cannot follow the rotation of the localized spin, resulting in a reflection and finite resistance (Fig. \[FIGDWelec\](b)). The condition for slow and fast is determined by the relation between the time for the electron to pass the wall and the time for electron spin rotation. The former is $\lambda/\vf$ for electron with Fermi velocity $\vf(=\hbar\kf/m)$ (spin-dependence of the Fermi wave vector is neglected and $m$ is the electron mass). The latter time is $\hbar/\Jsd S$, as the electron spin is rotated by the $sd$ exchange interaction in the wall. Therefore, if $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\lambda}{\vf}\gg \frac{\hbar}{\Jsd S} , \label{adiabaticcondition}\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied, the electron is in the adiabatic limit [@Waintal04]. The condition of adiabatic limit here is the case of clean metal (long mean free path); In dirty metals, it is modified [@Stern92; @TKS_PR08].
The transmission of electron through a domain wall was calculated by G. G. Cabrera and L. M. Falicov [@Cabrera74], and its physical aspects were discussed by L. Berger [@Berger78; @Berger86]. Linear response formulation and scattering approach were presented in Refs. [@TF97; @GT00; @GT01]. The adiabaticity condition was discussed by X. Waintal and M. Viret[@Waintal04].
Spin-transfer effect \[SECstt\]
-------------------------------
As we discussed above, in the adiabatic limit, the electron spin gets rotated after passing through the wall (Fig. \[FIGDWelec\](a)). The change of spin angular momentum, $2\times\frac{\hbar}{2}=\hbar$, must be absorbed by the localized spins. (Angular momentum dissipation as a result of spin relaxation is slow compared to the exchange of the angular momentum via the $sd$ exchange interaction.) To absorb the spin change of $\hbar$, the domain wall must shift to the right, resulting in an increase of the spins $\leftarrow$. We consider for simplicity the case of cubic lattice with lattice constant $a$. The distance of the wall shift $\Delta X$ necessary to absorb the electron’s spin angular momentum of $\hbar$ is then $[\hbar/(2\hbar S)]a$ (Fig. \[FIGdwdisplacement\])). If we apply a spin-polarized current through the wall with the density $j_{\rm s}$ (spin current density is defined to have the same unit of A/m$^2$ as the electric current density.) The rate of the angular momentum change of the conduction electron per unit time and area is $\hbar j_{\rm s}/e$. As the number of the localized spins in the unit area is $1/a^2$, the wall must keep moving a distance of $(j_{\rm s}/e)(a^3/2S)$ per unit time. Namely, when a spin current density is applied, the wall moves with the speed of $$\begin{aligned}
v_{\rm s}\equiv \frac{a^3}{2eS} j_{\rm s} . \label{vst}\end{aligned}$$ This effect was pointed out by L. Berger [@Berger86] in 1986, and is now called the spin-transfer effect after the papers by J. Slonczewski [@Slonczewski96].
![ The shift of the domain wall by a distance $\Delta X$ results in a change of the spin of the localized spins $\frac{\Delta X}{a}S-\lt(-\frac{\Delta X}{a}S\rt)=2S\frac{\Delta X}{a}$. The angular momentum change is therefore $\hbar$ if $\Delta X=\frac{a}{2S}$. \[FIGdwdisplacement\]](dwdisplacement_c){width="0.3\hsize"}
From the above considerations in the adiabatic limit, we have found that a domain wall is driven by spin-polarized current, while the electrons do not get reflected and no resistance arises from the wall. These two facts naively seem inconsistent, but are direct consequence of the fact that a domain wall is a composite structure having both linear momentum and angular momentum. The adiabatic limit is the limit where angular momentum is transfered between the electron and the wall, while no linear momentum is transfered.
![ Left: A Unitary transformation $U(\theta,\phi)$ relates the two spin configurations $|\!\uparrow\rangle$ and $|\nv\rangle$ as $|\nv\rangle=U|\!\uparrow\rangle$. Right: The overlap of the wave functions at sites $\rv$ and $\rv'$ is $\langle \nv(\rv)|\nv(\rv')\rangle=\langle \uparrow\!|U(\rv')^{-1} U(\rv)|\!\uparrow\rangle$. \[FIGU\]](spin_unitary_withaxis_2 "fig:"){width="27.00000%"} ![ Left: A Unitary transformation $U(\theta,\phi)$ relates the two spin configurations $|\!\uparrow\rangle$ and $|\nv\rangle$ as $|\nv\rangle=U|\!\uparrow\rangle$. Right: The overlap of the wave functions at sites $\rv$ and $\rv'$ is $\langle \nv(\rv)|\nv(\rv')\rangle=\langle \uparrow\!|U(\rv')^{-1} U(\rv)|\!\uparrow\rangle$. \[FIGU\]](spin_el_unitary_l "fig:"){width="27.00000%"}
Adiabatic phase of electron spin \[SEC:adiabatic\]
==================================================
Transport of conduction electrons in the adiabatic (strong $sd$) limit is theoretically studied by calculating the quantum mechanical phase attached to the wave function of electron spin. We here consider a conduction electron hopping from a site $\rv$ to a neighboring site at $\rv'\equiv \rv+\av$ ($\av$ is a vector connecting neighboring sites)(Fig. \[FIGU\]). The localized spin direction at those sites are $\nv(\rv)\equiv\nv$ and $\nv(\rv+\av)\equiv\nv'$, respectively, and the electron’s wave function at the two sites are $$\begin{aligned}
|\nv\rangle &=\cos\frac{\theta}{2}|\!\uparrow\rangle+\sin\frac{\theta}{2}e^{i\phi}|\!\downarrow\rangle \nnr
|\nv'\rangle &=\cos\frac{\theta'}{2}|\!\uparrow\rangle+\sin\frac{\theta'}{2}e^{i\phi'}|\!\downarrow\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$, $\phi$ and $\theta'$, $\phi'$ are the polar angle of $\nv(\rv)$ and $\nv(\rv')$, respectively (Fig. \[FIGU\]). The wave functions are concisely written by use of matrices, $U(\rv)$ and $U(\rv')$, which rotates the spin state $|\!\uparrow\rangle$ to $|\nv\rangle$ (Fig. \[FIGU\]), as $|\nv\rangle = U(\rv)|\!\uparrow\rangle$ and $|\nv'\rangle = U(\rv')|\!\uparrow\rangle$. The rotation matrix is given by [@Sakurai94] (neglecting irrelevant phase factors) $$\begin{aligned}
U(\rv)=e^{\frac{i}{2}(\phi-\pi)\sigma_z}e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta\sigma_y}e^{-\frac{i}{2}(\phi-\pi)\sigma_z}
= \lt(\begin{array}{cc} \cos\frac{\theta}{2} & \sin\frac{\theta}{2}e^{i\phi} \\
-\sin\frac{\theta}{2}e^{-i\phi} & \cos\frac{\theta}{2} \end{array} \rt) .
\label{Udef}\end{aligned}$$ The overlap of the electron wave functions at the two sites is thus $\langle \nv'|\nv\rangle= \langle \uparrow\!|U(\rv')^{-1} U(\rv)|\!\uparrow\rangle$. When localized spin texture is slowly varying, we can expand the matrix product with respect to $\av$ as $U(\rv')^{-1}U(\rv)=1-U(\rv)^{-1}(\av\cdot\nabla)U(\rv)+O(a^2)$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \nv'|\nv\rangle \simeq 1-\langle \uparrow\!|U(\rv)^{-1}(\av\cdot\nabla)U(\rv)|\!\uparrow\rangle
\simeq e^{i\varphi},
\label{phasedef}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi\equiv i\av\cdot\langle\uparrow|U(\rv)^{-1}\nabla U(\rv)|\uparrow\rangle\equiv \av\cdot\Asv.\end{aligned}$$ Since $(U^{-1}\nabla U)^\dagger =-U^{-1}\nabla U$, $\varphi$ is real. A vector $\Asv$ here plays a role of a gauge field, similarly to that of the electromagnetism, and it is called (adiabatic) spin gauge field. By use of Eq. (\[Udef\]), this gauge field reads (the factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ represents the magnitude of electron spin) $$\begin{aligned}
\Asv=\frac{\hbar}{2e}(1-\cos\theta)\nabla\phi.
\label{Asdef}\end{aligned}$$
For a general path $C$, the phase is written as an integral along $C$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi=\frac{e}{\hbar} \int_C d\rv\cdot \Asv.\end{aligned}$$ Existence of path-dependent phase means that there is an effective magnetic field, $\Bsv$, as seen by rewriting the integral over a closed path by use of the Stokes theorem as $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi=\frac{e}{\hbar} \int_S d\Sv\cdot\Bsv,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Bsv\equiv \nabla\times\Asv,\end{aligned}$$ represents the curvature or effective magnetic field. This phase $\varphi$, arising from strong $sd$ interaction, couples to electron spin, and is called the spin Berry’s phase. Time-derivative of phase is equivalent to a voltage, and thus we have effective electric field defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\varphi}=-\frac{e}{\hbar} \int_Cd\rv\cdot\Esv,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Esv\equiv-\dot\Asv,\end{aligned}$$ (For a gauge invariant expression of $\Esv$, we need to include the time component of the gauge field, $A_{{\rm s},0}$ [@Tatara12].) In terms of vector $\nv$ the effective fields read $$\begin{aligned}
{\Ev}_{{\rm s},i}&
= -\frac{\hbar}{2e} \nv \cdot (\dot{\nv} \times \nabla_i \nv)
\nnr
{\Bv}_{{\rm s},i}&= \frac{\hbar}{4e}{\sum}_{jk}\epsilon_{ijk} \nv \cdot (\nabla_j \nv \times \nabla_k \nv).
\label{EsBsdef}\end{aligned}$$
![ Magnetization structures, $\nv(\rv)$, of a hedgehog monopole having a monopole charge of $Q_{\rm m}=1$ and the one with $Q_{\rm m}=2$ . At the center, $\nv(\rv)$ has a singularity and this gives rise to a finite monopole charge. []{data-label="FIGHH"}](hedgehog15_n1 "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![ Magnetization structures, $\nv(\rv)$, of a hedgehog monopole having a monopole charge of $Q_{\rm m}=1$ and the one with $Q_{\rm m}=2$ . At the center, $\nv(\rv)$ has a singularity and this gives rise to a finite monopole charge. []{data-label="FIGHH"}](hedgehog15_n2 "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
These two fields couple to the electron spin and are called spin electromagnetic fields ($\Asv$ is spin gauge field). They satisfy the Faraday’s law, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\times\Esv+\dot{\Bsv}=0,\end{aligned}$$ as a trivial result of their definitions. Defining the spin magnetic charge as $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\cdot\Bsv\equiv \rho_{\rm m},\end{aligned}$$ we see that $\rho_{\rm m}=0$ as a local identity, since spin vector with fixed length has only two independent variables, and therefore ${\sum}_{ijk}\epsilon_{ijk} (\nabla_i\nv) \cdot (\nabla_j \nv \times \nabla_k \nv)=0$. However, there is a possibility that the volume integral, $Q_{\rm m}\equiv \intr \rho_{\rm m}$, is finite; In fact, using the Gauss’s law we can write ($\int d\Sv $ represents a surface integral) $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\rm m} =\frac{h}{4\pi e}\int d\Sv\cdot {\bm \Omega},\end{aligned}$$ and it follows that $Q_{\rm m} =\frac{h}{e}\times$integer since $\frac{1}{4\pi}\int d\Sv\cdot{\bm \Omega}$ is a winding number, an integer, of a mapping from a sphere in the coordinate space to a sphere in spin space. If the mapping is topologically non-trivial as a result of a singularity, the monopole charge is finite. Typical nontrivial structures of $\nv$ are shown in Fig. \[FIGHH\]. The singular structure with a single monopole charge is called the hedgehog monopole.
The Faraday’s law similarly reads $ (\nabla\times\Esv)_i+\dot{\Bsv}_i=\frac{\hbar}{4e}\sum_{ijk}\epsilon_{ijk} \dot\nv \cdot (\nabla_j \nv \times \nabla_k \nv) \equiv \jv_{\rm m} $, which vanishes locally but is finite when integrated, indicating that topological monopole current $\jv_{\rm m}$ exists.
The other two Maxwell’s equations describing $\nabla\cdot\Esv$ and $\nabla\times\Bsv$ are derived by evaluating the induced spin density and spin current based on linear response theory [@Takeuchi12; @Tatara12].
![Spin electric field $\bm{E}_{\rm s}$ and spin magnetic field $\bm{B}_{\rm s}$ act oppositely for electrons with opposite spin, and thus are useful for generation of spin current. \[FIGEsBs\]](Es.pdf "fig:"){width="0.35\hsize"} ![Spin electric field $\bm{E}_{\rm s}$ and spin magnetic field $\bm{B}_{\rm s}$ act oppositely for electrons with opposite spin, and thus are useful for generation of spin current. \[FIGEsBs\]](Bs.pdf "fig:"){width="0.35\hsize"}
Detection of spin electromagnetic fields
========================================
The spin electromagnetic fields are real fields detectable in transport measurements. They couples to the spin polarization of the electrons (Fig. \[FIGEsBs\]), and because spin density and spin current in ferromagnetic metals is always accompanied with electric charge and current, respectively, the effects of the spin magnetic fields are observable in electric measurements. The electric component $\Esv$ is directly observable as a voltage generation from magnetization dynamics, and the voltage signals of $\mu$V order have been observed for the motion of domain walls and vortices [@Yang09; @Tanabe12]. The spin magnetic field causes an anomalous Hall effect of spin, i.e., the spin Hall effect called the topological Hall effect. The spin electric field arises if magnetization structure carrying spin magnetic field becomes dynamical due to the Lorentz force from $\Bsv$ according to $\Esv=\vv\times\Bsv$, where $\vv$ denotes the electron spin’s velocity. The topological Hall effect due to skyrmion lattice turned out to induce Hall resistivity of 4n$\Omega$cm [@Neubauer09; @Schulz12]. Although those signals are not large, existence of spin electromagnetic fields is thus confirmed experimentally. It was recently shown theoretically that spin magnetic field couples to helicity of circularly polarized light (topological inverse Faraday effect) [@Taguchi12], and an optical detection is thus possible.
Effects of spin gauge field on magnetization dynamics\[SECmagdynamics\]
=======================================================================
As discussed in the previous section, the spin gauge field are measured by transport experiments. Here we study the opposite effect, the effects of spin gauge field on magnetization dynamics when spin current is applied. The spin gauge field is expected to couple to the spin current of the electron, $\js$, via the minimal coupling, $$H_{A_{\rm s}}= \intr\lt[ -\frac{\hbar}{e}\Asv\cdot \jsv + \frac{n\hbar^2}{2m} (\Asv)^2
-{2\hbar} A_{{\rm s},0}\rhos \rt] ,\label{HAs}$$ where $n$ is the electron density, and $\rhos=\frac{1}{2}(n_+-n_-)$ is the electron spin density, $n_\sigma$ ($\sigma=\pm$) representing the density of electron with spin $\sigma$. The field $ A_{{\rm s},0}$ is the time component of spin gauge field (Eq. (\[Asdef\]) with spatial derivative replaced by time derivative). (For rigorous derivation of the coupling, see Eqs. (\[Lezexpression2\])(\[gaugeH\]).) As the spin gauge field is written in terms of localized spin variables, $\theta$ and $\phi$, as a result of Eq. (\[Asdef\]), this interaction describes how the spin current and electron density affects the magnetization dynamics. Here we study the adiabatic limit, where the contribution second order in $\Asv$ (the second term of the right hand side of Eq. (\[HAs\]) is neglected. Including the gauge interaction, the Lagrangian for the localized spin reads $$\begin{aligned}
L_S &= \intr \lt[ \frac{2}{a^3} A_{{\rm s},0}\lt(S+\rhos a^3\rt) - \frac{\hbar}{e} \Asv\cdot \jsv\rt] -H_S,
\label{LS1}
\end{aligned}$$ where $H_S$ is the Hamiltonian. We see that the magnitude of localized spin is modified to be the effective one $\Sbar\equiv S+{\rhos}a^3$ including the spin polarization of the conduction electron. Writing the gauge field terms explicitly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
L_S &= \intr \lt[ \Sbar (1-\cos\theta) \lt( \frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\vv_{\rm s}\cdot\nabla \rt) \phi\rt] -H_S, %-H_{\rm na}
\label{Lsjstot}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vv_{\rm s}\equiv \frac{a^3}{2e\Sbar}\jsv$. The velocity $\vv_{\rm s}$ here agrees with the phenomenological one, Eq. (\[vst\]), if electron spin polarization is neglected (i.e., if $\Sbar=S$). In the adiabatic limit, therefore, the time-derivative of the localized spin in the equation of motion is replaced by the Galilean invariant form with a moving velocity of $\vv_{\rm s}$ when a spin current is present. The equation of motion derived from the Lagrangian (\[Lsjstot\]) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\lt( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} -\vv_{\rm s}\cdot\nabla \rt) \Sv
& = -\gamma \Bv_{S}\times\Sv , \label{LLmoving}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Bv_{S}$ is the effective magnetic field due to $H_S$. From Eq. (\[LLmoving\]), it is obvious that the magnetization structure flows with velocity $\vv_{\rm s}$, and this effect is in fact the spin-transfer effect discussed phenomenologically in Sec. \[SECstt\]. It should be noted that the effect is mathematically represented by a simple gauge interaction of Eq. (\[LS1\]). The equation of motion (\[LLmoving\]) is the Landau-Lifshiz-Gilbert (LLG) equation including adiabatic spin-transfer effect. It was theoretically demonstrated that the spin-transfer torque induces a red shift of spin wave, resulting in instability of uniform ferromagnetic state under spin-polarized current [@STK05].
In reality, there is nonadiabatic contribution described by spin-flip interactions. Such contribution leads to a mixing of the electron spins resulting in a scattering of the conduction electron and a finite resistance due to the magnetization structure [@GT00; @GT01]. This scattering gives rise to a force on the magnetization structure as a counter action [@TK04].
As we have seen, the concept of adiabatic spin gauge field is useful to give a unified description of both electron transport properties in the presence of magnetization structure and the magnetization dynamics in the presence of spin-polarized current.
Field-theoretic description
===========================
So far we discussed that an effective spin gauge field emerges by looking into the quantum mechanical phase factor attached to conduction electron in the presence of magnetization structures. Existence of effective gauge field is straightforwardly seen in field-theoretic description.
A field-theoretical description is based on the Lagrangian of the system, $$\begin{aligned}
\Lhat= i\hbar\intr\sum_{\sigma} \chat^\dagger_\sigma \dot{\chat}_\sigma -\Hhat, \label{Lhat} \end{aligned}$$ where $\Hhat=\hat{K}+\Hhat_{sd}$ is the field Hamiltonian. Here $$\hat{K}= \intr \sum_\sigma \chat^\dagger_\sigma\lt(- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \rt) \chat_\sigma
= \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \sum_\sigma \intr (\nabla \chat^\dagger_\sigma) (\nabla \chat_\sigma)$$ describes the free electron part in terms of field operators for conduction electron, $\chat_{\sigma}$ and $\chat^\dagger_{\sigma}$, where $\sigma=\pm$ denotes spin. The $sd$ exchange interaction is represented by $$\Hhat_{sd}= -\frac{J_{sd}S}{2} \intr \chat^\dagger(\nv\cdot \sigmav) \chat.$$ We are interested in the case where $\nv(\rv,t)$ changes in space and time slowly compared to the electron’s momentum and energy scales. How the electron ’feels’ when flowing through such slowly varying structure is described by introducing a rotating frame where the $sd$ exchange interaction is locally diagonalized. In Sec. \[SEC:adiabatic\], we introduced a unitary matrix $U(\rv,t)$, and this matrix is used here to introduce a new electron operator as $$\begin{aligned}
\ahat(\rv,t)=U(\rv,t)\chat(\rv,t). \label{Ucdef}\end{aligned}$$ The new operator $\ahat$ describes the low energy dynamics for the case of strong $sd$ exchange interaction. In fact, the $sd$ exchange interaction for this electron is diagonalized to be $$\Hhat_{sd}= -M \intr \ahat^\dagger \sigma_z \ahat ,
\label{Hsddiag}$$ where $M\equiv \frac{J_{sd}S}{2}$. Instead, the kinetic term for the new electron is modified, because derivative of the electron field is modified as $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \chat %=(\nabla U)\ahat+U(\nabla \ahat)
=U(\nabla+i \Acals ) \ahat, \label{covariantderivative}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Acals\equiv -iU^\dagger\nabla U .\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Acals$ is a $2\times2$ matrix, whose componets are represented by using Pauli matrices as $$\begin{aligned}
\Acal_{{\rm s},i}=\sum_{\alpha=x,y,z}\Acal_{{\rm s},i}^\alpha \sigma_\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[covariantderivative\]) indicates that the new electron field $\ahat$ is interacting with an effective gauge field, $\Acals$. This gauge field has three components, is non-commutative and is called the SU(2) gauge field. The three components explicitly read $$\vecth{\Acal_{{\rm s},\mu}^x}{\Acal_{{\rm s},\mu}^y}{\Acal_{{\rm s},\mu}^z}
= \hf
\vecth{
-\partial_\mu \theta \sin \phi -\sin\theta \cos\phi \partial_\mu \phi }{
\partial_\mu \theta \cos \phi -\sin\theta \sin\phi \partial_\mu \phi }{
(1-\cos\theta)\partial_\mu \phi }.
%\equiv \Ath_\mu\evth+\Aph_\mu\evph-\Az_\mu\evs.
\label{Aexpression}$$ Due to Eq. (\[covariantderivative\]), the kinetic term $\hat{K}$ is written in terms of $\ahat$ electron as $$\hat{K} = \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \intr [(\nabla-i\Acals) \ahat^\dagger] [(\nabla+ i\Acals) \ahat].$$ Similarly, time-component of the gauge field $$\begin{aligned}
\Acal_{{\rm s},0}\equiv -iU^\dagger\partial_t U,\end{aligned}$$ arises from the time-derivative term ($i\hbar \chat^\dagger_\sigma \dot{\chat}_\sigma $) of the Lagrangian (\[Lhat\]). The Lagrangian in terms of $\ahat$ electron therefore reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Lhat &= \intr \left[
i\hbar \ahat^\dagger \dot{\ahat} -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}|\nabla \ahat|^2 +\eF \ahat^\dagger \ahat
+\spol \ahat^\dagger \sigma_z \ahat
\right.\nonumber\\
& \left.+i\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\sum_{i}
(\ahat^\dagger {\cal A}_{{\rm s},i} \nabla_i \ahat - (\nabla_i\ahat^\dagger) {\cal A}_{{\rm s},i} \ahat )
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}{\cal A}_{\rm s}^2 \ahat^\dagger \ahat -\hbar \ahat^\dagger {\cal A}_{{\rm s},0} \ahat
\right].
\label{Lezexpression1}\end{aligned}$$ If we introduce electron density operator, $\hat{n}\equiv \ahat^\dagger \ahat$, and operators for spin dnesity and spin current density as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rhos}_\alpha & \equiv \frac{1}{2} \ahat^\dagger \sigma_\alpha \ahat , &
\hat{j}_{{\rm s},i}^{\alpha} \equiv \frac{-i}{2m} \ahat^\dagger \vvec{\nabla}_i \sigma_\alpha \ahat
\equiv \frac{-i}{2m}\lt[ \ahat^\dagger \sigma_\alpha ({\nabla}_i \ahat)- ({\nabla}_i \ahat^\dagger) \sigma_\alpha \ahat \rt] ,\end{aligned}$$ it reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Lhat &= \intr\left[
i\hbar \ahat^\dagger \dot{\ahat} -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}|\nabla \ahat|^2 +\eF \ahat^\dagger \ahat
+ \spol \ahat^\dagger \sigma_z \ahat
- \hat{j}_{{\rm s},i}^{\alpha} {\cal A}_{{\rm s},i}^\alpha
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}{\cal A}_{\rm s}^2 \hat{n}
- \hat{\rhos}^{\alpha} {\cal A}_{{\rm s},0}^\alpha
\right].
\label{Lezexpression2}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of $\spol/\ef\gg 1$ (large $\Jsd$), the electron with spin $\downarrow$ has high energy because of strong spin splitting, Eq. (\[Hsddiag\]), and is neglected. In this case, only the $z$ component of the gauge field, $\Acal_{{\rm s},i}^z$, survives. This component is thus essentially a U(1) gauge field, which coincides with the U(1) gauge field we have obtained from the argument of electron’s phase factor, namely, $\Asv={\bm \Acal}_{{\rm s}}^z$. The total Hamiltonian in the limit of large $J_{sd}$ therefore reduces to the one for a charged particle in the presence of a U(1) gauge field $\Asv$; $$\Hhat = \intr \lt[ \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} [(\nabla-i\Asv) \ahat_\uparrow^\dagger] [(\nabla+ i\Asv) \ahat_\uparrow]
-\frac{J_{sd}S}{2} \ahat_\uparrow^\dagger \ahat_\uparrow \rt].
\label{gaugeH}$$ The field-theoretic method present here is highly useful, as it leads to a conclusion of the existence of an effective gauge field for spin simply by carrying out a unitary transformation to diagonalize strong $sd$ exchange interaction.
Non-adiabaticity and spin relaxation
=====================================
In reality, there is a deviation from the adiabatic limit we have considered so far. One origin is the fact that the magnetization structure is not in the slowly varying limit, but has a finite length scale of spatial modulation. This effect, we call the non adiabaticity, leads to reflection of conduction electron by magnetization structures as in Fig. \[FIGDWelec\](b), resulting in a force on the magnetization structure when an electric current is applied [@Berger78; @TK04]. In terms of torque, the effect of the force due to reflection is represented by a non-local torque, as it arises from finite momentum transfer [@TKSLL07]. Another effect we need to take into account is the relaxation (damping) of spin schematically shown in the Fig. \[FIGnonadiabatic\]. In metallic ferromagnets, the damping mostly arises from the spin-orbit interaction, as seen from the fact that the Gilbert damping parameter $\alpha$ and the $g$ value has a correlation of $\alpha\propto (g-2)^2$ as shown in Ref. [@Oogane06]. Spin relaxation generates a torque perpendicular to the motion of the spin, resulting in a canting of the precession axis. Similarly, when a spin current $\jsv$ is applied, the spin relaxation thus was argued to induce a torque perpendicular to the spin-transfer torque, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\tauv_{\beta} &\equiv \beta \frac{a^3}{2e} \nv\times(\jsv\cdot\nabla)\nv ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ is a coefficient representing the effect of spin relaxation [@Zhang04; @Thiaville05].
![ Spin relaxation induces a torque perpendicular to the spin motion and let the spin relax to the stable direction along the external magnetic field. \[FIGnonadiabatic\]](damping_1_tr){height="6\baselineskip"}
Those effects of non adiabaticity and spin relaxation can be calculated from a microscopic viewpoint [@KTS06; @TKSLL07]. Let us go back to the LLG equation for localized spin interacting with conduction electron spin via the $sd$ exchange interaction. The total Hamiltonian is $H_{S}-{M}\sum_{\rv} \nv(\rv)\cdot\sigmav-H_{\rm e}$, where $H_S$ and $H_{\rm e}$ are the Hamiltonian for localized spin and conduction electron, respectively. The equation of motion for localized spin is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\nv} &= \gamma \Bv_{S}\times \nv + \gamma \Bv_{\rm e}\times \nv, \label{LLGfromH}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma \Bv_{S} \equiv \frac{1}{\hbar} \frac{\delta H_{S}}{\delta \nv}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \Bv_{\rm e} & \equiv \frac{1}{\hbar} \frac{\delta H_{\rm e}}{\delta \nv}
=-\frac{M}{\hbar} \average{\sigmav},\end{aligned}$$ are the effective magnetic field arising from the localized spin and conduction electron, respectively. The field $ \Bv_{\rm e}$ is represented by the expectation value of electron spin density, $\average{\sigmav}$, and all the effects from the conduction electron is included in this field; Equation (\[LLGfromH\]) is exact if $\average{\sigmav}$ is evaluated exactly. Field theoretic approach is suitable for a systematic evaluation of the electron spin density. We move to a rotated frame where the electron spin is described choosing the local $z$ axis along the localized spin. In the case we are interested, namely, when the effect of non adiabaticity and damping are weak, these effects are treated perturbatively.
The spin density in the laboratory frame is written in terms of the spin in the rotated frame $\tilde{\sev}$ as $\se_{i}=R_{ij}\tilde{\se}_j$, where $$\begin{aligned}
R_{ij}\equiv 2m_im_j-\delta_{ij}, \label{Rij} \end{aligned}$$ is a rotation matrix, $\mv\equiv (\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\cos\phi, \sin\frac{\theta}{2}\sin\phi, \cos\frac{\theta}{2})$ being the vector which define the unitary rotation. The perpendicular components (denoted by $\perp$) of electron spin density in the rotated frame are calculated as [@TKS_PR08] $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\se}^\perp &= -\frac{2\rhos}{M} {\cal A}_{{\rm s},0}^\perp -\frac{a^3}{eM}\jsv\cdot{\cal A}_{\rm s}^\perp
-\frac{\alpha_{\rm sr}}{M} (\zvhat \times {\cal A}_{{\rm s},0}^\perp )
-\frac{\beta_{\rm sr}}{eM}(\zvhat \times (\jsv\cdot{\cal A}_{\rm s}^\perp)).
\label{serotresult}\end{aligned}$$ The effect of spin relaxation is included in $\alpha_{\rm sr}$ and $\beta_{\rm sr}=\hbar/(2M\tau_{\rm s})$, both proportional to the spin relaxation time, $\tau_{\rm s}$ [@KTS06]. The first term of Eq. (\[serotresult\]) represents the renormalization of the localized spin as a result of electron spin polarization and the second term, induced in the presence of applied spin current, describes the adiabatic spin-transfer torque. Using the identity $$\begin{aligned}
R_{ij}({\cal A}_{{\rm s},\mu})_j^\perp&=-\frac{1}{2}(\nv\times\partial_\mu\nv)_i,
& R_{ij}(\zvhat\times {\cal A}_{{\rm s},\mu}^\perp)_j =\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\nv_i, \end{aligned}$$ we see that Eq. (\[serotresult\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
(1+\rhos a^3)\dot{\nv} &= \alpha\nv\times\dot{\nv} -\frac{a^3}{2e}(\jsv\cdot\nabla)\nv
-\frac{\beta a^3}{2e}[\nv\times(\jsv\cdot\nabla)\nv]
+\gamma \Bv_{S}\times \nv , \label{LLGfromH2}\end{aligned}$$ which is the LLG equation taking into account the torque due to electrons. Here $\alpha\equiv \alpha_{\rm sr}$ and $\beta\equiv \beta_{\rm sr}$, neglecting other origins for Gilbert damping and nonadiabatic torque.
Current-driven domain wall motion
=================================
Let us briefly discuss dynamics of a domain wall based on the LLG equation (\[LLGfromH2\]) including the current-induced torques. We consider an one-dimensional and rigid wall, neglecting deformation. For a domain wall to be created, the system must have an easy axis magnetic anisotropy energy. We also include the hard-axis anisotropy energy, which turns out to govern the domain wall motion. Choosing the easy and the hard axises along the $z$ and the $y$ directions, respectively, the anisotropy energy is represented by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{K} &\equiv \sumr \lt[ -\frac{KS^2}{2}\cos^2\theta +\frac{K_\perp S^2}{2}\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi \rt],\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ and $K_\perp$ are the easy- and hard-axis anisotropy energies (both are positive). We need to take into account of course the exchange coupling, which is essential for ferromagnetism, which in the continuum expression reads $$\begin{aligned}
H_J & \equiv \intr \frac{JS^2a^2}{2} (\nabla\nv)^2 .\end{aligned}$$ The domain wall solution obtained by minimizing $H_K$ and $H_J$ is Eq. (\[DWsolrest\]) with $\lambda=\sqrt{J/K}$. Considering a rigid wall, we assume that $K \gg K_\perp$. The low energy dynamics of the wall is then described by two variables (called the collective coordinates), the center coordinate of the wall, $X(t)$, and the angle $\phi(t)$ out-of the easy plane [@Slonczewski72; @TKS_PR08]. The wall profile including the collective coordinates is $$\begin{aligned}
n_z(z,t)=\tanh\frac{z-X(t)}{\lambda}, \;\;\; n_\pm(z,t)\equiv n_x\pm in_y=\frac{e^{\pm i\phi(t)}}{\cosh\frac{z-X(t)}{\lambda}}.
\label{DWsol}\end{aligned}$$ The equation of motion for domain wall is obtained by putting the wall profile (\[DWsol\]) in Eq. (\[LLGfromH2\]) and integrating over spatial coordinate as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\phi}+\alpha\frac{\dot{X}}{\lambda} =&
P \frac{\beta}{\lambda} \jtil \nnr
\dot{X}-\alpha\lambda \dot{\phi} =&
-\vc\sin2\phi + P\jtil ,
\label{eqs}\end{aligned}$$ where $P\equiv \js/j$ is spin polarization of the current, and both $\vc\equiv \frac{K_{\perp}\lambda S}{2\hbar}$ and $\jtil \equiv \frac{a^3}{2eS}j$ have dimension of velocity.
When $\beta=0$, the wall velocity when a constant $\jtil$ is applied is easily obtained as [@TK04] $$\overline{\dot{X}} =
\left\{ \begin{array}{lrr}
0 & \;\;\;\;\; & (\jtil < \jcitil) \\
\frac{|P|}{1+\alpha^2}\sqrt{\jtil^2-(\jcitil)^2}
& \;\;\;\;\; & (\jtil \geq \jcitil )
\end{array}\right.$$ and $\jcitil \equiv \frac{\vc}{P}$ is the intrinsic threshold current density [@TK04]. Namely, the wall cannot move if the applied current is lower than the threshold value. This is because the torque supplied by the current is totally absorbed by the wall by tilting the out of plane angle to be $\sin 2{\phi}=P \jtil /\vc$ when the current is weak ($|P \jtil /\vc|\leq 1$) and thus the wall cannot move. This effect is called the intrinsic pinning effect [@TKS_PR08]. For larger current density, the torque carried by the current induces an oscillation of the angle similar to the Walker’s breakdown in an applied magnetic field, and the wall speed also becomes an oscillating function of time.
When nonadiabaticity parameter $\beta$ is finite, the behavior changes greatly and intrinsic pinning effect is removed and the wall can move with infinitesimal applied current as long as there is no extrinsic pinning. In fact, when the applied current density is $ \jtil>\jatil$, where $$\jatil \equiv \frac{\vc}{P-\frac{{\beta}}{\alpha}},
\label{jatildef}$$ the solution of Eq. (\[eqs\]) is an oscillating function given by [@TKS_PR08] $$\begin{aligned}
{\dot{X}}
&=&
\frac{\beta}{\alpha} {\jtil}
+\frac{\vc}{1+\alpha^2}\frac{\lt(\frac{\jtil}{\jatil}\rt)^2-1}
{\frac{\jtil}{\jatil}-\sin(2\om t-\vartheta)},
\label{dwvelocity1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\om & \equiv \frac{\vc}{\lambda}\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha^2}
\sqrt{\lt(\frac{\jtil}{\jatil}\rt)^2-1} , &
\sin \vartheta \equiv \frac{\vc}{(\frac{{\beta}}{\alpha}-P)\jtil}.\end{aligned}$$ The time-average of the wall speed is $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{\dot{X}}}
&=&
\frac{{\beta}}{\alpha} \jtil
+\frac{\vc}{1+\alpha^2}\frac{1}{\jatil}
\sqrt{\jtil^2-\jatil^2}
.\label{averagewallvelocity}\end{aligned}$$ For current density satisfying $\jtil<\jatil$, the oscillation in Eq. (\[dwvelocity1\]) is replaced by an exponential decay in time, and the wall velocity reaches a terminal value of $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{X}
&\ra&
\frac{\beta}{\alpha} {\jtil} .
\label{dwvelocity2}\end{aligned}$$ The angle of the wall also reaches a terminal value determined by $$\sin 2{\phi}\rightarrow
\left(\frac{{\beta}}{\alpha}-P\right) \frac{\jtil}{\vc}. \label{phizterm}$$ The averaged wall speed (Eq. (\[averagewallvelocity\])) is plotted in Fig. \[FIGvj\].
![ Time averaged wall velocity $v_{w}$ as function of applied spin-polarized current $j$ for $\alpha=0.01$. Intrinsic pinning threshold $j_{\rm c}^{\rm i}$ exists only for ${\beta}=0$. The current density where derivative of $v_w$ is discontinuous corresponds to $\jatil$. \[FIGvj\] ](Vdw_1){width="0.5\hsize"}
The intrinsic pinning is a unique feature of current-driven domain wall, as the wall cannot move even in the absence of pinning center. In the unit of A/m$^2$, the intrinsic pinning threshold is $$\begin{aligned}
j_{\rm c}^{\rm i}= \frac{eS^2}{Pa^3\hbar}K_\perp \lambda.\end{aligned}$$ For device applications, this threshold needs to be lowered by reducing the hard-axis anisotropy and wall width [@Fukami08]. At the same time, the intrinsic pinning is promising for stable device operations. In fact, in the intrinsic pinning regime, the threshold current and dynamics is insensitive to extrinsic pinning and external magnetic field[@TK04], as was confirmed experimentally [@Koyama11]. This is due to the fact that the wall dynamics in the intrinsic pinning regime is governed by a torque (right hand side of the second equation of Eq. (\[eqs\])), which governs the wall velocity $\dot{X}$, while pinning and magnetic field induce force, which governs $\dot{\phi}$; The forces due to sample irregularity therefore does not modify the motion induced by a torque in the intrinsic pinning regime. Experimentally, intrinsic pinning is observed in perpendicularly magnetized materials [@Koyama11], perhaps due to relatively low intrinsic pinning threshold, while materials with in-plane magnetization mostly are in the extrinsic pinning regime governed by the nonadiabatic parameter $\beta$ and extrinsic pinning. In this regime, the threshold current of the wall motion is given by [@TTKSNF06] $$\begin{aligned}
j_{\rm c}^{\rm e} \propto \frac{V_{\rm e}}{\beta},\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\rm e}$ represents strength of extrinsic pinning potential like those generated by geometrical notches and defects. Control of nonadiabaticity parameter is therefore expected to be useful for driving domain walls at low current density.
Of recent interest from the viewpoint of low current operation is to use multilayer structures. For instance, heavy metal layers turned out to lower the threshold current by exerting a torque as a result of spin Hall effect [@Emori13], and synthetic antiferromagnets turned out to be suitable for fast domain wall motion at low current [@Saarikoski14; @YangParkin15].
Interface spin-orbit effects
============================
Physics tends to focus on infinite systems or bulk system approximated as infinite, as one of the most important objective of physics is to search for beautiful general law supported by symmetries. In the condensed matter physics today, studying such ’beautiful’ systems seems to be insufficient anymore. This is because demands to understand physics of interfaces and surfaces has been increasing rapidly as present devices are in nanoscales to meet the needs for fast processing of huge data. Systems with lower symmetry are therefore important subjects of material science today.
Surfaces and interfaces have no inversion symmetry, and this leads to emergence of an antisymmetric exchange interaction (Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction) [@Dzyaloshinsky58; @Moriya60] in magnetism . As for electrons, broken inversion symmetry leads to a peculiar spin-orbit interaction, called the Rashba interaction [@Rashba60], whose Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
{H}_{\rm R} &= i \alphaRv \cdot (\bm{\nabla} \times \bm{\sigma}), \label{RashbaH}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\sigma}$ is the vector of Pauli matrices and $\alphaRv$ is a vector representing the strength and direction of the interaction. The form of the interaction is the one derived directly from the Dirac equation as a relativistic interaction, but the magnitude can be strongly enhanced in solids having heavy elements compared to the vacuum case.
As is obvious from the form of the Hamiltonian, the Rashba interaction induces electromagnetic cross correlation effects where a magnetization and an electric current are induced by external electric and magnetic field, $\Ev$ and $\Bv$, respectively, like represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\Mv&=\gamma_{ME}({\bm{{\alpha}}_{\rm R}}\times\Ev), &\jv=\gamma_{jB}({\bm{{\alpha}}}_{\rm R}\times\Bv), \label{spinchargemixing}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{ME}$ and $\gamma_{jB}$ are coefficients, which generally depend on frequency. The emergence of spin accumulation from the applied electric field, mentioned in Ref. [@Rashba60], was studied by Edelstein [@Edelstein90] in detail, and the effect is sometimes called Edelstein effect. The generation of electric current by magnetic field or magnetization, called the inverse Edelstein effect [@Shen14], was recently observed in multilayer of Ag, Bi and a ferromagnet [@Sanchez13].
Effective magnetic field
------------------------
Equation (\[RashbaH\]) indicates that when a current density $\jv$ is applied, the conduction electron has average momentum of $\pv=\frac{m}{en}\jv$ ($n$ is electron density), and thus an effective magnetic field of $
\Bv_{\rm e}=\frac{ma^3}{-e\hbar^2\gamma}\alphaRv\times\jv,
$ acts on the conduction electron spin ($\gamma(=\frac{|e|}{m})$ is the gyromagnetic ratio). When the $sd$ exchange interaction between the conduction electron and localized spin is strong, this field multiplied by the the spin polarization, $P$, is the field acting on the localized spin. Namely, the localized spin feels a current-induced effective magnetic field of $$\begin{aligned}
\Bv_{\rm R}=\frac{Pma^3}{-e\hbar^2\gamma}\alphaRv\times\jv . \label{BR} \end{aligned}$$
One may argue more rigorously using field theoretic description. Considering the case of $sd$ exchange interaction stronger than the Rashba interaction, we use a unitary transformation to diagonalize the $sd$ exchange interaction (Eq. (\[Ucdef\])). The Rashba interaction in the field representation then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{H}_{\rm R} &= -\intr \frac{m}{\hbar e }\epsilon_{ijk} \alpha_{{\rm R},i} R_{kl} \tilde{j}_{{\rm s},j}^l , \label{HRrot}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{j}_{{\rm s},j}^l \equiv -i \frac{\hbar e }{2m} a^\dagger \nablalr_j \sigma_l a$ is the spin current in the rotated frame, $R_{ij}$ is given in Eq. (\[Rij\]). Terms containing spatial derivatives of magnetization structure is neglected, considering the slowly-varying structure. In this adiabatic limit, spin current is polarized along the $z$ direction, i.e., $\tilde{j}_{{\rm s},j}^l =\delta_{l,z}{j}_{\rm s} $. We therefore obtain using $R_{kz}=n_k$, $$\begin{aligned}
{H}_{\rm R} &= \intr \frac{m}{\hbar e }\jv_{\rm s} \cdot( \alphaRv\times\nv),\end{aligned}$$ which results in the same expression as Eq. (\[BR\]).
The strength of the Rashba-induced magnetic field is estimated (choosing $a=2$Å) as $B_{\rm R}=2\times 10^{16} \times \alphaR$(Jm)$\js$(A/m$^2$); For a strong Rashba interaction $\alphaR=1$ eVÅ like at surfaces [@Ast07], $B_{\rm R}=4\times 10^{-2}$ T at $\js=10^{11}$ A/m$^2$. This field appears not very strong, but is sufficient at modify the magnetization dynamics. In fact, for the domain wall motion, when the Rashba-induced magnetic field is along the magnetic easy axis, the field is equivalent to that of an effective $\beta$ parameter of $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\rm R}=\frac{2m \lambda}{\hbar^2}\alphaR ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is the wall thickness. If $\alphaR=1$ eVÅ, $\beta_{\rm R}$ becomes extremely large like $\beta_{\rm R}\simeq 250$ for $\lambda=50$ nm. Note that $\beta$ arising from spin relaxation is the same order as Gilbert damping constant, namely of the order of $10^{-2}$. Such a large effective $\beta$ is expected to leads to an extremely fast domain wall motion under current [@Obata08; @Manchon09].
Experimentally, it was argued that fast domain wall motion observed in Pt/Co/AlO was due to the Rashba interaction [@Miron10], but the result is later associated with the torque generated by spin Hall effect in Pt layer [@Emori13]. It was recently shown theoretically that strong Rashba-induced magnetic field works as a strong pinning center when introduced locally, and that this Rashba pinning effect is useful for highly reliable control of domain walls in racetrack memories [@TataraDW16].
Rashba-induced spin gauge field
-------------------------------
Since the interaction (\[HRrot\]) is the one coupling to the spin current, the Rashba interaction is regarded as a gauge field acting on electron spin as far as the linear order concerns. The gauge field defined by Eq. (\[HRrot\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\Av_{\rm R}\equiv -\frac{m}{e\hbar}(\alphaRv\times\nv).
\label{AvRdef}\end{aligned}$$ Existence of a gauge field naturally leads to an effective electric and magnetic field [@Kim12; @Nakabayashi14] $$\begin{aligned}
\Ev_{\rm R} = -\dot{\Av}_{\rm R} = \frac{m}{e\hbar}(\alphaRv\times\dot{\nv}) \nnr
\Bv_{\rm R} = \nablav \times \Av_{\rm R} = - \frac{m}{e\hbar}\nablav\times(\alphaRv\times\nv).
\label{ERBR}\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of electron spin relaxation, the electric field has a perpendicular component [@Tatara_smf13] $$\Ev_{\rm R}' = \frac{m}{e\hbar}\beta_{\rm R}[\alphaRv\times(\nv\times\dot{\nv})] , \label{ERp}$$ where $\beta_{\rm R}$ is a coefficient representing the strength of spin relaxation. For the case of strong Rashba interaction of $\alpha_{\rm R}=3$ eVÅ, as realized in Bi/Ag, the magnitude of the electric field is $|E_{\rm R}|=\frac{m}{e\hbar}\alpha_{\rm R}\omega=26$kV/m if the angular frequency $\omega$ of magnetization dynamics is 10 GHz. The magnitude of relaxation contribution is $|E_{\rm R}'|\sim260$V/m if $\beta_{\rm R}=0.01$. The effective magnetic field in the case of spatial length scale of 10 nm is high as well; $B_{\rm R}\sim 260$T.
![ Schematic figure depicting spin relaxation contribution of Rashba-induced spin electric field $\Ev_{\rm R}'$ generated by magnetization precession. Electric current $\jv$ is induced as a result of motive force $\Ev_{\rm R}'$ in the direction perpendicular to both $\nv\times\dot{\nv}$ and Rashba field $\alphaRv$. \[FIGEs\_alpha\]](Esp_alphaR){width="0.4\hsize"}
The Rashba-induced electric fields, $\Ev_{\rm R}$ and $\Ev_{\rm R}'$, are important from the viewpoint of spin-charge conversion. In fact, results (\[ERBR\])(\[ERp\]) indicates that a voltage is generated by a dynamics magnetization if the Rashba interaction is present, even in the case of spatially uniform magnetization, in sharp contrast to the conventional adiabatic effective electric field from the spin Berry’s phase of Eq. (\[EsBsdef\]). In the case of a think film with Rashba interaction perpendicular to the plane and with a precessing magnetization, the component $\Ev_{\rm R}\propto \dot{\nv}$ has no DC component, while the relaxation contribution $\Ev_{\rm R}'$ has a DC component perpendicular to $\overline{\nv\times\dot{\nv}}\parallel \overline{\nv}$. The geometry of this (spin-polarized) current pumping effect, $\jv\propto \Ev_{\rm R}' \propto \alphaRv\times \overline{\nv} $, is therefore the same as the one expected in the case of inverse Edelstein effect (Fig. \[FIGEs\_alpha\]). In the present form, there is a difference between the Rashba-induced electric field effect and the system in Ref. [@Sanchez13], that is, the former assumes a direct contact between the Rashba interaction and magnetization while they are separated by a Ag spacer in Ref. [@Sanchez13]. It is expected, however, that the Rashba-induced electric field becomes long-ranged and survives in the presence of a spacer if we include the electron diffusion processes. The spin-charge conversion observed in junctions will then be interpreted as due to the Rashba-induced electromagnetic field. For this scenario to be justified, it is crucial to confirm the existence of magnetic component, $ \Bv_{\rm R} $, which can be of the order of 100T. In the setup of Fig. \[FIGEs\_alpha\], $ \Bv_{\rm R} $ is along $\overline{\nv}$. The field can therefore be detected by measuring “giant” in-plane spin Hall effect when a current is injected perpendicular to the plane.
Application of effective vector potential theory
================================================
Anomalous optical properties of Rashba conductor
------------------------------------------------
The idea of effective gauge field is useful for extending the discussion to include other degrees of freedom, like optical properties. In fact, the fact that the Rashba interaction coupled with magnetization leads to an effective vector potential $\Av_{\rm R}$ (Eq. (\[AvRdef\])) for electron spin indicates that the existence of intrinsic spin flow. Such intrinsic flow affects the optical properties, as incident electromagnetic waves get Doppler shift when interacting with flowing electrons, resulting in a transmission depending on the direction (directional dichroism), as was theoretically demonstrated in Refs. [@Shibata16; @Kawaguchi16]. The magnitude of the directional dichroism for the case of wave vector $\qv$ is given by $\qv\cdot(\alphaRv\times\nv)$. The vector $(\alphaRv\times\nv)$ is called in the context of multiferroics the toroidal moment, and it was argued to acts as an effective vector potential for light [@Sawada05].
![ Schematic figure showing the cross-correlation effects in the plane perpendicular to the Rashba field $\alphaRv$. Edelstein effect (E) generates spin density, $\sv_{\rm E}$, from the applied electric field, and inverse Edelstein effect (IE) generates current $\jv_{{\rm IE}\cdot{\rm E}}$ from magnetization $\Mv_{\rm E}$. \[FIGEIE\]](rashba_EIE_tgif_nl_s){width="0.5\hsize"}
It was shown also that Rashba conductor, even without magnetization, shows peculiar optical properties such as negative refraction as a result of spin-charge mixing effects [@Shibata16]. In fact, spin-charge mixing effects of Eq. (\[spinchargemixing\]) leads to a current generated by applied electric field, $\Ev$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\jv_{{\rm IE}\cdot{\rm E}} = -\hbar\gamma\kappa_{\rm EIE} [\alphaRv\times(\alphaRv\times\Ev)], \end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_{\rm EIE}$ is a coefficient (Fig. \[FIGEIE\]). As it is opposite to the applied field, the mixing effect results in a softening of the plasma frequency as for the $\Ev$ having components perpendicular to $\alphaRv$. The electric permitivity of the system is therefore anisotropic; Choosing $\alphaRv$ along the $z$ axis, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{z}&=1-\frac{\omegaP^2}{\omega(\omega+i\eta)},
&
\varepsilon_{x}=\varepsilon_{y}
=1-\frac{\omegaR^2}{\omega(\omega + i\eta)}, \label{e-perp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omegaP = \sqrt{{e^2n_{\rm e}}/{\varepsilon_{0}m}}$ is the bare plasma frequency ($\nel$ is the electron density), and $ \omegaR \equiv \omegaP\sqrt{1+\Re C(\omegaR)}<\omegaP
$ is the plasma frequency reduced by the spin mixing effect. [@Shibata16] ($C(\omega)$ represents the correlation function representing the Rashba-Edelstein effect, and its real part is negative.) The frequency region $\omegaR<\omega<\omegaP$ is of interest, as the system is insulating ($\varepsilon_z>0$) in the direction of the Rashba field but metallic in the perpendicular direction ($\varepsilon_x<0$). The dispersion in this case becomes hyperbolic, and the group velocity and phase velocity along $\qv$ can have opposite direction, resulting in negative refraction. Rashba system is, therefore a natural hyperbolic metamaterial [@Narimanov15]. A great advantage of Rashba conductors are that the metamaterial behavior arises in the infrared or visible light region, which is not easily accessible in fabricated systems. For instance, in the case of BiTeI with Rashba splitting of $\alpha=3.85$ eVÅ[@Ishizaka11], the plasma frequency is $\omegaP=2.5\times10^{14}$ Hz (corresponding to a wavelength of $7.5\mu$m) for $\nel=8\times 10^{25}$ m$^{-3}$ and $\ef=0.2$ eV [@Demko12]. We then have $\omegaR/\omegaP=0.77$ ($\omegaR=1.9\times 10^{14}$ Hz, corresponding to the wavelength of $9.8\mu$m), and hyperbolic behavior arises in the infrared regime. The directional dichroism arises in the infrared-red light regime [@Shibata16].
Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction
---------------------------------
Another interesting effect of spin gauge field pointed out recently is to induce the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction is an antisymmetric exchange interaction between magnetic atoms that can arise when inversion symmetry is broken. In the continuum limit, it is represented as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm DM} \equiv \int d^3r D^\alpha_i(\nabla_i\bm n\times \bm n)^\alpha,
\label{DMterm}\end{aligned}$$ where $D^a_i$ is the strength, $\alpha$ and $i$ denotes the spin and spatial direction, respectively. It was recently discussed theoretically that the interaction is a result of Doppler shift due to an intrinsic spin current generated by broken inversion symmetry [@Kikuchi16]. In fact, spin current density, $\js$, which is odd and even under spatial inversion and time-reversal, respectively, is induced by spin-orbit interaction in systems with broken inversion symmetry. Spatial variation of localized spins observed by the flowing electron spin is then described by a covariant derivative, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak D_i\nv &= \nabla_i\nv+\eta(\jv_{{\rm s},i}\times\nv), \label{covariant}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is a coefficient. This covariant derivative leads to the magnetic energy generated by the electron of $(\mathfrak D_i\nv)^2=(\nabla\nv)^2+2\eta \sum_i\jv_{{\rm s},i}\cdot(\nv\times\nabla_i\nv)+O(\eta^2)$. We see that the second term proportional to $\js$ is the DM interaction, and thus the coefficient is $D^a_i \propto j_{{\rm s},i}^\alpha$.
More rigorous derivation is performed by deriving an effective Hamiltonian. The electrons interacting strongly with localized spin is described by a Lagrangian (\[Lezexpression2\]), where ${\cal A}_{{\rm s},i}^\alpha$ is an SU(2) gauge field describing the spatial and temporal variation of localized spin. To discuss DM interaction, we include a spin-orbit interaction with broken inversion symmetry, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm so}&= \intr \frac{i}{2}c^\dagger \biggl[\lambda_i\cdot\sigmav \overleftrightarrow{\nabla}_i\biggr] c,
\label{Hso}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambdav$ is a vector representing the broken inversion symmetry. (Multiorbital cases are treated similarly [@Kikuchi16].) As is obvious from this form linear in spatial derivative and Pauli matrix, the spin-orbit interaction generates a spin current proportional to $\lambdav$. From Eq. (\[Lezexpression2\]), the effective Lagrangian for localized spin to the linear order in derivative is $$\begin{aligned}
\Heff = & \int d^3r \sum_{i a} \tilde{j}_{{\rm s},i}^a \Acal^a_{{\rm s},i} ,
\label{Heff}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{j}_{{\rm s},i}^a\equiv \average{ \hat{\tilde{j}}_{{\rm s},i}^a }$ is the expectation value of the spin current density in the rotated frame. In terms of the spin current in the laboratory frame, ${j}_{{\rm s},i}^{a}$, the effective Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Heff = & \int d^3r D_i^a (\nabla_i \bm n\times \bm n)^a ,
\label{Heff2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
D_i^a \equiv {j}_{{\rm s},i}^{\perp, a},
\label{DMdef}\end{aligned}$$ and ${j}_{{\rm s},i}^{\perp, a}$ is a component of ${j}_{{\rm s},i}^{a}$ perpendicular to the local magnetization direction, $\nv$. We therefore see that the DM coefficient is indeed given by the expectation value of the spin current density of the conduction electrons. The first principles calculation based on this spin current expression turns out to have advantage of shorter calculation time than previous methods[@Katsnelson10; @Freimuth14] by evaluating twist energy of magnetization [@Kikuchi16].
It has been noted that spin wave dispersion is modified in the presence of DM interaction, resulting in Doppler shift of spin waves [@Iguchi15; @Seki16]. The spin wave Doppler shift is natural from our physical interpretation of DM interaction, as DM interaction itself is a consequence of flowing electron spin current.
Summary
========
We have discussed various magnetic and electron transport properties in metallic ferromagnets from the view points of effective gauge field. The concept of gauge field turned out to be highly useful to describe novel electromagnetic cross correlation effects and optical properties.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We classify, up to local unitary equivalence, the set of $n$-qubit states that is stabilized by the diagonal subgroup of the local unitary group. We exhibit a basis for this set, parameterized by diagrams of nonintersecting chords connecting pairs of points on a circle, and give a criterion for when the stabilizer is precisely the diagonal subgroup and not larger. This investigation is part of a larger program to partially classify entanglement type (local unitary equivalence class) via analysis of stabilizer structure.'
author:
- 'David W. Lyons'
- 'Scott N. Walck'
date: '21 August 2008, revised 23 September 2008'
title: Multiparty quantum states stabilized by the diagonal subgroup of the local unitary group
---
The desire to measure and classify entanglement for states of $n$-qubit systems has been motivated by potential applications in quantum computation and communication that utilize entanglement as a resource [@nielsenchuang; @gudder03]. More deeply, the mystery of entanglement has played a key role in foundational questions about quantum mechanics itself. Because entanglement properties of multi-qubit states are invariant under local unitary transformations, attempts to classify entanglement lead naturally to the problem of classifying local unitary equivalence classes of states.
The results presented in this article arise from the following framework, utilized in [@linden98; @carteret00a] for 3-qubit systems and developed further by the authors in [@minorb1; @minorb2; @maxstabnonprod1; @maxstabnonprod2] for $n$ qubits, for approaching local unitary equivalence classification. The equivalence class of a state—its orbit under the local unitary group action—is a submanifold of Hilbert space. There is a natural diffeomorphism $${\cal O}_\psi \leftrightarrow G/\operatorname{Stab}_\psi$$ between the orbit $${\cal
O}_\psi = \{g{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\colon g\in G\}$$ of a state ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and the set $G/\operatorname{Stab}_\psi$ of cosets of the the stabilizer subgroup $$\operatorname{Stab}_\psi = \{g\in
G\colon g{\left| \psi \right\rangle}={\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}$$ (termed simply [*stabilizer*]{} hereafter) of the local unitary group $$G=U(1)\times SU(2)^n.$$ This duality between orbits and stabilizers provides a means of studying entanglement types (orbits) by analyzing stabilizer subgroups. Focusing on stabilizers affords the additional advantage of exploiting the well-developed theory of Lie groups and their Lie algebras of infinitesimal transformations.
In [@maxstabnonprod1], we showed that for any state $\psi$, there is a disjoint union of the set of qubit labels $$\{1,2,\ldots,n\}={\cal B}_1 \cup \ldots \cup {\cal B}_p \cup {\cal
R}$$ so that the stabilizer (after an LU transformation, if necessary) has the form $$\label{stabdecomp}
\operatorname{Stab}_\psi = \Delta_1 \times \cdots \times \Delta_p \times H,$$ where each $\Delta_j$ is a subgroup isomorphic to $SU(2)$ consisting of elements the form $$\label{diageltform}
\underbrace{1}_{\mbox{phase factor}}\times
\underbrace{(g,\ldots,g)}_{\mbox{in qubits ${\cal B}_j$}}\times
\underbrace{({{\rm Id}},\ldots,{{\rm Id}})}_{\mbox{in qubits outside of ${\cal
B}_j$}}$$ where $g$ ranges over $SU(2)$, and $H$ is a subgroup whose projection into each $SU(2)$ factor of $G$ is trivial in qubits $\cup_j {\cal B}_j$ and is 0- or 1-dimensional in the remaining $SU(2)$ factors in qubits in ${\cal R}$[^1].
In previous work [@maxstabnonprod1; @maxstabnonprod2], we have studied stabilizers with maximum possible dimension in the factor $H$ in the decomposition (\[stabdecomp\]) and have shown that states with such a stabilizer have important entanglement properties. This leads naturally to the question of what states have stabilizer $$\Delta = \{(1,g,g,\ldots,g)\colon g\in SU(2)\}$$ and what interesting entanglement properties do they have? Evidence that this investigation will be fruitful is the 4-qubit state $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| M_4 \right\rangle} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} [
{\left| 0011 \right\rangle} + {\left| 1100 \right\rangle} + \omega ({\left| 1010 \right\rangle} + {\left| 0101 \right\rangle}) \\
& \hspace{2cm} + \omega^2 ({\left| 1001 \right\rangle} + {\left| 0110 \right\rangle}) ] ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega = \exp(2 \pi i/3)$. The state $M_4$ has stabilizer $\Delta$ and has been shown [@higuchi00; @brierley07] to maximize average two-qubit bipartite entanglement, averaged over all partitions into 2-qubit subsystems. With this background, we pose the problem considered in this article.
[*[**Problem**]{}. Classify, up to local unitary equivalence, the space of states whose stabilizer contains $\Delta$. Among these states, which have stabilizer precisely equal to $\Delta$ and not larger?*]{}
Let $V_\Delta$ denote the space of states whose stabilizer contains $\Delta$. In the language of representation theory, $V_\Delta$ is the trivial subrepresentation Hilbert space $({{\mathbb C}}^2)^{\otimes n}$ under the action of $\Delta\cong SU(2)$. In physical terms, regarding qubits as spin-$1/2$ particles, $V_\Delta$ is the space of states with zero total angular momentum[^2]. It is known [@livineterno05] that $V_\Delta=0$ for odd $n$ and that the dimension of $V_\Delta$ for $n=2m$ is the $m$th Catalan number $$\dim V_\Delta = \frac{1}{m+1}{2m \choose m}.$$ It is clear that any product of $m$ singlet states ${\left| 01 \right\rangle}-{\left| 10 \right\rangle}$ (in any pairs of qubits) is in $V_\Delta$. In fact, as we show below, it turns out that all states in $V_\Delta$ are linear combinations of such states.
We can represent any product of $m$ singlets by a diagram consisting of $2m$ consecutively labeled points, joined in pairs by chords, no two of which share an endpoint. For example, the 6-qubit state $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \psi \right\rangle}&=&{\left| 001011 \right\rangle}-{\left| 001110 \right\rangle}-{\left| 011001 \right\rangle}-{\left| 100011 \right\rangle}\\
&&+{\left| 110001 \right\rangle} + {\left| 100110 \right\rangle} + {\left| 011100 \right\rangle} -{\left| 110100 \right\rangle} \end{aligned}$$ which is the product of singlets in qubit pairs $\{1,3\},\{2,5\},\{4,6\}$ is shown in Figure \[chorddeffig\].
(0,0)![Diagram for product of 3 singlet pairs specified by chords.[]{data-label="chorddeffig"}](figure1.ps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(1180,1185)(2638,-1728)
Given a partition ${\cal P}$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,2m\}$ into 2-element subsets, let ${\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}$ denote the singlet product state with singlet qubit pairs determined by ${\cal P}$. We shall say that ${\cal P}$ [*has no intersections*]{} if the associated chord diagram has no intersecting chords. Figure \[spillustrationfig\] illustrates all such states for $m=2$.
(0,0)![The two nonintersecting 4-qubit chord diagrams and their associated singlet product states.[]{data-label="spillustrationfig"}](figure2.ps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3226,1920)(1395,-2242) (2044,-2025)[(0,0)\[b\]]{} (2255,-2183)[(0,0)\[b\]]{} (3972,-1814)[(0,0)\[b\]]{} (3972,-2025)[(0,0)\[b\]]{} (4183,-2183)[(0,0)\[b\]]{} (2044,-1814)[(0,0)\[b\]]{}
Now we can state the solution to the above Problem. Statement 1 in the Theorem below gives a unique way to write any state whose stabilizer contains $\Delta$, and Statement 3 asserts this representation is unique in its local unitary equivalence class. Statement 2 answers the second question in the Problem above by giving a simple geometric criterion for when a state has its stabilizer precisely equal to $\Delta$.
\[mainresult\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. \[spbasis\] The set $\{{\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}\colon {\cal P} \mbox{
has no intersections}\}$ is a basis for $V_\Delta$.
2. \[stabnottoobig\] For $${\left| \psi \right\rangle}=\sum_{\cal P } c_{\cal P}{\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}$$ for which $c_{\cal P}=0$ if ${\cal P}$ has intersections, we have $\operatorname{Stab}_\psi=\Delta$ if and only if the following condition holds.
- For every proper subset ${\cal S}\subset
\{1,2,\ldots,2m\}$, there exists a partition ${\cal P}$ with $c_{\cal
P}\neq 0$ and some $\{a,b\}\in {\cal P}$ with $a\in {\cal S}$ and $b\not\in{\cal S}$.
3. \[luuniqueness\] Two states $\psi,\psi'$ that are local unitary equivalent with $\operatorname{Stab}_\psi= \operatorname{Stab}_{\psi'} = \Delta$ are in fact equal up to a phase factor.
To prove Theorem \[mainresult\], we begin with a device for assigning a particular bit string to a partition ${\cal P}$ that has no intersections. Given a partition ${\cal P}$, we define $I_{\cal P}$ to the [*smallest*]{} (as a binary number) multi-index that occurs in the expansion of ${\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}$ with nonzero coefficient in the computational basis. More generally, given an ordering ${\cal
O}=(k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_{2m})$ of the qubit labels $\{1,2,\ldots,2m\}$, we define $I^{\cal O}_{\cal P}$ to be the smallest binary number $i_{k_1}i_{k_2}\ldots i_{k_{2m}}$, where $I=(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{2m})$ ranges over the multi-indices that occur with nonzero coefficient in the expansion of ${\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}$ in the computational basis. It is easy to see how to construct $I_{\cal P}$. For each $\{a,b\}\in {\cal P}$ with $a<b$, assign $i_a=0$ and $i_b=1$. Similarly, to construct $I^{\cal
O}_{\cal P}$, for each $\{k_a,k_b\}\in {\cal P}$ with $a<b$, assign $i_{k_a}=0$ and $i_{k_b}=1$. Observe that if ${\cal P}\neq {\cal P}'$, then $I_{\cal P}\neq I_{{\cal P}'}$ and $I^{\cal O}_{\cal P}\neq I^{\cal
O}_{{\cal P}'}$. Now we proceed with the proof of Theorem \[mainresult\].
[*Proof of Statement \[spbasis\].*]{} Since the cardinality of $\{{\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}\colon {\cal P} \mbox{ has no intersections}\}$ is the dimension of $V_\Delta$ [@stanleyenumcombvol2; @sloaneintegerseqA000108], it suffices to show that the ${\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}$ are independent.
Suppose there is a linear relation $\sum_{\cal P}c_{\cal P}{\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}=0$ with one or more $c_{\cal P}$ nonzero. Then there is some partition ${\cal P}_0$ with $c_{{\cal P}_0}\neq 0$ whose associated smallest multi-index $I_{{\cal P}_0}$ is smaller than the associated multi-index for all other partitions with $c_{\cal P}\neq 0$. The expansion of $\sum_{\cal P}c_{\cal P}{\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}$ in the computational basis contains the term ${\left| I_{{\cal P}_0} \right\rangle}$ with nonzero coefficient, so $c_{{\cal
P}_0}$ must be zero. This contradiction implies that there is no linear relation $\sum_{\cal P}c_{\cal P}{\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}=0$ with nonzero coefficients, and independence is established.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\square$
[*Proof of Statement \[stabnottoobig\].*]{} If condition ($\ast$) in Statement \[stabnottoobig\] does not hold, then there is a set of qubits ${\cal K}$ so that every ${\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}$ occurring in ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is a product of singlets in ${\cal K}$ times a product of singlets in the complementary set of qubits $\overline{{\cal K}}$. It follows that $\operatorname{Stab}_\psi$ contains a product $\Delta_1\times \Delta_2$ of diagonal subgroups in qubits ${\cal
K},\overline{\cal K}$ that properly contains $\Delta$.
Conversely, suppose that condition ($\ast$) holds. Since the projection of $\operatorname{Stab}_\psi$ in each $SU(2)$ factor of $G$ is 3-dimensional, we know that $H$ in (\[stabdecomp\]) is trivial and therefore $\operatorname{Stab}_\psi$ is a product $\Delta_1\times \cdots \times \Delta_p$ for some $p\geq 1$ [@maxstabnonprod1]. It is our aim to show that in fact, $p=1$. Suppose on the contrary that $p>1$, and let ${\cal K}$ be the proper subset of $\{1,2,\ldots,2m\}$ consisting of qubits in which $\Delta_1$ has nontrivial coordinates. Consider the element $$X=(0,X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_n)$$ in the Lie algebra $K_\psi$ of $\operatorname{Stab}_\psi$, where $X_k={\left[ \begin{array}{cc} i & 0 \\
0 & -i \end{array} \right]}$ for qubits $k\in {\cal K}$ and $X_k=0$ for qubits $k\not\in {\cal K}$. Given a multi-index $I=(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{2m})$, let $$\label{coeffXaction}
\alpha_I = \#\{i_k\colon i_k=0\}_ {k\in {\cal K}} -
\#\{i_k\colon i_k=1\}_{k\in {\cal K}}.$$ The action of $X$ on the computational basis vector ${\left| I \right\rangle}$ is the following [@minorb1]. $$\label{Xaction}
X{\left| I \right\rangle} = i\alpha_I{\left| I \right\rangle}$$
Let ${\cal O}$ be an ordering $(k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_{2m})$ of the qubits $\{1,2,\ldots,2m\}$ obtained by choosing $(k_1,\ldots,k_{|{\cal K}|})$ to be any ordering of the qubits in ${\cal K}$, and choosing any ordering $(k_{|{\cal K}|+1},\ldots,k_{2m})$ of the qubits in $\overline{\cal K}$. Condition ($\ast$) implies that there exist one or more partitions ${\cal P}$ with $c_{\cal P}\neq 0$ and with ${\cal P}$ having at least one chord with one end in ${\cal K}$ and the other end in $\overline{\cal K}$. Let $I^{\cal O}_{\cal P}$ be the associated smallest string. The number of 0s in $I^{\cal O}_{\cal P}$ in qubits ${\cal K}$ is the number of chords with initial ends in ${\cal K}$ and the number of 1s in $I^{\cal O}_{\cal P}$ in ${\cal K}$ is the number of chords with terminal ends in ${\cal K}$. The only way to have the number of 0s equal the number of 1s is to have all the chords that begin in ${\cal K}$ also end in ${\cal K}$. But the choice of ${\cal P}$ guarantees that this is not the case. By (\[Xaction\]), $X$ kills a basis vector $I$ if and only if $\alpha_I=0$ in (\[coeffXaction\]), so it follows that $X{\left| I^{\cal O}_{\cal P} \right\rangle}\neq 0$. Let $A$ be the set of partitions that have at least one chord with one end in ${\cal K}$ and the other end in $\overline{\cal K}$, and let ${\cal P}_0\in A$ be the partition whose associated smallest string $I^{\cal O}_{{\cal P}_0}$ is the smallest among all $I^{\cal O}_{\cal P}$ for ${\cal P}$ in $A$. Since $$X{\left| \psi \right\rangle} = X\left(\sum_{{\cal P}\in A} c_{\cal P}{\left| s_{\cal P} \right\rangle}\right)$$ it follows that the term $X{\left| I^{\cal O}_{{\cal P}_0} \right\rangle}\neq 0$ survives in the expansion of $X{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ in the computational basis. But this contradicts the assumption that $X\in K_\psi$. We conclude that there must be only one $\Delta_j$ factor in $\operatorname{Stab}_\psi$, and we are done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\square$
[*Proof of Statement \[luuniqueness\].*]{} Let $g=(e^{it},g_1,\ldots,g_n)$ be a local unitary operator such that ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle} = g{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. The hypotheses imply that $g
\operatorname{Stab}_\psi = \operatorname{Stab}_\psi g$ or $g \operatorname{Stab}_\psi g^{-1} = \operatorname{Stab}_\psi$. Therefore we have $$g_i h g_i^{-1} = g_j h g_j^{-1}$$ for all $i,j$, $1\leq i,j \leq n$ and all $h\in SU(2)$, so $g_i^{-1} g_j$ stabilizes $h$ (with respect to the action of $SU(2)$ on itself by conjugation) for all $h\in SU(2)$. Therefore $g_i^{-1} g_j$ must be plus or minus the identity. The same holds for all pairs $g_i, g_j$, and so we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \psi' \right\rangle} &=& (\pm e^{i t},g_1,g_1,\ldots,g_1) {\left| \psi \right\rangle}\\
&=& \pm e^{i t} {\left| \psi \right\rangle} \end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\square$
[*Conclusion.*]{} We have described, in terms of a natural basis of combinatorial objects, those states whose stabilizers contain the diagonal subgroup of the local unitary group and have shown that expansions in this basis are unique (up to phase) representatives of their local unitary equivalence class. We have also given a simple geometric condition for when a state written in terms of this basis has its stabilizer subgroup precisely equal to the diagonal subgroup and not larger. Together with previous work, the results of this paper classify local unitary equivalence classes for states whose stabilizers are special cases of the general stabilizer decomposition (\[stabdecomp\]). Natural next steps in this analysis are to classify subgroups of $H$ in (\[stabdecomp\]) and classify the corresponding states that have those subgroups as stabilizers, and to classify states whose stabilizers are products of two or more factors in (\[stabdecomp\]).
[*Acknowledgments.*]{} This work has been supported by National Science Foundation grant \#PHY-0555506 and by Lebanon Valley College Faculty Research Grants. The authors thank the anonymous referee for numerous helpful suggestions. The first author wishes to express thanks for conversations with Noah Linden, Sandu Popescu and Tony Sudbery.
[13]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, .
, ****, ().
, ed., ** (, ).
, **, .
[^1]: To be precise, these results are stated and proved in terms of the stabilizer Lie subalgebra in [@maxstabnonprod1]. On the group level, the stabilizer may also have a discrete (0-dimensional and therefore finite, since $G$ is compact) factor. We may ignore this technicality for the purposes of the present discussion.
[^2]: $V_\Delta$ is the zero set of the angular momentum operator $$J^2 = \left[ \frac{\hbar}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n (\sigma_x)_i \right]^2
+ \left[ \frac{\hbar}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n (\sigma_y)_i \right]^2
+ \left[ \frac{\hbar}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n (\sigma_z)_i \right]^2$$ where $(\sigma_a)_j$ is the Pauli matrix $\sigma_a$ ($a=x$, $y$ or $z$) acting on the $j$th qubit. The operators $i\sum (\sigma_x)_i$, $i\sum
(\sigma_y)_i$, $i\sum (\sigma_z)_i$ form a basis for the Lie algebra of $\Delta$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove a global compactness result for Palais-Smale sequences associated with a class of quasi-linear elliptic equations on exterior domains.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Postbus 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven Holland'
- 'Department of Computer Science University of Verona Strada Le Grazie 15, 37134 Verona Italy'
author:
- Carlo Mercuri
- Marco Squassina
title: |
Global compactness for a class of\
quasi-linear elliptic problems
---
Introduction and main result
============================
Let $\Omega$ be a smooth domain of ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ with a bounded complement and $N>p>m>1$. The main goal of this paper is to obtain a global compactness result for the Palais-Smale sequences of the energy functional associated with the following quasi-linear elliptic equation $$\label{eq}
-{{\rm div}}(L_\xi(Du))-{{\rm div}}(M_\xi(u,Du)) + M_s(u,Du) + V (x)|u|^{p-2}u = g(u) \quad\text{in $\Omega$,}$$ where $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, meant as the completion of the space ${\mathcal D}(\Omega)$ of smooth functions with compact support, with respect to the norm $\|u\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}(\Omega)}=\|u\|_p+\|u\|_m,$ having set $\|u\|_p:=\|u\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}$ and $\|u\|_m:=\|Du\|_{L^m(\Omega)}$. We assume that $V$ is a continuous function on $\Omega$, $$\lim_{|x|\to \infty}V(x)=V_\infty
\,\,\quad
\text{and}
\,\,\quad
\inf_{x\in\Omega} V(x)=V_0>0.$$ As known, lack of compactness may occur due to the lack of compact embeddings for Sobolev spaces on $\Omega$ and since the limiting equation on ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ $$\label{eqlim}
-{{\rm div}}(L_\xi(Du))-{{\rm div}}(M_\xi(u,Du)) + M_s(u,Du) + V_\infty|u|^{p-2}u = g(u) \quad\text{in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$},$$ with $u\in W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$, is invariant by translations. A particular case of is $$\label{eqm2}
-\Delta_pu-{{\rm div}}(a(u)|Du|^{m-2}Du) + \frac{1}{m}a'(u)|Du|^m+ V (x)|u|^{p-2}u =|u|^{\sigma-2}u \quad\text{in $\Omega$,}$$ where $\Delta_p u:= {{\rm div}}(|D u|^{p-2}D u),$ for a suitable function $a\in C^1({{\mathbb R}};{{\mathbb R}}^+)$, or the even simpler case where $a$ is constant, namely $$\label{eqm1}
-\Delta_pu-\Delta_m u+ V (x)|u|^{p-2}u =|u|^{\sigma-2}u \quad\text{in $\Omega$}.$$
Since the pioneering work of Benci and Cerami [@bencicer] dealing with the case $L(\xi)=|\xi|^2/2$ and $M(s,\xi)\equiv 0$, many papers have been written on this subject, see for instance the bibliography of [@mercuriwillem]. Quite recently, in [@mercuriwillem], the case $L(\xi)=|\xi|^p/p$ and $M(s,\xi)\equiv 0$ was investigated. The main point in the present contribution is the fact that we allow, under suitable assumptions, a quasi-linear term $M(u,Du)$ depending on the unknown $u$ itself. The typical tools exploited in [@bencicer; @mercuriwillem], in addition to the point-wise convergence of the gradients, are some decomposition (splitting) results both for the energy functional and for the equation, along a given bounded Palais-Smale sequence $(u_n)$. To this regard, the explicit dependence on $u$ in the term $M(u,Du)$ requires a rather careful analysis. In particular, we can handle it for $$\nu|\xi|^m\leq M(s,\xi)\leq C|\xi|^m,\qquad
p-1 \leq m < p-1+p/N.$$ The restriction on $m$, together with the sign condition provides, thanks to the presence of $L,$ the needed a priori regularity on the weak limit of $(u_n),$ see Theorems \[energytot\] and \[split2-A\].\
Besides the aforementioned motivations, which are of mathematical interest, it is worth pointing out that in recent years, some works have been devoted to quasi-linear operators with double homogeneity, which arise from several problems of Mathematical Physics. For instance, the reaction diffusion problem $u_t = -{{\rm div}}({{\mathbb D}}(u)Du) + \ell(x,u)$, where ${{\mathbb D}}(u) = d_p|Du|^{p-2}+d_m|Du|^{m-2}$, $d_p>0$ and $d_m>0$, admitting a rather wide range of applications in biophysics [@fife], plasma physics [@wilh] and in the study of chemical reactions [@aris]. In this framework, $u$ typically describes a concentration and ${{\rm div}}({{\mathbb D}}(u)Du)$ corresponds to the diffusion with a coefficient ${{\mathbb D}}(u)$, whereas $\ell(x,u)$ plays the rǒle of reaction and relates to source and loss processes. We refer the interested reader to [@motivaz] and to the reference therein. Furthermore, a model for elementary particles proposed by Derrick [@derrick] yields to the study of standing wave solutions $\psi(x,t)=u(x)e^{{\rm i}\omega t}$ of the following nonlinear Schrödinger equation $${\rm i}\psi_t+\Delta_2\psi-b(x)\psi+\Delta_p\psi-V(x)|\psi|^{p-2}\psi+|\psi|^{\sigma-2}\psi=0 \quad\text{in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$,}$$ for which we refer the reader e.g. to [@bencifor].
In order to state the first main result, assume $N>p>m\geq 2$ and $$\label{range}
p-1 \leq m < p-1+p/N,
\qquad
p<\sigma<p^*,$$ and consider the $C^2$ functions $L:{{\mathbb R}}^N\to{{\mathbb R}}$ and $M:{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N\to{{\mathbb R}}$ such that both the functions $\xi\mapsto L(\xi)$ and $\xi\mapsto M(s,\xi)$ are strictly convex and $$\label{growth0}
\nu|\xi|^p\leq |L(\xi)|\leq C|\xi|^p,\quad |L_\xi(\xi)|\leq C|\xi|^{p-1},\quad |L_{\xi \xi}(\xi)| \leq C |\xi|^{p-2},$$ for all $\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^N$. Furthermore, we assume $$\begin{aligned}
\label{growths1}
\nu|\xi|^m\leq M(s,\xi)|&\leq C|\xi|^m,
\quad\,\, |M_s(s,\xi)|\leq C|\xi|^{m},
\quad\,\,
|M_\xi(s,\xi)|\leq C|\xi|^{m-1}, \\
\label{growths2}
|M_{ss}(s,\xi)|&\leq C|\xi|^m,
\quad\,\, |M_{s\xi}(s,\xi)|\leq C |\xi|^{m-1},
\quad\,\, |M_{\xi \xi}(s,\xi)|\leq C |\xi|^{m-2},\end{aligned}$$ for all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$ and that the sign condition (cf. [@squbook]) $$\label{ilsegnos}
M_s(s,\xi)s\geq 0,$$ holds for all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$. Also, $G:{{\mathbb R}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ is a $C^2$ function with $G'(s):=g(s)$ and $$\label{ggrow}
|G'(s)|\leq C|s|^{\sigma-1},\quad
|G''(s)|\leq C |s|^{\sigma -2},$$ for all $s\in{{\mathbb R}}$. We define $$\label{jdef}
j(s,\xi):=L(\xi)+M(s,\xi)-G(s),$$ and on $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ with $\|u\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}(\Omega)}=\|u\|_p+\|u\|_m$ the functional $$\phi(u):=\int_{\Omega}j(u,Du)+\int_{\Omega} V(x)\frac{|u|^p}{p}.$$ Finally, on $W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ with $\|u\|_{W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)}=\|u\|_p+\|u\|_m$ we define $$\phi_\infty(u):=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N}j(u,Du)+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N}V_\infty\frac{|u|^p}{p}.$$ See Section \[prelimsection\] for some properties of the functionals $\phi$ and $\phi_\infty$. The first main global compactness type result is the following
\[main\] Assume that - hold and let $(u_n)\subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ be a bounded sequence such that $$\phi(u_n)\to c \quad \quad \phi'(u_n)\to 0 \quad \text{in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$}$$ Then, up to a subsequence, there exists a weak solution $v_0\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ of $$-{{\rm div}}(L_\xi(Du))-{{\rm div}}(M_\xi(u,Du)) + M_s(u,Du) + V (x)|u|^{p-2}u = g(u) \quad\text{in $\Omega$,}$$ a finite sequence $\{v_1,...,v_k\}\subset W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ of weak solutions of $$-{{\rm div}}(L_\xi(Du))-{{\rm div}}(M_\xi(u,Du)) + M_s(u,Du) + V_\infty|u|^{p-2}u = g(u) \quad \text{in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$}$$ and $k$ sequences $(y^i_n)\subset{{\mathbb R}}^N$ satisfying $$|y^i_n|\to \infty,\quad |y^i_n-y^j_n|\to \infty,\quad i\neq j, \quad \text{as $n\to \infty$,}$$ $$\|u_n-v_0-\sum^k_{i=1}v_i ((\cdot-y^i_n)\|_{W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)}\to 0, \qquad\text{as $n\to \infty$,}$$ $$\|u_n\|_p^p\to \sum^k_{i=0}\|v_i\|^p_p,\qquad
\|u_n\|_m^m\to \sum^k_{i=0}\|v_i\|^m_m,\qquad\text{as $n\to \infty$,}$$ as well as $$\phi(v_0)+\sum^k_{i=1}\phi_\infty (v_i)=c.$$
Let us now come to a statement for the cases $1<m\leq 2$ or $1<p\leq 2$. Let us define $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathfrak{L}(\xi,h):=\frac{|L_\xi(\xi+h)-L_\xi(\xi)|}{|h|^{p-1}}, \qquad \text{if}\,\, 1<p<2, \\
& \mathfrak{G}(s,t):= \frac{|G'(s+t)-G'(s)|}{|t|^{\sigma-1}},\qquad \text{if}\,\, 1<\sigma<2, \\
& \mathfrak{M}(s,\xi,h):=\frac{|M_\xi(s,\xi+h)-M_\xi(s,\xi)|}{|h|^{m-1}},\qquad \text{if}\,\, 1<m<2.\end{aligned}$$ If either $p<2,$ $\sigma<2$ or $m<2$, we shall weaken the twice differentiability assumptions, by requiring $L_\xi\in C^1({{\mathbb R}}^N\setminus\{0\})$, $G'\in C^1({{\mathbb R}}\setminus\{0\})$, $M_\xi \in C^1({{\mathbb R}}\times ({{\mathbb R}}^N\setminus\{0\}))$, $M_{s\xi}\in C^0({{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N)$ and $M_{ss}\in C^0({{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N)$. Moreover we assume the same growth conditions for $L,M,G$ and their derivatives, replacing only the growth assumptions for $L_{\xi\xi}, M_{\xi\xi},G''$ by the following hypotheses: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ass-sub1}
& \sup_{h\neq 0,\,\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^N}\mathfrak{L}(\xi,h)<\infty, \\
\label{ass-sub2}
& \sup_{t\neq 0,\, s\in{{\mathbb R}}} \mathfrak{G}(s,t)<\infty, \\
\label{ass-sub3}
& \sup_{h\neq 0,\, (s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N} \mathfrak{M}(s,\xi,h)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Conditions -, in some more concrete situations, follow immediately by homogeneity of $L_\xi$ and $G'$ (see, for instance, [@mercuriwillem Lemma 3.1]). Similarly, is satisfied for instance when $M$ is of the form $M(s,\xi)=a(s)\mu(\xi)$, being $a:{{\mathbb R}}\to{{\mathbb R}}^+$ a bounded function and $\mu:{{\mathbb R}}^N\to{{\mathbb R}}^+$ a $C^1$ strictly convex function such that $\mu_\xi$ is homogeneous of degree $m-1$.
\[main2\] Under the additional assumptions - in the sub-quadratic cases, the assertion of Theorem \[main\] holds true.
As a consequence of the above results we have the following compactness criterion.
\[compat\] Assume below for some $\delta>0$ and $\mu>p$. Under the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\] or \[main2\], if $c<c^*,$ then $(u_n)$ is relatively compact in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ where $$c^*:=\min\left\{\frac{\delta}{\mu},\frac{\mu-p}{\mu p}V_\infty\right\}\left[\frac{\min\{\nu, V_\infty\}}{C_g S_{p,\sigma}}\right]^{\frac{p}{\sigma-p}},$$ and $S_{p,\sigma}$ and $C_{g}$ are constants such that $S_{p,\sigma}\|u\|^\sigma_p\geq \|u\|^\sigma_{L^\sigma({{\mathbb R}}^N)}$ and $|g(s)|\leq C_{g}|s|^{\sigma-1}$.
It would be interesting to get a global compactness result in the case $L=0$ and $p=m$, namely for the model case $$\label{eqm3}
-{{\rm div}}(a(u)|Du|^{m-2}Du) + \frac{1}{m}a'(u)|Du|^m+ V (x)|u|^{m-2}u =|u|^{\sigma-2}u \quad\text{in $\Omega$.}$$ Notice that, even assuming $a'$ bounded, $a'(u)|Du|^m$ is merely in $L^1(\Omega)$ for $W^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ distributional solutions. In general, in this setting, the splitting properties of the equation are hard to formulate in a reasonable fashion.
The restriction of between $m$ and $p$ in assumption is no longer needed in the case where $M$ is independent of the first variable $s$, namely $M_s\equiv 0$.
We prove the above theorems under the a-priori boundedness assumption of $(u_n).$ This occurs in a quite large class of problems, as Proposition \[bddd\] shows.
With no additional effort, we could cover the case where an additional term $W(x)|u|^{m-2}u$ appears in and the functional framework turns into $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap W^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$.
In the spirit of [@lions], we also get the following
\[minsolve\] Let $N>p\geq m>1$ and assume that $\xi\mapsto L(\xi)$ is $p$-homogeneous, $\xi\mapsto M(\xi)$ is $m$-homogeneous, $L(\xi)\geq p|\xi|^p$, $M(\xi)\geq m|\xi|^m$ and set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mminbbpp}
& {{\mathbb S}}_\Omega:=\inf_{\|u\|_{L^\sigma(\Omega)}=1} \int_\Omega \frac{L(Du)}{p}+\frac{M(Du)}{m}+\frac{V(x)}{p}|u|^p, \\
& {{\mathbb S}}_{{{\mathbb R}}^N}:=\inf_{\|u\|_{L^\sigma({{\mathbb R}}^N)}=1} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} \frac{|Du|^p}{p}+\frac{|u|^p}{p}, \notag\end{aligned}$$ with $V(x)\to 1$ as $|x|\to\infty$. Assume furthermore that $$\label{compactnesscondd}
{{\mathbb S}}_{\Omega}<\Big(\frac{\sigma-p}{\sigma -m}\Big)^{\frac{\sigma-p}{\sigma}}{{\mathbb S}}_{{{\mathbb R}}^N}.$$ Then admits a minimizer.
We point out that, some conditions guaranteeing the nonexistence of nontrivial solutions in the star-shaped case $\Omega={{\mathbb R}}^N$ can be provided. For the sake of simplicity, assume that $L$ is $p$-homogeneous and that $\xi\mapsto M(s,\xi)$ is $m$-homogeneous. Then, in view of [@pucciser Theorem 3], that holds for $C^1$ solutions by virtue of the results of [@degmusqua], we have that admits no nontrivial $C^1$ solution well behaved at infinity, namely satisfying condition (19) of [@pucciser], provided that there exists a number $a\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that a.e. in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ and for all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$ $$\begin{aligned}
(N-p(a+1))L(\xi) &+(N-m(a+1))M(s,\xi)+(asg(s)-NG(s)) \\
&+\frac{(N-ap) V(x)+x\cdot DV(x)}{p}|s|^p-a M_s(s,\xi)s\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ holding, for instance, if there exists $0\leq a\leq \frac{N-p}{p}$ such that $$asg(s)-NG(s)\geq 0,\,\,\,\quad
(N-ap) V(x)+x\cdot DV(x)\geq 0,\,\,\,\quad
M_s(s,\xi)s\leq 0,$$ for a.e. $x\in{{\mathbb R}}^N$ and for all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$. Also, in the more particular case where $g(s)=|s|^{\sigma-2}s$ and $V(x)=V_\infty>0$, then the above conditions simply rephrase into $$\sigma\geq p^*,\qquad M_s(s,\xi)s\leq 0,$$ for every $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$. In fact, in , we consider the opposite assumption on $M_s$.
Some preliminary facts {#prelimsection}
======================
It is a standard fact that, under condition and , the functionals $$u\mapsto \int_\Omega L(Du),\quad\,\,
u\mapsto \int_\Omega V(x)|u|^p,\quad\,\,
u\mapsto \int_\Omega G(u)$$ are $C^1$ on $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. Analogously, although $M$ depends explicitly on $s$, the functional $${{\mathbb M}}:W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)\to{{\mathbb R}},\quad {{\mathbb M}}(u)=\int_\Omega M(u,Du),$$ admits, thanks to condition , directional derivatives along any $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ and $${{\mathbb M}}'(u)(v)=\int_\Omega M_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega M_s(u,Du)v,$$ as it can be easily verified observing that $p\leq \frac{p}{p-m} \leq p^*$ and that, for $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, by Young’s inequality, for some constant $C$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
|M_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Dv| &\leq C|Du|^m+C|Dv|^m\in L^1(\Omega),\\
|M_s(u,Du)v| &\leq C|Du|^p+C|v|^{\frac{p}{p-m}}\in L^1(\Omega).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if $u_k\to u$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ as $k\to\infty$ then ${{\mathbb M}}'(u_k)\to {{\mathbb M}}'(u)$ in the dual space $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$, as $k\to\infty$. Indeed, for $\|v\|_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)}\leq 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& |{{\mathbb M}}'(u_k)(v)-{{\mathbb M}}'(u)(v)|\\ &\leq \int_\Omega| M_\xi(u_k,Du_k)-M_\xi(u,Du)|| Dv|+\int_\Omega |M_s(u_k,Du_k)-M_s(u,Du)|\,|v|\\
& \leq \|M_\xi(u_k,Du_k)-M_\xi(u,Du)\|_{L^{m'}}\|Dv\|_{L^{m}}+\|M_s(u_k,Du_k)-M_s(u,Du)\|_{L^{p/m}}\|v\|_{L^{p/(p-m)}} \\
\noalign{\vskip4pt}
& \leq \|M_\xi(u_k,Du_k)-M_\xi(u,Du)\|_{L^{m'}}+\|M_s(u_k,Du_k)-M_s(u,Du)\|_{L^{p/m}}.\end{aligned}$$ This yields the desired convergence, using and the Dominated Convergence Theorem. Notice that the same argument carried out before applies either to integrals defined on $\Omega$ or on ${{\mathbb R}}^N.$ Hence the following proposition is proved.
In the hypotheses of Theorems \[main\] and \[main2\], the functionals $\phi$ and $\phi_\infty$ are $C^1.$
In addition to the assumptions on $L,M$ and $g,G$ set in the introduction, assume now that there exist positive numbers $\delta>0$ and $\mu>p$ such that $$\label{bounddc}
\mu M(s,\xi)-M_s(s,\xi)s-M_\xi(s,\xi)\cdot\xi\geq \delta |\xi|^m,\quad
\mu L(\xi)-L_\xi(\xi)\cdot\xi\geq\delta |\xi|^p,\quad
sg(s)-\mu G(s)\geq 0,$$ for any $s\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and all $\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^N$. This hypothesis is rather well established in the framework of quasi-linear problems (cf. [@squbook]) and it allows an arbitrary Palais-Smale sequence $(u_n)$ to be bounded in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, as shown in the following
\[bddd\] Let $j$ be as in and assume that holds. Let $(u_n)\subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ be a sequence such that $$\phi(u_n)\to c \quad \quad \phi'(u_n)\to 0 \quad \text{in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$}$$ Then, if condition holds, $(u_n)$ is bounded in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$.
Let $(w_n)\subset (W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$ with $w_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ be such that $\phi'(u_n)(v)=\langle w_n,v\rangle$, for every $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. Whence, by choosing $v=u_n$, it follows $$\int_\Omega j_\xi(u_n,Du_n)\cdot Du_n+\int_\Omega j_s(u_n,Du_n)u_n+\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^p=\langle w_n,u_n\rangle.$$ Combining this equation with $\mu \phi(u_n)=\mu c+o(1)$ as $n\to\infty$, namely $$\int_\Omega \mu j(u_n,Du_n)+\frac{\mu}{p}\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^p=\mu c+o(1),$$ recalling the definition of $j$, and using condition , yields $$\frac{\mu-p}{p}\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^p+\delta \int_\Omega |Du_n|^p+\delta \int_\Omega |Du_n|^m\leq \mu c+\|w_n\|\|u_n\|_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)}+o(1),$$ as $n\to\infty$, implying, due to $V\geq V_0$ that $$\|u_n\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}^p+\|u_n\|_{D^{1,m}(\Omega)}^m\leq C+C\|u_n\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}+C\|u_n\|_{D^{1,m}(\Omega)}+o(1),$$ as $n\to\infty$. The assertion then follows immediately.
From now on we shall always assume to handle [*bounded*]{} Palais-Smale sequences, keeping in mind that condition can guarantee the boundedness of such sequences.
\[convergenze\] Let $j$ be as in and assume that $1<m<p<N$ and $p<\sigma<p^*$. Let $(u_n)\subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ bounded be such that $$\phi(u_n)\to c \quad \quad \phi'(u_n)\to 0 \quad \text{in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$}.$$ Then, up to a subsequence, $(u_n)$ converges weakly to some $u$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, $u_n(x)\to u(x)$ and $Du_n(x)\to Du(x)$ for a.e. $x\in\Omega$.
It is sufficient to justify that $Du_n(x)\to Du(x)$ for a.e. $x\in\Omega$. Given an arbitrary bounded subdomain $\omega\subset\overline{\omega}\subset\Omega$ of $\Omega$, from the fact that $\phi'(u_n)\to 0$ in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$, we can write $$\int_\omega a(u_n,Du_n)\cdot Dv=\langle w_n,v\rangle+\langle f_n,v\rangle+
\int_\omega v\, d\mu_n,\quad\text{for all $v\in {\mathcal D}(\omega)$},$$ where $(w_n)\subset (W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$ is vanishing, and hence in particular $w_n\in W^{-1,p'}(\omega)$, with $w_n\to 0$ in $W^{-1,p'}(\omega)$ as $n\to\infty$ and we have set $$\begin{aligned}
a_n(x,s,\xi)&:=L_\xi(\xi)+M_\xi(s,\xi),\qquad\text{for all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$}, \\
f_n&:=-V(x)|u_n|^{p-2}u_n+g(u_n)\in W^{-1,p'}(\omega),\qquad n\in{{\mathbb N}}, \\
\mu_n&:=-M_s(u_n,Du_n)\in L^1(\omega),\qquad n\in{{\mathbb N}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Due to the strict convexity assumptions on the maps $\xi\mapsto L(\xi)$ and $\xi\mapsto M(s,\xi)$ and the growth conditions on $L_\xi,M_\xi, M_s$ and $g$, all the assumptions of [@dalmur Theorem 1] are fulfilled. Precisely, $$|a_n(x,s,\xi)|\leq |L_\xi(\xi)|+|M_\xi(s,\xi)|\leq C|\xi|^{p-1}+C|\xi|^{m-1}\leq C+C|\xi|^{p-1},$$ for a.e. $x\in\omega$ and all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$, and $$\begin{aligned}
& f_n\to f,\quad f:=-V(x)|u|^{p-2}u+g(u),\quad \text{strongly in $W^{-1,p'}(\omega)$}, \\
& \mu_n\rightharpoonup \mu,\quad \text{weakly* in ${\mathcal M}(\omega)$,\,\,\, since\,\, $\sup_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}\|M_s(u_n,Du_n)\|_{L^1(\omega)}<+\infty$.}\end{aligned}$$ Then, it follows that $Du_n(x)\to Du(x)$ for a.e. $x\in \omega$. Finally, a simple Cantor diagonal argument allows to recover the convergence over the whole domain $\Omega$.
Next we prove a regularity result for the solutions of equation .
\[regularityres\] Let $j$ be as in and assume and . Let $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ be a solution of . Then $$u\in \bigcap_{q\geq p} L^q(\Omega),
\quad
\text{$u\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ and $\lim_{|x|\to\infty} u(x)=0$}.$$
Let $k,i\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Then, setting $v_{k,i}(x):=(u_k(x))^i$ with $u_k(x):=\min\{u^+(x),k\}$, it follows that $v_{k,i}\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ can be used as a test function in , yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega L_\xi(Du)\cdot Dv_{k,i} &+\int_\Omega M_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Dv_{k,i} \\
& +\int_\Omega M_s(u,Du)v_{k,i}+\int_\Omega V(x)|u|^{p-2}u v_{k,i}=\int_\Omega g(u)v_{k,i}.
\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that $Dv_{k,i}$ is equal to $i u^{i-1}Du\chi_{\{0<u<k\}}$, by convexity and positivity of the map $\xi\mapsto M(s,\xi)$ we deduce that $M_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Dv_{k,i}\geq 0$. Moreover, by the sign condition it follows $M_s(u,Du)v_{k,i}\geq 0$ a.e. in $\Omega$. Then, we reach $$\int_\Omega i(u_k)^{i-1} L_\xi(Du_k)\cdot Du_k +\int_\Omega V(x)|u|^{p-2}u (u_k(x))^i\leq \int_\Omega g(u)(u_k(x))^i,$$ yielding in turn, by , that for all $k,i\geq 1$ $$\label{disLiu1}
\nu i\int_\Omega (u_k)^{i-1} |Du_k|^p\leq C\int_\Omega (u^+(x))^{\sigma-1+i}.$$ If $\hat u_k:=\min\{u^-(x),k\}$, a similar inequality $$\label{disLiu2}
\nu i\int_\Omega (\hat u_k)^{i-1} |D\hat u_k|^p\leq C\int_\Omega (u^-(x))^{\sigma-1+i},$$ can be obtained by using $\hat v_{k,i}:=-(\hat u_k)^i$ as a test function in , observing that by , $$\begin{aligned}
M_s(u,Du)\hat v_{k,i}& =-M_s(u,Du)\chi_{\{-k<u<0\}}(-u)^i\geq 0, \\
M_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Dv_{k,i}& =i(-u)^{i-1} \chi_{\{-k<u<0\}} M_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Du \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Once - are reached, the assertion follows exactly as in [@Yu Lemma 2, (a) and (b)].
We now recall the following version of [@degiovannilancellotti Lemma 4.2] which turns out to be a rather useful tool in order to establish convergences in our setting. Roughly speaking, one needs some kind of sub-criticality in the growth conditions.
\[lemmino\] Let $\Omega\subset {{\mathbb R}}^N$ and $h: \Omega \times {{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}}^N$ be a Carathéodory function, $p,m>1$, $\mu\geq 1$, $p\leq \sigma\leq p^*$ and assume that, for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $ a_\varepsilon \in L^\mu(\Omega)$ such that $$\label {growtha}
|h(x,s,\xi)| \leq a_\varepsilon (x)+\varepsilon |s|^{\sigma/\mu} +\varepsilon |\xi|^{p/\mu}+\varepsilon |\xi|^{m/\mu},$$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and for all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$. Assume that $u_n\to u$ a.e. in $\Omega$, $Du_n\to Du$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and $$\text{ $(u_n)$ is bounded in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$,\quad
$(u_n)$ is bounded in $D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$}.$$ Then $h(x,u_n,Du_n)$ converges to $h(x,u,Du)$ in $L^\mu(\Omega)$.
The proof follows as in [@degiovannilancellotti Lemma 4.2] and we shall sketch it here for self-containedness. By Fatou’s Lemma, it immediately holds that $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. Furthermore, there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|h(x,s_1,\xi_1)-h(x,s_2,\xi_2)|^\mu &\leq C(a_{\varepsilon}(x))^\mu+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |s_1|^\sigma+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |s_2|^\sigma \\
& +C{\varepsilon}^\mu |\xi_1|^m+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |\xi_2|^m+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |\xi_1|^p+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |\xi_2|^p,
\end{aligned}$$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and for all $(s_1,\xi_1)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$ and $(s_2,\xi_2)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$. Then, taking into account the boundedness of $(Du_n)$ in $L^p(\Omega)\cap L^m(\Omega)$ and of $(u_n)$ in $L^{\sigma}(\Omega)$ by interpolation being $p\leq \sigma\leq p^*$, the assertion follows by applying Fatou’s Lemma to the sequence of functions $\psi_n:\Omega\to [0,+\infty]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_n(x):=&-|h(x,u_n,Du_n)-h(x,u,Du)|^\mu + C(a_{\varepsilon}(x))^\mu+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |u_n|^\sigma+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |u|^\sigma \\
& +C{\varepsilon}^\mu |Du_n|^m+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |Du|^m+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |Du_n|^p+C{\varepsilon}^\mu |Du|^p,\end{aligned}$$ and, finally, exploiting the arbitrariness of ${\varepsilon}$.
Proof of the result
===================
Energy splitting
----------------
The next result allows to perform an energy splitting for the functional $$J(u)=\int_\Omega j(u, Du),\quad u \in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega),$$ along a bounded Palais-Smale sequence $(u_n)\subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. The result is in the spirit of the classical Brezis-Lieb Lemma [@BreLieb].
\[energysplit\] Let the integrand $j$ be as in and $$p-1\leq m<p-1+p/N,\qquad p\leq \sigma\leq p^*.$$ Let $(u_n) \subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ with $u_n\rightharpoonup u,$ $u_n\to u$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and $Du_n\to Du$ a.e. in $\Omega$. Then $$\label{integralj}
\lim _{n \to \infty}\int_\Omega j(u_n-u, Du_n-Du)-j(u_n,D u_n)+j(u, Du)=0.$$
We shall apply Lemma \[lemmino\] to the function $$h(x,s,\xi) := j(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x)) - j(s,\xi),\qquad\text{for a.e.\ $x\in\Omega$ and all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$.}$$ Given $x\in\Omega$, $s\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^N$, consider the $C^1$ map $\varphi:[0,1]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ defined by setting $$\varphi(t):=j(s-tu(x),\xi-tDu(x)),\quad \text{for all $t\in [0,1]$}.$$ Then, for some $\tau\in [0,1]$ depending upon $x\in\Omega$, $s\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^N$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
& h(x,s,\xi) =\varphi(1)-\varphi(0)=\varphi'(\tau) \\
&=-j_s(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))u(x)-j_\xi(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))\cdot Du(x) \\
&=-L_\xi(\xi-\tau Du(x))\cdot Du(x) \\
&\quad -M_s(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))u(x) \\
&\quad -M_\xi(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))\cdot Du(x)+G'(s-\tau u(x))u(x).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for a.e. $x\in\Omega$ and all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
|h(x,s,\xi)|
&\leq |L_\xi(\xi-\tau Du(x))||Du(x)|
+ |M_s(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))||u(x)| \\
&+ |M_\xi(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))||Du(x)|+|G'(s-\tau u(x))||u(x)| \\
&\leq C(|\xi|^{p-1}+|Du(x)|^{p-1})|Du(x)|
+ C(|\xi|^{m}+|Du(x)|^{m})|u(x)| \\
&+ C(|\xi|^{m-1}+|Du(x)|^{m-1})|Du(x)| +C(|s|^{\sigma-1}+|u(x)|^{\sigma-1})|u(x)|\\
&\leq {\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^p
+ {\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{p}+C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{p/(p-m)} \\
&+ {\varepsilon}|\xi|^{m}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{m}+{\varepsilon}|s|^{\sigma}+C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{\sigma} \\
&=a_{\varepsilon}(x)+{\varepsilon}|s|^{\sigma}
+{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p}+{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{m},\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{\varepsilon}:\Omega\to{{\mathbb R}}$ is defined a.e. by $$a_{\varepsilon}(x):=C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^p+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{m}+C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{p/(p-m)}+C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{\sigma}.$$ Notice that, as $p-1\leq m< p-1+p/N$ it holds $p\leq p/(p-m)\leq p^*$, yielding $u\in L^{p/(p-m)}(\Omega)$ and in turn, $a_{\varepsilon}\in L^1(\Omega)$. The assertion follows directly by Lemma \[lemmino\] with $\mu=1$.
We have the following splitting result
\[energytot\] Let the integrand $j$ be as in and $$p-1 \leq m \leq p-1+p/N,\qquad p<\sigma<p^*.$$ Assume that $(u_n) \subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ is a bounded Palais-Smale sequence for $\phi$ at the level $c\in{{\mathbb R}}$ weakly convergent to some $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. Then $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\Big(\int_{\Omega}j(u_n-u,Du_n-Du)+\int_{\Omega}V_\infty\frac{|u_n-u|^p}{p}\Big)=c-\int_{\Omega}j(u,Du)-\int_{\Omega}V(x)\frac{|u|^p}{p},$$ namely $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \phi_\infty(u_n-u)=c-\phi(u),$$ being $u_n$ and $u$ regarded as elements of $W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ after extension to zero out of $\Omega$.
In light of Proposition \[convergenze\], up to a subsequence, $(u_n)$ converges weakly to some function $u$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, $u_n(x)\to u(x)$ and $Du_n(x)\to Du(x)$ for a.e. $x\in\Omega$. Also, recalling that by assumption $V(x)\to V_\infty$ as $|x|\to\infty$, we have [@BreLieb; @willembook] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vsplit1}
&\lim _{n \to \infty}\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n-u|^{p}-V_\infty|u_n-u|^{p}=0,\\
\label{Vsplit2}
&\lim _{n \to \infty}\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n-u|^{p}-V(x)|u_n|^{p}+V(x)|u|^p=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by virtue of Lemma \[energysplit\], we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\phi_\infty(u_n-u)& =\lim_{n\to\infty}\Big(\int_{\Omega}j(u_n-u,Du_n-Du)+\int_{\Omega}V_\infty\frac{|u_n-u|^p}{p}\Big) \\
& =\lim_{n\to\infty}\Big(\int_{\Omega}j(u_n-u,Du_n-Du)+\int_{\Omega}V(x)\frac{|u_n-u|^p}{p} \Big)\\
& =\lim_{n\to\infty}\Big(\int_{\Omega}j(u_n,Du_n)+\int_{\Omega}V(x)\frac{|u_n|^p}{p}\Big)-\int_{\Omega}j(u,Du)-\int_{\Omega}V(x)\frac{|u|^p}{p} \\
\noalign{\vskip5pt}
& =\lim_{n\to\infty}\phi(u_n)-\phi(u)=c-\phi(u),
\end{aligned}$$ concluding the proof.
In order to shed some light on the restriction of $m$, it is readily seen that it is a sufficient condition for the following local compactness property to hold. Assume that $\omega$ is a smooth domain of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ with finite measure. Then, if $(u_h)$ is a bounded sequence in $W^{1,p}_0(\omega)$, there exists a subsequence $(u_{h_k})$ such that $$\text{$\Upsilon(x,u_{h_k},Du_{h_k})$ converges strongly to some $\Upsilon_0$ in $W^{-1,p'}(\omega)$},$$ where $\Upsilon(x,s,\xi)=g(s)-M_s(s,\xi)-V(x)|s|^{p-2}s$. In fact, taking into account the growth condition on $g$ and $M_s$, this can be proved observing that, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, there exists $C_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$|\Upsilon(x,s,\xi)|\leq C_{\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}|s|^{\frac{N(p-1)+p}{N-p}}+{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p-1+p/N},$$ for a.e. $x\in\omega$ and all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$.
Equation splitting I (super-quadratic case)
-------------------------------------------
We shall assume that $m,p\geq 2$ and that conditions - hold. The following Theorem \[split2-A\] and the forthcoming Theorem \[split2-B\] (see next subsection) are in the spirit of the Brezis-Lieb Lemma [@BreLieb], in a dual framework. For the particular case $$M(s,\xi)=0\quad\text{and}\quad L(\xi)=\frac{|\xi|^p}{p},$$ we refer the reader to [@mercuriwillem].
\[split2-A\] Assume that - hold and that $$p-1\leq m < p-1+p/N,\qquad p<\sigma<p^*.$$ Assume that $(u_n) \subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ is such that $u_n\rightharpoonup u,$ $u_n\to u$ a.e. in $\Omega$, $Du_n\to Du$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and there is $(w_n)$ in the dual space $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$ such that $w_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ and, for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, $$\label{laprim}
\int_\Omega j_\xi (u_n,Du_n)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega j_s (u_n,Du_n)v+\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^{p-2}u_nv=\langle w_n, v\rangle.$$ Then $\phi'(u)=0.$ Moreover, there exists a sequence $(\xi_n)$ that goes to zero in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{primaconcl-rifr}
\langle\xi_n,v\rangle & :=
\int_\Omega j_s(u_n-u,Du_n-Du)v
+ \int_\Omega j_\xi(u_n-u,Du_n-Du)\cdot Dv \\
& - \int_\Omega j_s(u_n,Du_n)v - \int_\Omega j_\xi(u_n,Du_n)\cdot Dv+
\int_\Omega j_s(u,Du)v + \int_\Omega j_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Dv, \notag\end{aligned}$$ for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$.\
Furthermore, there exists a sequence $(\zeta_n)$ in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$ such that $$\int_\Omega j_\xi (u_n-u,Du_n-Du)\cdot Dv +\int_\Omega j_s (u_n-u,Du_n-Du)v
+\int_\Omega V_\infty|u_n-u|^{p-2}(u_n-u)v=\langle \zeta_n, v\rangle$$ for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ and $\zeta_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, namely $\phi_\infty'(u_n-u)\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
Fixed some $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega),$ let us define for a.e. $x\in\Omega$ and all $(s,\xi)\in{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}^N$, $$\begin{aligned}
f_v(x,s,\xi) &:= j_s(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))v(x) \\
&+ j_\xi(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))\cdot Dv(x)
- j_s(s,\xi)v(x) - j_\xi(s,\xi)\cdot Dv(x).\end{aligned}$$ In order to prove \[primaconcl-rifr\] we are going to show that $$\label{primaconcl}
\lim_{n\to \infty}\sup_{\|v\|_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)}\leq 1 }\Big|\int_\Omega f_v(x,u_n,Du_n)-f_v(x,u, Du) \Big|=0.$$ As it can be easily checked, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
- f_v(x,s,\xi)& =\int^1_0 j_{ss}(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))u(x)v(x)d\tau \\
& +\int^1_0 j_{s\xi}(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))\cdot [Du(x)v(x)+Dv(x)u(x)] d\tau \\
& + \int^1_0[j_{\xi\xi}(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))\, Du(x)]\cdot Dv (x)d\tau .\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by plugging the particular form of $j$ in the above equation yields $$-f_v(x,s,\xi)=a(x,s,\xi)v(x)+b(x,s)v(x)+c_1(x,s,\xi)\cdot Dv(x)+c_2(x,s,\xi)\cdot Dv(x)+d(x,\xi)\cdot Dv(x)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a(x,s,\xi)& :=\int^1_0 [M_{ss}(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))u(x)
+M_{s\xi}(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))\cdot Du(x)]d\tau, \\
b(x,s) & :=-\int^1_0 G''(s-\tau u(x))u(x)d\tau , \\
c_1(x,s,\xi)& :=\int^1_0 M_{\xi s}(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))u(x) d\tau, \\
c_2(x,s,\xi) & :=\int^1_0 M_{\xi\xi}(s-\tau u(x),\xi-\tau Du(x))\, Du(x) d\tau, \\
d(x,\xi) & :=\int^1_0 L_{\xi\xi}(\xi-\tau Du(x))\, Du(x) d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that, as $n\to\infty$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
a(\cdot ,u_n,D u_n) \to a(\cdot,u,D u) & \qquad \text{in}\,\, L^{(p^*)'}(\Omega), \\
b(\cdot,u_n) \to b(\cdot,u) & \qquad\text{in}\,\, L^{\sigma'}(\Omega), \\
c_1(\cdot,u_n,D u_n) \to c_1(\cdot,u,D u) & \qquad\text{in}\,\, L^{p'}(\Omega), \\
c_2(\cdot,u_n,D u_n) \to c_2(\cdot,u,D u) & \qquad\text{in}\,\, L^{m'}(\Omega),\\
d(\cdot,D u_n) \to d(\cdot,D u) & \qquad\text{in}\,\, L^{p'}(\Omega).\end{aligned}$$ Then, using Hölder’s inequality and the embeddings of $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ into $L^{\sigma}(\Omega)$ and $L^{p^*}(\Omega)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\|v\|_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)}\leq 1}&\Big|\int_\Omega f_v(x,u_n,Du_n)-f_v(x,u, Du) \Big|
\\& \leq C\| a(\cdot ,u_n,D u_n) - a(\cdot,u,D u)\|_{L^{(p^*)'}(\Omega)}\\ & +C\| b(\cdot ,u_n) - b(\cdot,u)\|_{L^{\sigma'}(\Omega)}, \\
&+C\| c_1(\cdot ,u_n,D u_n) - c_1(\cdot,u,D u)\|_{L^{p'}(\Omega)},\\
&+C\| c_2(\cdot ,u_n,D u_n) - c_2(\cdot,u,D u)\|_{L^{m'}(\Omega)},\\
&+C\| d(\cdot ,D u_n) - d(\cdot,D u)\|_{L^{p'}(\Omega)},\end{aligned}$$ yielding the desired conclusion . It remains to prove the convergences we claimed above. For each term, we shall exploit Lemma \[lemmino\]. Since $m< p-1+p/N$, we can set $$\alpha:=\frac{m}{p^*-1},\qquad
\beta:=\frac{pN}{pN-N+p-mN}$$ it follows $\beta>0$ and $m<m+\alpha <p$. Young’s inequality yields in turn $$y^{(m+\alpha)/(p^*)'}\leq C y^{m/(p^*)'}+C y^{p/(p^*)'},\quad\text{for all $y\geq 0$.}$$ Since $\beta/(p^*)'>1$ and $(m+\alpha)/(p^*)'>1$, by the growths of $M_{ss}$ and $M_{s\xi}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|a(x ,s,\xi)| & \leq C(|\xi|^{m}+|Du(x)|^{m})|u(x)|+C(|\xi|^{m-1}+|Du(x)|^{m-1})|Du(x)| \\
& \leq {\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p/(p^*)'}+C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{\beta/(p^*)'}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{p/(p^*)'}+{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{(m+\alpha)/(p^*)'}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{(m+\alpha)/(p^*)'} \\
& \leq {\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p/(p^*)'}+{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{m/(p^*)'}+C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{\beta/(p^*)'}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{p/(p^*)'}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{m/(p^*)'}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
|b(x ,s)| &\leq C(|s|^{\sigma-2}+|u(x)|^{\sigma-2})|u(x)|
\leq {\varepsilon}|s|^{\sigma/\sigma'}+C_{\varepsilon}|u|^{\sigma/\sigma'}, \\
|c_1(x ,s,\xi)| &\leq C(|\xi|^{m-1}+|Du(x)|^{m-1})|u(x)| \\
&\leq{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p/p'}+ C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{p/((p-m)p')}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{p/p'}, \\
|c_2(x ,s,\xi)| &\leq C(|\xi|^{m-2}+|Du(x)|^{m-2})|D u(x)| \\
& \leq {\varepsilon}|\xi|^{m/m'}+ C_{\varepsilon}|D u(x)|^{m/m'}, \\
|d(x, \xi)| &\leq C(|\xi|^{p-2}+|Du(x)|^{p-2})|Du(x)|
\leq {\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p/p'}+ C_{\varepsilon}|D u(x)|^{p/p'}.\end{aligned}$$ From the point-wise convergence of the gradients and the growth estimates of $j_\xi,j_s$ and $g$ that $u$ is a week solutions to the problem, namely for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ $$\label{lasec}
\int_\Omega L_\xi (Du)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega M_\xi (u,Du)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega M_s (u,Du)v+\int_\Omega V(x)|u|^{p-2}uv=\int_\Omega g(u)v.$$ To get this, recall that $v\in L^{(p/m)'}(\Omega)$ and the sequence $(M_s (u_n,Du_n))$ is bounded in $L^{p/m}(\Omega)$ and hence it converges weakly to $M_s (u,Du)$ in $L^{p/m}(\Omega)$. Thanks to Proposition \[regularityres\] (recall that $\beta\geq p$ if and only if $m\geq p-2+p/N$ and this is the case since $m\geq p-1$), we have $L^{\beta}(\Omega)$. Hence, $$u\in L^\sigma(\Omega)\cap L^{\frac{p}{p-m}}(\Omega)\cap L^{\beta}(\Omega),$$ being $p\leq p/(p-m)<p^*$ and $p<\sigma<p^*$. By the previous inequalities the claim follows by Lemma \[lemmino\] with the choice $\mu=(p^*)',\sigma',p',m'$ and $p'$ respectively. Let us now recall a dual version of properties - (cf. [@willembook]), namely there exist two sequences $(\mu_n)$ and $(\nu_n)$ in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$ which converge to zero as $n\to\infty$ and such that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega V_\infty|u_n-u|^{p-2}(u_n-u)v &=\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n-u|^{p-2}(u_n-u)v+\langle \nu_n, v\rangle, \\
\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n-u|^{p-2}(u_n-u)v &=\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^{p-2}u_nv-\int_\Omega V(x)|u|^{p-2}uv+\langle \mu_n, v\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ for every $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. Whence, by collecting , , , , we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_\Omega j_\xi (u_n-u,Du_n-Du)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega j_s (u_n-u,Du_n-Du)v
+\int_\Omega V_\infty|u_n-u|^{p-2}(u_n-u)v \\
& =\int_\Omega j_\xi (u_n,Du_n)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega j_s (u_n,Du_n)v +\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^{p-2}u_nv \\
&-\int_\Omega j_\xi (u,Du)\cdot Dv-\int_\Omega j_s (u,Du)v -\int_\Omega V(x)|u|^{p-2}uv
+\langle \xi_n+\mu_n+\nu_n, v\rangle =\langle \zeta_n, v\rangle,\qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \zeta_n, v\rangle:=\langle w_n+ \xi_n+\mu_n+\nu_n, v\rangle$ and $\zeta_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. This concludes the proof.
Equation splitting II (sub-quadratic case) {#subquadratics}
------------------------------------------
We assume that - hold.
\[split2-B\] Assume , let the integrand $j$ be as in and $p\leq 2$ or $m\leq 2$ or $\sigma\leq 2$, $$p-1 \leq m < p-1+p/N,\qquad p<\sigma<p^*.$$ Assume that $(u_n) \subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ is such that $u_n\rightharpoonup u,$ $u_n\to u$ a.e. in $\Omega$, $Du_n\to Du$ a.e. in $\Omega$ and there exists $(w_n)$ in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$ such that $w_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ and, for every $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, $$\int_\Omega j_\xi (u_n,Du_n)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega j_s (u_n,Du_n)v+\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^{p-2}u_nv=\langle w_n, v\rangle.$$ Then $\phi'(u)=0.$ Moreover, there exists a sequence $(\hat\xi_n)$ that goes to zero in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{primaconcl-rifr2}
\langle\hat\xi_n,v\rangle & :=
\int_\Omega j_s(u_n-u,Du_n-Du)v
+ \int_\Omega j_\xi(u_n-u,Du_n-Du)\cdot Dv \\
& - \int_\Omega j_s(u_n,Du_n)v - \int_\Omega j_\xi(u_n,Du_n)\cdot Dv+
\int_\Omega j_s(u,Du)v + \int_\Omega j_\xi(u,Du)\cdot Dv, \notag\end{aligned}$$ for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$.\
Furthermore, there exists a sequence $(\hat\zeta_n)$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ with $$\int_\Omega j_\xi (u_n-u,Du_n-Du)\cdot Dv +\int_\Omega j_s (u_n-u,Du_n-Du)v
+\!\int_\Omega V_\infty|u_n-u|^{p-2}(u_n-u)v=\langle \hat \zeta_n, v\rangle$$ for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ and $\hat\zeta_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, namely $\phi_\infty'(u_n-u)\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
Keeping in mind the argument in proof of Theorem \[split2-A\], here we shall be more sketchy. For every $s\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\xi\in{{\mathbb R}}^N$ we plug $L,M,G$ into the equation $$\begin{aligned}
f_v(x,s,\xi) &= j_s(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))v(x) \\ & + j_\xi(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))\cdot Dv(x) -
j_s(s,\xi)v(x) - j_\xi(s,\xi)\cdot Dv(x),
\end{aligned}$$ thus obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
f_v(x,s,\xi) &=(M_s(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))-M_s(s,\xi))v(x)-(G'(s-u(x))-G'(s))v(x)\\
&+(M_\xi(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))-M_\xi(s,\xi))\cdot Dv(x)+(L_\xi(\xi-Du(x))-L_\xi(\xi))\cdot Dv(x)\\
&=a'v(x)+b'v(x)+c'\cdot Dv(x)+d'\cdot Dv(x).
\end{aligned}$$ We write the term $M_\xi(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))-M_\xi(s,\xi)$ in a more suitable form, namely $$\begin{aligned}
c'&=M_\xi(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))-M_\xi(s,\xi) \\
&= \underbrace{M_\xi(s-u(x),\xi-Du(x))-M_\xi(s,\xi-Du(x))}_{c'_1(x,s,\xi)}
+ \underbrace{M_\xi(s,\xi-Du(x))-M_\xi(s,\xi)}_{c'_2(x,s,\xi)},
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$f_v(x,s,\xi)=a'(x,s,\xi)v(x)+b'(x,s)v(x)+(c'_1(x,s,\xi)+c'_2(x,s,\xi))\cdot Dv(x)+d'(x,\xi)\cdot Dv(x).$$ The term $a'$ admits the same growth condition of $a$, cf. the proof of Theorem \[split2-A\]. Also, since $$c'_1(x,s,\xi) =-\int^1_0 M_{\xi s}(s-\tau u(x),\xi- Du(x))u(x) d\tau,$$ as for the term $c_1$ in the proof of Theorem \[split2-A\] we obtain $$|c_1'(x,s,\xi)|\leq{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{p/p'}+ C_{\varepsilon}|u(x)|^{p/((p-m)p')}+C_{\varepsilon}|Du(x)|^{p/p'}.$$ On the other hand, directly from assumptions - we get $$|b'(x ,s)| \leq C |u(x)|^{\sigma/\sigma'},\quad
|c'_2(x ,s,\xi)| \leq C|D u(x)|^{m/m'},\quad
|d'(x, \xi)| \leq C |D u(x)|^{p/p'}.$$ The conclusion follows then by the same argument carried out in Theorem \[split2-A\].
In the spirit of [@willembook Lemma 8.3], we have the following
\[likebook\] Under the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\] or \[main2\], let $(y_n)\subset{{\mathbb R}}^N$ with $|y_n|\rightarrow \infty,$ $$\begin{aligned}
&u_n(\cdot+y_n)\rightharpoonup u \qquad \text{in $W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$},\\
&u_n(\cdot+y_n)\rightarrow u \qquad \text{a.e.\ in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$},\\
&Du_n(\cdot+y_n)\rightarrow Du \qquad \text{a.e.\ in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$},\\
&\phi_\infty(u_n)\rightarrow c,\\
&\phi'_\infty(u_n) \rightarrow 0 \qquad \text{in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\phi'_\infty(u)=0$ and, setting $v_n:=u_n-u(\cdot-y_n)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{decomp-energy}
&\phi_\infty(v_n)\rightarrow c-\phi_\infty(u)\\
\label{gradientvanish}
&\phi_\infty'(v_n)\rightarrow 0\quad \text{in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$},\end{aligned}$$ and $\|v_n\|_p^p=\|u_n\|_p^p-\|u\|_p^p+o(1)$ and $\|v_n\|_m^m=\|u_n\|_m^m-\|u\|_m^m+o(1)$ as $n\to\infty$.
The energy splitting follows by Theorem \[energytot\] applied with $\Omega={{\mathbb R}}^N$ and the sequence $(u_n)$ replaced by $(u_n(\cdot+y_n))$. Take now $\varphi\in \mathcal D(\Omega)$ with $\|\varphi\|_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)}\leq 1$ and define $\varphi_n:=\varphi(\cdot+y_n)$. Then $\varphi_n\in {\mathcal D}(\Omega_n)$, where $\Omega_n=\Omega-\{y_n\}\subset\Omega$ for $n$ large. For any $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, we get $$\langle\phi_\infty'(v_n),\varphi\rangle=\langle\phi_\infty'(u_n(\cdot+ y_n)-u),\varphi_n\rangle.$$ By the splitting argument in the proof of Theorem \[split2-A\], it follows that $$\langle\phi_\infty'(u_n(\cdot+y_n)-u),\varphi_n\rangle=\langle\phi_\infty'(u_n(\cdot+y_n)),
\varphi_n\rangle-\langle\phi_\infty'(u),\varphi_n\rangle+\langle \zeta_n,\varphi_n\rangle,$$ where $\zeta_n\to 0$ in the dual of $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. If we prove that $u$ is critical for $\phi_\infty$, then the right-hand side reads as $\langle\phi_\infty'(u_n),\varphi\rangle+\langle \zeta_n,\varphi_n\rangle,$ and also the second limit follows. To prove that $\phi'_\infty(u)=0$ we observe that, for all $\varphi$ in ${\mathcal D}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$, $$\langle\phi_\infty'(u_n(\cdot+y_n)),\varphi\rangle\rightarrow \langle\phi_\infty'(u),\varphi\rangle,\quad
|\langle\phi_\infty'(u_n(\cdot+y_n)),\varphi\rangle|\leq \|\phi_\infty'(u_n)\|_*\|\varphi\|_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)}\to 0.$$ Indeed, defining $\hat\varphi_n:=\varphi(\cdot-y_n)$, since $|y_n|\rightarrow \infty$ as $n\to\infty$, we have ${\rm supp} \,\hat\varphi_n \subset \Omega,$ for $n$ large enough and $\|\hat\varphi_n\|_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)}
=\|\varphi\|_{{W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)}}$. The last assertion follows by using Brezis-Lieb Lemma [@BreLieb].
We can finally come to the proof of the main results.
Proof of Theorems \[main\] and \[main2\] completed
==================================================
We follow the scheme of the proof given in [@willembook p.121]. Let $(u_n)\subset W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ be a bounded Palais-Smale sequence for $\phi$ at the level $c\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Hence, there exists a sequence $(w_n)$ in the dual of $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ such that $w_n\to 0$ and $\phi(u_n)\to c$ as $n\to\infty$ and, for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega L_\xi (Du_n)\cdot Dv&+\int_\Omega M_\xi (u_n,Du_n)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega M_s (u_n,Du_n)v \\
& +\int_\Omega V(x)|u_n|^{p-2}u_nv=\int_\Omega g(u_n)v+\langle w_n, v\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $(u_n)$ is bounded in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, up to a subsequence, it converges weakly to some function $v_0\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ and, by virtue of Proposition \[convergenze\], $(u_n)$ and $(Du_n)$ converge to $v_0$ and $Dv_0$ a.e. in $\Omega$, respectively. In turn (see also the proof of Theorem \[split2-A\]) it follows $$\int_\Omega L_\xi (Dv_0)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega M_\xi (v_0,Dv_0)\cdot Dv+\int_\Omega M_s (v_0,Dv_0)v
+\int_\Omega V(x)|v_0|^{p-2}v_0v=\int_\Omega g(v_0)v,$$ for any $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. By combining Theorem \[energytot\] and Theorem \[split2-A\], setting $u_n^1:=u_n-v_0$ and thinking the functions on ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ after extension to zero out of $\Omega$, get $$\begin{aligned}
& \quad \phi_\infty(u_n^1)\to c-\phi(v_0),\quad n\to\infty, \label{ppripropp} \\
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} L_\xi (Du_n^1)\cdot Dv&+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_\xi (u_n^1,Du_n^1)\cdot Dv+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_s (u_n^1,Du_n^1)v \label{secpropp} \\
& +\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} V_\infty|u_n^1|^{p-2}u_n^1v=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} g(u_n^1)v+\langle w_n^1, v\rangle. \notag
\end{aligned}$$ where $(w_n^1)$ is a sequence in the dual of $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ with $w_n^1\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. In turn, it follows that $(u_n^1)$ is Palais-Smale sequence for $\phi_\infty$ at the energy level $c-\phi(v_0)$. In addition, $$\|u_n^1\|_p^p= \|u_n\|_p^p-\|v_0\|_p^p+o(1),\qquad
\|u_n^1\|_m^m= \|u_n\|_m^m-\|v_0\|_m^m+o(1),\quad\text{as $n\to\infty$,}$$ by the Brezis-Lieb Lemma [@BreLieb]. Let us now define $$\varpi:=\limsup_{n\to \infty}\sup_{y\in {{\mathbb R}}^N}\int_{B(y,1)}|u^1_n|^{p}.$$ If it is the case that $\varpi=0$, then, according to [@lions Lemma I.1], $(u_n^1)$ converges to zero in $L^r({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ for every $r\in (p, p^*).$ Then, one obtains that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_\Omega g(u_n^1)u_n^1=0,\qquad
\int_\Omega M_s (u_n^1,Du_n^1)u_n^1\geq 0,$$ where the inequality follows by the sign condition . In turn, testing equation with $v=u_n^1$, by the coercivity and convexity of $\xi\mapsto L(\xi), M(s,\xi)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{n\to\infty}\Big[\nu\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} |Du_n^1|^p+\nu\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} |Du_n^1|^m
+V_\infty\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} |u_n^1|^{p}\Big] \\
&\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\Big[\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} L_\xi (Du_n^1)\cdot Du_n^1+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_\xi (u_n^1,Du_n^1)\cdot Du_n^1
+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} V_\infty|u_n^1|^{p}\Big]\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ yielding that $(u_n^1)$ strongly converges to zero in $W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$, concluding the proof in this case. If, on the contrary, it holds $\varpi>0$, then, there exists an unbounded sequence $(y_n^1)\subset{{\mathbb R}}^N$ with $\int_{B(y_n^1,1)}|u^1_n|^p>\varpi/2$. Whence, let us consider $v_n^1:=u_n^1(\cdot+y_n^1)$, which, up to a subsequence, converges weakly and pointwise to some $v_1\in W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$, which is nontrivial, due to the inequality $\int_{B(0,1)}|v_1|^p\geq \varpi/2$. Notice that, of course, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\phi_\infty(v_n^1)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\phi_\infty(u_n^1)=c-\phi(v_0).$$ Moreover, since $|y_n^1|\to\infty$ and $\Omega$ is an exterior domain, for all $\varphi\in {\mathcal D}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ we have $\varphi(\cdot-y_n^1)\in{\mathcal D}(\Omega)$ for $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ large enough. Whence, in light of equation , for every $\varphi\in {\mathcal D}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} L_\xi (Dv_n^1)\cdot D\varphi+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_\xi (v_n^1,Dv_n^1)\cdot D\varphi
+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_s (v_n^1,Dv_n^1)\varphi \\
& +\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} V_\infty|v_n^1|^{p-2}(v_n^1)\varphi
-\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} g(v_n^1)\varphi =
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} L_\xi (Du_n^1)\cdot D\varphi(\cdot-y_n^1) \\
&+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_\xi (u_n^1,Du_n^1)\cdot D\varphi(\cdot-y_n^1)
+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_s (u_n^1,Du_n^1)\varphi(\cdot-y_n^1)
+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} V_\infty|u_n^1|^{p-2}(u_n^1)\varphi(\cdot-y_n^1) \\
& -\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} g(u_n^1)\varphi(\cdot-y_n^1)=\langle w_n^1, \varphi(\cdot+y_n^1)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Defining the form $\langle \hat w_n^1, \varphi\rangle:=\langle w_n^1, \varphi(\cdot-y_n^1)\rangle$ for all $\varphi\in {\mathcal D}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} L_\xi (Dv_n^1)\cdot D\varphi &+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_\xi (v_n^1,Dv_n^1)\cdot D\varphi
+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_s (v_n^1,Dv_n^1)\varphi \\
& +\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} V_\infty|v_n^1|^{p-2}(v_n^1)\varphi
-\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} g(v_n^1)\varphi =\langle \hat w_n^1,\varphi\rangle,\quad\forall \varphi\in {\mathcal D}({{\mathbb R}}^N).\end{aligned}$$ Since $(\hat w_n^1)$ converges to zero in the dual of $W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$, it follows by Proposition \[convergenze\] (with $V=V_\infty$ and $\Omega={{\mathbb R}}^N$) that the gradients $Dv_n^1$ converge point-wise to $Dv_1$, namely $$\label{Dquasiov1}
Dv_n^1(x)\to Dv_1(x),\qquad\text{a.e.\ in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$.}$$ Setting $u_n^2:=u_n^1-v_1(\cdot-y_n^1)$, in light of - and , we can apply Lemma \[likebook\] to the sequence $(v_n^1)$, getting $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\phi_\infty(u_n^2)=c-\phi(v_0)-\phi_\infty(v_1),$$ as well as $\phi_\infty(v_1)=0$ and, furthermore, for every $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} L_\xi (Du_n^2)\cdot Dv+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_\xi (u_n^2,Du_n^2)\cdot Dv+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_s (u_n^2,Du_n^2)v \\
& +\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} V_\infty|u_n^2|^{p-2}u_n^2v-\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} g(u_n^2)v =\langle \zeta_n^2, v\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $(\zeta_n^2)$ goes to zero in the dual of $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$. In turn, $(u_n^2)\subset W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ is a Palais-Smale sequence for $\phi_\infty$ at the energy level $c-\phi(v_0)-\phi(v_1)$. Arguing on $(u_n^2)$ as it was done for $(u_n^1)$, either $u_n^2$ goes to zero strongly in $W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ or we can generate a new $(u_n^3)$. By iterating the above procedure, one obtains diverging sequences $(y_n^i)$, $i=1,\dots,k-1$, solutions $v_i$ on ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ to the limiting problem, $i=1,\dots,k-1$ and a sequence $$u^k_n=u_n-v_0-v_1(\cdot-y_n^1)-v_2(\cdot-y_n^2)-\cdots-v_{k-1}(\cdot-y_n^{k-1}),$$ such that (recall again Lemma \[likebook\]) as $n\to\infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prima-norme}
\|u^k_n\|^p_p & = \|u_n\|^p_p -\|v_0\|^p_p- \|v_1\|^p_p- \cdots - \|v_{k-1}\|^p_p+o(1), \\
\|u^k_n\|^m_m & = \|u_n\|^m_m -\|v_0\|^m_m- \|v_1\|^m_m-\cdots- \|v_{k-1}\|^m_m+o(1), \notag\end{aligned}$$ as well as $\phi_\infty'(u^k_n)\to 0$ in $(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega))^*$ and $$\phi_\infty(u^k_n)\to c- \phi(v_0)-\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\phi_\infty(v_j).$$ Notice that the iteration is forced to end up after a finite number $k\geq 1$ of steps. Indeed, for every nontrivial critical point $v\in W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ of $\phi_\infty$ we have, $$\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} L_\xi (Dv)\cdot Dv+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_\xi (v,Dv)\cdot Dv+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} M_s (v,Dv)v
+\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} V_\infty|v|^{p}=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N} g(v)v,$$ yielding by the sign condition, the coercivity-convexity conditions and the growth of $g$, $$\label{bddbeloww}
\min\{\nu,V_\infty\}\|v\|_p^p+\|Dv\|_{L^m({{\mathbb R}}^N)}^m\leq C_g\|v\|_{L^\sigma({{\mathbb R}}^N)}^\sigma\leq C_g S_{p,\sigma}\|v\|_{p}^\sigma,$$ so that, due to $\sigma>p$, it holds $$\label{boundbelowww}
\|v\|_p^p\geq\left[\frac{\min\{\nu, V_\infty\}}{C_g S_{p,\sigma}}\right]^{\frac{p}{\sigma-p}}=:\Gamma_\infty>0,$$ thus yielding from $$\|u^k_n\|^p_p\leq\|u_n\|^p_p-\|v_0\|^p_p-(k-1)\Gamma_\infty+o(1).$$ By boundedness of $(u_n),$ $k$ has to be finite. Hence $u^k_n\rightarrow0$ strongly in $W^{1,p}({{\mathbb R}}^N)\cap D^{1,m}({{\mathbb R}}^N)$ at some finite index $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$. This concludes the proof.
Proof of Corollary \[compat\]
=============================
As a byproduct of the proof of the Theorems \[main\] and \[main2\], since the $p$ norm is bounded away from zero on the set of nontrivial critical points of $\phi_\infty,$ cf. ,we can estimate $\phi_\infty$ from below on that set. In order to do so, we use condition . For any nontrivial critical point of the functional $\phi_\infty$, we have (see the proof of Proposition \[bddd\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\phi_\infty(v)\geq \delta \int_\Omega |Dv|^p+\frac{\mu-p}{p}V_\infty\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^N}|v|^p\geq \min\left\{\delta,\frac{\mu-p}{p}V_\infty\right\}\|v\|^p_p.\end{aligned}$$ An analogous argument applies to $\phi,$ yielding for any nontrivial critical point $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\phi(u)\geq \delta \int_\Omega |Du|^p+\frac{\mu-p}{p}V_0\int_{\Omega}|u|^p\geq \min\left\{\delta,\frac{\mu-p}{p}V_0\right\}\|u\|^p_p.\end{aligned}$$ Now notice that, recalling and a similar variant for the norm of the critical points of $\phi$ in place of $\phi_\infty$, setting also $$e_\infty:=\min\left\{\frac{\delta}{\mu},\frac{\mu-p}{\mu p}V_\infty\right\}\Gamma_\infty,\quad
e_0:=\min\left\{\frac{\delta}{\mu},\frac{\mu-p}{\mu p}V_0\right\}\Gamma_0,\quad
\Gamma_0:=\left[\frac{\min\{\nu, V_0\}}{C_g S_{p,\sigma}}\right]^{\frac{p}{\sigma-p}}>0,$$ from Theorems \[main\] or \[main2\] we have $c\geq \ell e_0+k e_\infty$ for some $\ell\in\{0,1\}$ and non-negative integer $k.$ Condition $c<c^*:=e_\infty$ implies necessarily $k<1$, namely $k=0$. This provides the desired compactness result, using Theorems \[main\] or \[main2\].
Proof of Corollary \[minsolve\]
===============================
Defining the functionals $J,Q:W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)\to{{\mathbb R}}$ by $$J(u):=\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega}L(Du)+\frac{1}{m}\int_{\Omega}M(Du)+\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega}V(x)|u|^p,\qquad Q(u):=\frac{{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega}{\sigma}\int_{\Omega}|u|^\sigma,$$ and given a minimization sequence $(u_n)$ for problem , by Ekeland’s variational principle, without loss of generality we can replace it by a new minimization sequence, still denoted by $(u_n)$ for which there exists a sequence $(\lambda_n)\subset {{\mathbb R}}$ such that for all $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$ $$J'(u_n)(v)-\lambda_n Q'(u_n)(v)=\langle w_n,v\rangle,\quad \text{with $w_n\to 0$ in the dual of $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap D^{1,m}_0(\Omega)$}.$$ Taking into account the homogeneity of $L$ and $M$, choosing $v=u_n$ this means $$\int_{\Omega}L(Du_n)+\int_{\Omega}M(Du_n)+\int_{\Omega}V(x)|u_n|^p-{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega\lambda_n\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^\sigma=\langle w_n,u_n\rangle.$$ Up to a subsequence, let us define $$\lambda:=\frac{1}{{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega}\lim_n \int_{\Omega}L(Du_n)+M(Du_n)+V(x)|u_n|^p.$$ Since $\|u_n\|_{L^\sigma(\Omega)=1}$ for all $n$ and $\int_{\Omega}L(Du_n)/p+M(Du_n)/m+V(x)|u_n|^p/p\to {{\mathbb S}}_\Omega$ as $n\to\infty$, this means that $\lambda\in [m,p]$ and $(u_n)$ is a Palais-Smale sequence for the functional $I(u):=J(u)-\lambda Q(u)$ at an energy level $$\label{levelcc}
c\leq \frac{\sigma-m}{\sigma }\,{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega ,$$ since it holds (recall that $p\geq m$), as $n\to\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
I(u_n) &=\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega}L(Du_n)+\frac{1}{m}\int_{\Omega}M(Du_n)+\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega}V(x)|u_n|^p-\frac{{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega}{\sigma} \lambda \\
& \leq {{\mathbb S}}_\Omega-\frac{{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega}{\sigma}\lambda +o(1)\leq {{\mathbb S}}_\Omega \frac{\sigma-m}{\sigma}+o(1).\end{aligned}$$ From Corollary \[compat\] (applied with $L(Du)$ replaced by $L(Du)/p$, $M(u,Du)$ replaced by $M(Du)/m$ and $G(u)=\frac{{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega}{\sigma} \lambda|s|^{\sigma}$), the compactness of $(u_n)$ holds provided (in the notations of Corollary \[compat\]) $$c<\min\left\{\frac{\delta}{\mu},\frac{\mu-p}{\mu p}V_\infty\right\}\left[\frac{\min\{\nu, V_\infty\}}{C_g S_{p,\sigma}}\right]^{\frac{p}{\sigma-p}}.$$ In our case, we can take $\mu=\sigma$, $\delta=\frac{\sigma-p}{p}$, $C_g=p{{\mathbb S}}_\Omega$, $V_\infty=1$, $\nu=1$, $S_{p,\sigma}=(p{{\mathbb S}}_{{{\mathbb R}}^N})^{-\sigma/p}$, yielding $$c<\frac{\sigma-p}{\sigma }\,{{{\mathbb S}}_{{{\mathbb R}}^N}^{\frac{\sigma}{\sigma-p}}}/
{{{\mathbb S}}_{\Omega}^{\frac{p}{\sigma-p}}}.$$ Hence, finally, by combining this conclusion with the compactness (and in turn the solvability of the minimization problem) holds if holds, concluding the proof.
[99]{}
, Mathematical modeling techniques. Res. Notes in Math., [**24**]{} Pitman, Boston, 1979.
, Positive solutions of some nonlinear elliptic problems in exterior domains, [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{} [**99**]{} (1987), 283-300.
, Solitons in several space dimensions: Derrick’s problem and infinitely many solutions, [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.*]{} [**154**]{} (2000), 297-324.
, A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**88**]{} (1983), 486-490.
, On the stationary solutions of generalized reaction diffusion equations with $p\&q$-Laplacian, [*Commun. Pure Appl. Anal.*]{} [**4**]{} (2005), 9-22.
, Almost everywhere convergence of gradients of solutions to nonlinear elliptic systems, [*Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**31**]{} (1998), 405-412.
, Linking over cones and nontrivial solutions for p-Laplace equations with p-superlinear nonlinearity [*Ann. I. H. Poincaré*]{} [**24**]{} (2007), 907-919.
, On the regularity of solutions in the Pucci-Serrin identity, [*Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations*]{} [**18**]{} (2003), 317-334.
, Comments on nonlinear wave equations as models for elementary particles, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**5**]{} (1964), 1252-1254.
, Mathematical aspects of reacting and diffusing systems, Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, [**28**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1979.
, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally compact case, [*Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Anal. Non Lineaire*]{} [**1**]{} (1984), 109-145 and 223-283.
, A global compactness result for the p-Laplacian involving critical nonlinearities, [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.*]{} [**28**]{} (2010), 469-493.
, A general variational identity, [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**35**]{} (1986), 681-703.
, Existence, multiplicity, perturbation, and concentration results for a class of quasi-linear elliptic problems, [*Electron. J. Differential Equations*]{} Monograph [**7**]{} 2006 +213 pp.
, Nonlinear $p$-Laplacian problems on unbounded domains, [*Proc. AMS*]{} [**115**]{} (1992), 1037-1045.
, Explosive instabilities of reaction-diffusion equations, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**36**]{} (1987), 965-966.
, Minimax Theorems, Birkhauser, 1996.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'M.Bonesini,'
- 'R.Benocci,'
- 'R.Bertoni,'
- 'M.Clemenza,'
- 'D.Ghittori,'
- 'R.Mazza,'
- 'E.Vallazza,'
- 'A.deBari,'
- 'A.Menegolli,'
- 'M.Prata,'
- 'M.Rossella,'
- 'M.Baruzzo,'
- 'E.Mocchiutti'
title: 'Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystals with SiPM array readout and temperature control for the FAMU experiment at RAL'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The FAMU (isica degli tomi onici) experiment at RAL [@famu] is designed to measure the hyperfine splitting (HFS) in the ground state (1S) of the muonic hydrogen. It aims at a high accuracy determination of the proton Zemach radius [@zemach], [@bakalov]. This experiment may contribute to solve the so-called “proton radius puzzle”: a large and still unsolved disagreement between the proton charge as measured with electrons or muons [@pohl].
A high intensity pulsed low-energy muon beam, stopping in a hydrogen target, is used to produce muonic hydrogen (in a mixture of singlet F=0 and triplet F=1 states). A tunable mid-IR (MIR) pulsed high power laser then excites the hyperfine splitting (HFS) transition of the 1S muonic hydrogen (from F=0 to F=1 states). Making use of the muon transfer from muonic hydrogen to another higher-Z gas in the target (such as $O_2$), the $(\mu^{-}p)_{1S}$ HFS transition will be recognized by an increase of the number of X-rays from the $(\mu Z^{*})$ cascade, during a laser frequency scan around the resonance value $\nu_{0}$ ($\Delta E_{HFS}=h \nu_{0}$) . From the measurement of $\Delta E_{HFS}(\mu^{-}p)_{1S}$ the Zemach radius $r_Z$ of the proton may be computed with a precision up to $5 \times 10^{-3}$, thus casting new light on the proton radius puzzle.
The FAMU experiment is performed in steps, starting from the study of the transfer rate from muonic hydrogen to another higher-Z gas and ending with the full working setup including the pump MIR laser and a multipass optical cavity [^1]. The preliminary steps have allowed to determine the best mixture to be used inside the cryogenic target and optimize the operating conditions. A schematic layout of the experimental setup for the preliminary steps is shown in figure \[fig1\].
![Left panel: layout of the setup for the 2015-2016 data-taking (R582); 1) is the 1 mm pitch beam hodoscope, 2) the crown of eight Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with PMT readout and 3) the cryogenic target. The four HPGe detectors, also used in this run, are not shown. Right panel: picture of the 2018 setup where the two half-crown of the Ce:LaBr$_3 $ detectors with PMT readout (A) were displaced along the beam axis (z) and complemented with 4+4 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM array readout (B). []{data-label="fig1"}](fig6.png "fig:"){width=".54\textwidth"} ![Left panel: layout of the setup for the 2015-2016 data-taking (R582); 1) is the 1 mm pitch beam hodoscope, 2) the crown of eight Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with PMT readout and 3) the cryogenic target. The four HPGe detectors, also used in this run, are not shown. Right panel: picture of the 2018 setup where the two half-crown of the Ce:LaBr$_3 $ detectors with PMT readout (A) were displaced along the beam axis (z) and complemented with 4+4 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM array readout (B). []{data-label="fig1"}](fig_run_2018.jpg "fig:"){width=".44\textwidth"}
The RIKEN-RAL muon facility [@riken] at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (UK) provides high intensity pulsed muon beams at four experimental ports. The primary proton beam at 800 MeV/c impinges on a secondary carbon target producing pions and then high intensity low energy pulsed muon beams. The muon beams reflect the primary beam structure: two pulses with a 70 ns FWHM and a 320 ns peak to peak distance are delivered, with a 50 Hz repetition rate. The FAMU experiment makes use of a negative decay muon beam at $\sim$ 60 MeV/c. For this experiment, an important issue is the optimal steering of the incoming high intensity pulsed muon beam onto the hydrogen target, to maximize the muonic hydrogen production rate. A system of three beam hodoscopes has been developed for this scope. The first two are based on square $3 \times 3$ mm$^2$ Bicron BCF12 scintillating fibers read by SiPMs, while the last one is based on square $1 \times 1$ mm$^2$ scintillating fibers of the same type, with white EMA coating, to avoid light cross-talk [@carbone]. The muon beam intensity is around $6 \times 10^{4} \ \mu^{-}$/s in a typical size $4 \times 4$ cm$^2$. The energy spread is around $10 \ \%$ and the angular divergence around 60 mrad.
To extract the characteristic muonic X-rays lines (around 100 keV) with a good energy resolution and a minimal events pile-up, a system based on Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystals and HPGe detectors has been developed. Even if they have better energy resolution, the HPGe detectors are slower, work at cryogenic temperatures and are more expensive. Therefore the main X-rays detector system for the experiment was based on 1" circular Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystals, 1” long, read by UBA Hamamatsu R11265U-200 PMTs with active divider (up to eight arranged in two detachable half crowns). In addition, an R $\&$ D was pursued to complement these detectors with crystals equipped with SiPM readout to instrument regions of more difficult access, see reference [@adamczack18] for further details.
X-rays detectors with SiPM arrays readout {#sec:constr}
==========================================
For our aims it is essential to detect low-energy X-rays in the range 100-200 keV. Pr:LuAG [@prluag] and Ce:GAAG [@cecaag] crystals with respect to more conventional Ce:LaBr$_3$, CeBr$_3$[@cebr3] and NaI(Tl) crystals, have the advantage to be non hygroscopic and thus do not need encapsulation. Results on their performances are reported in references [@bonesini15], [@bonesini17]. From laboratory tests a solution based on Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystals was shown as still to be preferred. A crystal thickness of 0.33 (1.54) cm for $88 \%$ attenuation at 100 (200) keV was computed from X-ray attenuation coefficients, as reported in [@nist]. It is apparent that for the detection of the O$_2$ characteristic lines in the region 100-160 keV, corresponding to muon transfer, 1/2” long crystals are adequate. A more complete Monte Carlo simulation based on MNCP[@mncp] provided an estimate of absorption for cubic crystals of 1/2” side with a source at a distance corresponding to the center of the foreseen target. Even in this case 1/2” long crystals were considered adequate.
The structure of a detector with a SiPM array readout is shown in figure \[fig2\]. The optical contact between the crystal and the SiPM arrays is done through a Bicron BC631 silicone optical grease.
![Components of the detectors with SiPM readout. 1) is the Hamamatsu SiPM mounted on the custom PCB, 2) the Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystal in the Al encapsulation, the optical window is seen in the front. 3) is the holder containing the crystals and the PCB, in two pieces seen from the top. 4) is the cap to guarantee detector’s light tightness. The full mounted detector (5) is shown in the back of the picture. The 3.5 mm stereo jack cable (6) connects the temperature sensor (TMP37) on the backside of the SiPM array PCB to the power supply module.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig-det2a.png){width=".85\textwidth"}
The crystal/PCB holder, realized with a 3D printer, is made in two pieces: one contains the crystal under test, while the other holds the readout electronics with the custom PCB, where a SiPM array is mounted on. The analog signals of the 16 SiPM of one array are summed together on the custom PCB. Signal acquisition may be realized with a standard spectroscopic chain (based on a Ortec 672 spectroscopic amplifier or a fast Ortec 579 Ortec amplifier) or with a fast digitizer. Due to the signal amplitude ($\sim 100-
200$ mV at the $^{137}$Cs peak ) no amplification is needed and a direct readout via a digitizer may be used. In our case we made use of a CAEN DT5730 digitizer (desktop version) or a V1730 digitizer (VME format). Both have been used via an optical link and have a bandwith of 500 MHz with a $\pm 1$ Vpp dynamic range.
In the first instance, we used different 4 $\times$ 4 arrays made from 3 $\times$ 3 mm$^2$ SiPM array from Sensl, Advansid and Hamamatsu for their readout. Their main operation characteristics are resumed in table \[tab2\]. Hamamatsu SiPM make use of the TSV (“through Silicon via”) technology that eliminates the need of a wire bonding pad, thus reducing dead space problems. The anode of each channel is traced to the backside pad by TSV. Typical gains are in the range 1.7 to 3 $\times 10^6$ and depend on the applied overvoltages ($\Delta V_{ov}$), while the dark count rate is around 0.5 Mcps for all the considered SiPM arrays.
-------------------- ------------ ----------------- ----------- ---------------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------ ---------
$V_{bd}$ $\Delta V_{ov}$ $V_{op} $ $\Delta V_{{bd}}/\Delta T$ $\Delta V_{op}$ $\lambda_{max} $ PDE range
(V) (V) (V) (mV/C) (V) (nm) ($\sim \lambda_{max})$ (nm)
SenSL Array 24-25 1-5 26 21.5 420 $\sim 30 \%$ 300-800
SB-4-3035-CER
Advansid 26 2-6 29 26 $\leq 0.4$ 420 $\sim 43 \%$ 350-900
NUV3S-4x4TD
Hamamatsu $53 \pm 5$ $\sim 3$ 53.8 54 $\pm 0.05$ 450 $\sim 35 \%$ 320-900
S13361-3050-AE (E)
Hamamatsu $53 \pm 5$ $\sim 3$ 54.2 54 $\pm 0.05 $ 450 $\sim 35 \%$ 280-900
S13361-3050-AS (S)
Hamamatsu $38$ $\sim 2.7$ 40.8 34 $\pm 0.05$ 450 $\sim 50 \% $ 270-900
S14161-3050-HS (S)
-------------------- ------------ ----------------- ----------- ---------------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------ ---------
: Main characteristics of the SiPM arrays used for our tests.Photon detection efficiency (PDE) are at typical overvoltage values, at $\lambda_{max}$. $V_{op}=V_{bd}+\Delta V_{ov}$ is the typical voltage used in our tests. $\Delta V_{op}$ is the variation in the suggested voltages for operations, between the 16 different SiPM making a SiPM array. (E) or (S) are used for an epoxy or silicon window. []{data-label="tab2"}
Preliminary results obtained with a standard spectroscopic chain were reported in references [@bonesini15], [@bonesini17] and show resolution at 662 keV from $3.1 \%$ (Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystals with Hamamatsu S13361-3050-AS SiPM arrays) to 8.4 $\%$ (NaI crystals with the same readout). At lower X-rays energy ($\sim 122$ keV), FWHM energy resolutions between the different crystals become more compatible: as an example while at 662 keV a Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystal has a resolution a factor $\sim 2$ better than a NaI(Tl) crystal, at 122 keV this factor reduces only to $\sim 30 \%$ .
The best results were obtained with Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystals with a readout based on Hamamatsu SiPM arrays with a silicone window, that has a better transmission around 380 nm.
As the SiPM gain has a drift with temperature ($\sim 54 $ mV/$^{\circ}$C for the breakdown voltage of Hamamatsu S13361 SiPM) a temperature correction had to be implemented.
Temperature control of SiPM gain {#sec:temp}
--------------------------------
The gain of SiPM depends on the applied voltages $V_{op}=V_{bd}+ \Delta V_{ov}$ where the overvoltage is kept fixed: typically around 2-4 V. The breakdown voltage depends from temperature, according to equation: $$\label{eq1}
V_{bd}(T)= V_{bd}(T_0)+c \times (T-T_0)$$ where $c$ is the temperature coefficient $\Delta V_{bd}/\Delta T$ of table \[tab2\] and $T_0$ a reference temperature, tipically 25 $^{\circ}C$ [@otte]. By correcting for the increase of breakdown voltage with the previous equation \[eq1\] one may obtain an excellent gain stabilization. The temperature correction may be obtained offline, by recording the temperature, or online with an active feedback.
![Left panel: P.H. response in a.u. for a typical Ce:LaBr$_3$ 1/2” crystal as a function of temperature with a $^{137}$Cs source. Data have been taken inside an IPV30 Memmert climatic chamber, with a temperature resolution $\sim 0.1^{\circ}$C. Data have been taken with no temperature correction (circle) and with temperature correction (squares). Right panel: top view of the custom NIM module for temperature control of SiPM gain. The USB-I2C interface is shown in the bottom part of the picture. Seven out of eight CAEN A7585D power supply chips are shown in place. A wire-wrap mounting has been used. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig-corr2.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Left panel: P.H. response in a.u. for a typical Ce:LaBr$_3$ 1/2” crystal as a function of temperature with a $^{137}$Cs source. Data have been taken inside an IPV30 Memmert climatic chamber, with a temperature resolution $\sim 0.1^{\circ}$C. Data have been taken with no temperature correction (circle) and with temperature correction (squares). Right panel: top view of the custom NIM module for temperature control of SiPM gain. The USB-I2C interface is shown in the bottom part of the picture. Seven out of eight CAEN A7585D power supply chips are shown in place. A wire-wrap mounting has been used. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig-nim1.jpg "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
The effect to be corrected is shown in figure \[fig3\] (black circles) for two different Hamamatsu SiPM arrays. Data have been taken inside a Memmert IPV30 climatic chamber, with a temperature resolution of 0.1 $^{\circ}$C between 10 $^{\circ}$C and 40 $^{\circ}$C. A typical detector is irradiated with a $^{137}$Cs source and data are read by a CAEN V1730 digitizer. The position of the pulse height peak is computed and then plotted as a function of temperature. We initially used single desktop power supply CAEN DT5485P [^2], where the temperature feedback was based on a temperature sensor (TMP37 from Analog Devices) put on the backside of the PCB holding the SiPM array (see figure \[fig2\] for details). This temperature sensor is connected via a 3.5 mm stereo cable to the power supply module. Between 10 $^{\circ}$C and 40 $^{\circ}$C the detector pulse height response had a variation up to 60 $\%$. This effect is reduced to $\sim 6 \%$ after temperature correction, via a CAEN DT5485P desktop module.
All results, based on laboratory tests, were made using such modules for powering the SiPM arrays. For the next future we have developed custom made NIM modules with up to eight HV channels each, based on CAEN A7585D chips. The communication with the host computer is done via an I2C protocol, followed by an USB-I2C converter, using on the computer side a proprietary software [^3] that may control the setting of the power supply chips, monitor their erogated voltages and currents and record results on an Excel file. These modules realized with a wire wrap technique are shown in figure \[fig3\] and their use is foreseen for the next spectroscopic run of FAMU in late 2020. In these modules the primary voltage to feed the power supply chips is taken from the NIM backplane and the interface USB-I2C is realized via a FDTI C232HM-EDSHL-0 module. For data taken in December 2018 six DT5485P CAEN modules connected to an USB hub were used instead.
Results from laboratory tests.
==============================
Results for a typical crystal are shown in figure \[fig2c\] for both linearity and FWHM resolution (in $\%$) using different laboratory sources in the range between 80 and 1300 keV. At the $^{137}$Cs peak a resolution $\sim 3.5 \%$ was found, compatible with best results with the standard PMT readout.
![Left panel: linearity for a typical 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM array readout, from OST Photonics (CN). Right panel: FWHM resolution with different test sources for the same detector. Fits are performed with a straight line for linearity and with the expression $ p_0 + p_1/\sqrt(E)$ for the FWHM energy resolution.[]{data-label="fig2c"}](Calibrazione030_a.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![Left panel: linearity for a typical 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM array readout, from OST Photonics (CN). Right panel: FWHM resolution with different test sources for the same detector. Fits are performed with a straight line for linearity and with the expression $ p_0 + p_1/\sqrt(E)$ for the FWHM energy resolution.[]{data-label="fig2c"}](Risoluzione030_a.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}
Results on linearity and FWHM resolution ($\%$) are also shown in figure \[fig2b\] for several Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with size $14 \times 14 \times 14$ mm$^3$ from Kinheng Ltd (no. 12-17) and $12 \times 12 \times 12$ mm$^3$ from Ost Photonics (no. 21-32). Detectors with worse energy resolutions are equipped with Hamamatsu S13361 arrays with epoxy windows, that have a reduced transparency to the UV signal emitted from Ce:LaBr$_3$ or have suffered from ageing problems (such as some older detectors from Kinheng, PRC). Around 122 keV FWHM energy resolutions up to $8 \%$ are obtained.
-2cm ![Top panel: linearity for the used 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM array readout. Detectors no. 12-17 are from Kinheng Photonics (PRC), while detectors no. 21-32 are from OST Photonics (PRC). Bottom panel: FWHM resolutions with different test sources for the same detectors.[]{data-label="fig2b"}](LaBrPI.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Top panel: linearity for the used 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM array readout. Detectors no. 12-17 are from Kinheng Photonics (PRC), while detectors no. 21-32 are from OST Photonics (PRC). Bottom panel: FWHM resolutions with different test sources for the same detectors.[]{data-label="fig2b"}](LaBrResPIpar.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
Analysis of performances in beam {#sec:perform}
================================
In the December 2018 run at Port 1 of RIKEN RAL, the two half-crown of 1” Ce:LaBr$_3$ crystals with PMT readout were displaced of $\sim 10$ cm along the beam direction. They were complemented with four 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM readout, each. The first six detectors were powered via CAEN DT5475 modules with temperature feedback, the last two were powered by conventional ISEG NIM NHS-6001x power supply [^4] for cross-check. As the temperature in the experimental hall was quite stable (the run was done in winter) no appreciable temperature excursions were seen.
Calibration results in situ with $^{137}$Cs, $^{133}$Ba, $^{57}$Co sources are reported in figure \[fig5\] and are roughly compatible with laboratory measurements, even if FWHM resolutions are a little worse. This may be due to worse positioning of sources with respect to the detectors to be calibrated and environmental noise.
![Calibration results obtained with a $^{137}$Cs, $^{133}$Ba and a $^{57}$Co source during the December 2018 run at RAL. FWHM resolutions are slightly worse as respect to what obtained in laboratory measurements.[]{data-label="fig5"}](MIB013-Cs137.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Calibration results obtained with a $^{137}$Cs, $^{133}$Ba and a $^{57}$Co source during the December 2018 run at RAL. FWHM resolutions are slightly worse as respect to what obtained in laboratory measurements.[]{data-label="fig5"}](MIB013-Co57.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Calibration results obtained with a $^{137}$Cs, $^{133}$Ba and a $^{57}$Co source during the December 2018 run at RAL. FWHM resolutions are slightly worse as respect to what obtained in laboratory measurements.[]{data-label="fig5"}](MIB014-Ba133.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
Data were then taken with a target filled with pure H$_2$ for background studies and a mixture of O$_2$ and H$_2$ at various concentrations (from 0.3 to 4.6 $\%$ weight) at a temperature around 80 K, at various pressures.
The timing properties of one typical detector are shown in figure \[fig6\]. The two peaks structure of the beam is clearly visible with FWHM and peak-to-peak distance compatible with what expected.
![ Top panel: X-ray time evolution spectrum of the H$_2$-2% O$_2$ mixture with a 56 MeV/c moun momentum. Bottom panel: energy spectrum for a SiPM array readout 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detector using a 2 $\%$ $O_2$ mixture, at 7 bar and 80 K. Background is not subtracted. Characteristic spectral lines at 347 keV and 66 keV from Al (a,f), Nickel at 310 keV and 107 keV (b,e) and Oxygen at 158/167 keV and 133 keV (c,d) may be seen.[]{data-label="fig6"}](MIB11EvsTcolz.pdf "fig:"){width=".75\textwidth"} ![ Top panel: X-ray time evolution spectrum of the H$_2$-2% O$_2$ mixture with a 56 MeV/c moun momentum. Bottom panel: energy spectrum for a SiPM array readout 1/2" Ce:LaBr$_3$ detector using a 2 $\%$ $O_2$ mixture, at 7 bar and 80 K. Background is not subtracted. Characteristic spectral lines at 347 keV and 66 keV from Al (a,f), Nickel at 310 keV and 107 keV (b,e) and Oxygen at 158/167 keV and 133 keV (c,d) may be seen.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig_spectrum_MIB11.pdf "fig:"){width=".75\textwidth"}
In figure \[fig6\] the full energy spectrum is reported for the same detector. Characteristic X-rays lines, mainly Nickel and Aluminium from materials present in the target, are evident from $\sim 100$ keV to around 400 keV.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
Ce:LaBr$_3$ detectors with SiPM array readout and temperature control for the power supply have been assembled and tested both in laboratory, at Sezione INFN Milano Bicocca and in beam at Port 1 at RIKEN RAL. Results show good perfomances and FWHM resolutions compatible with more bulky conventional detectors with PMT readout. Their use is foreseen, together with the NIM power supply module with temperature feedback, for the coming 2020 FAMU spectroscopic run.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank S. Banfi, M. Gheigher (INFN Milano Bicocca) for help in mechanics setup. We acknowledge the help of Dr. M. Saviozzi of CAEN, Dr. A. Abba and Dr. V. Arosio of Nuclear Instruments for issues related to the regulated power supply chips for SiPM and their control program Zeus.
[99]{} A. Vacchi [*et al.*]{}, *Measuring the size of the proton*, SPIE Newsroom (2012), DOI:10.1117/2.1201207.004274;\
A. Adamczack [*et al.*]{}, *Steps towards the hyperfine splitting measurement of the muonic hydrogen ground state: pulsed muon beam and detection system characterization*, JINST [**11/05**]{} (2016) P05007;\
M. Bonesini, *The FAMU experiment at RIKEN RAL for a precise measure of the proton radius*, PoS(EPS-HEP2019) 132;\
C. Pizzolotto [*et al.*]{}, *The FAMU experiment: muonic hydrogen high precision spectroscopy studies*, submitted to EPJ A. A.C. Zemach, *Proton Structure and the Hyperfine Shift in Hydrogen*, Phys. ReV. [**104**]{} (1956) 1771. D. Bakalov [*et al.*]{}, *Experimental method to measure the hyperfine splitting of muonic hydrogen ($\mu^{-}p)_{1S}$*, Phys. Lett. [**A172**]{} (1993) 277. R. Pohl [*et al.*]{}, *The size of the proton*, Nature [**466**]{} (2010) 213;\
A. Antognini [*et al.*]{} *Proton Structure from the Measurement of 2S-2P Transition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen*, Science [**339**]{} (2013) 417 T. Matsuzaki [*et al.*]{}, *The RIKEN RAL pulsed muon facility*, Nucl. Instr. Meth. [**A465**]{} (2001) 365. R. Carbone [*et al.*]{}, *The fiber-SiPM beam monitor of the R484 experiment of the RIKEN-RAL muon facility*, JINST [**10**]{} (2015) C03007;\
M. Bonesini [*et al.*]{}, *The construction of the Fiber-SiPM beam monitor system of the R484 and R582 experiments at RIKEN RAL muon facility*, JINST [**12**]{} (2017) C03035;\
M. Bonesini [*et al.*]{}, *The upgraded beam monitor system of the FAMU experiment at RIKEN-RAL*, Nucl. Instr. Meth [**A936**]{} (2019) 592. A. Adamczack [*et al.*]{}, *The FAMU experiment at RIKEN RAL to study the muon transfer rate from hydrogen to other gases*, JINST [**13**]{} (2018) P12033. W. Drozdowski [*et al.*]{}, *Scintillation Properties of Praseodymium Activated $Lu_{3}Al_{5}O_{12}$ Single Crystals*, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Science [**55**]{} (2008) 2429 J.Y. Yeom [*et al.*]{}, *First Performance Results of Ce:GAGG Scintillation Crystals With Silicon Photomultipliers*, IEEE Trans Nucl Science [**60**]{}, no.2 (2013) 988. F.G.A. Quarati [*et al.*]{}, *Scintillation and detection characteristics of high-sensitivity CeBr$_3$ gamma-ray spectrometers*, Nucl. Instr. Meth. [**A729**]{} (2012) 596. M. Bonesini [*et al.*]{}, *Characterization of new crystals for X-rays detector*, PoS EPS-HEP2015 (2015) 244 M. Bonesini [*et al.*]{}, *Systematic study of innovative hygroscopic and non-hygroscopic crystals with SiPM array readout*, PoS EPS-HEP2017 (2017) 777
https://www.nist.gov/pm/x-ray-mass-attenuation-coefficients;\
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CRC Press, 67th Edition, 1986. L. Carter [*et al.*]{}, *Monte Carlo Development in Los Angeles*, LA-5903-MS, 1975. A.N. Otte [*et al.*]{}, *Characterization of three High Efficiency and Blue Sensitive Silicon Photomultipliers*, Nucl. Instr. Meth. [**A846**]{} (2017) 106.
[^1]: to enhance the probability of laser light-muon interactions
[^2]: 0.1 mV (pp) voltage ripple, $\pm 20$ mV setting precision, 1.2 mV setting resolution, with USB control
[^3]: Zeus software from Nuclear Instruments srl.
[^4]: with a voltage ripple less than 2-3 mV, 0.2 mV resolution voltage setting
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the bilateral filter proposed by Tomasi and Manduchi, as a spectral domain transform defined on a weighted graph. The nodes of this graph represent the pixels in the image and a graph signal defined on the nodes represents the intensity values. Edge weights in the graph correspond to the bilateral filter coefficients and hence are data adaptive. Spectrum of a graph is defined in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the graph Laplacian matrix. We use this spectral interpretation to generalize the bilateral filter and propose more flexible and application specific spectral designs of bilateral-like filters. We show that these spectral filters can be implemented with $k$-iterative bilateral filtering operations and do not require expensive diagonalization of the Laplacian matrix.'
author:
- |
Akshay Gadde, Sunil K Narang and Antonio Ortega\
Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering\
University of Southern California\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [^1]
bibliography:
- 'BFrefs.bib'
title: 'Bilateral Filter: Graph Spectral Interpretation and Extensions'
---
Bilateral filter, graph based signal processing, polynomial approximation
Introduction
============
The bilateral filter (BF) proposed by Tomasi and Manduchi [@Tomasi'98] has emerged as a powerful tool for adaptive processing of multidimensional data. Bilateral filtering smooths images while preserving edges, by taking the weighted average of the nearby pixels. The weights depend on both the spatial distance and photometric distance which provides local adaptivity to the given data. The bilateral filter and its variants are widely used in different applications such as denoising, edge preserving multi-scale decomposition, detail enhancement or reduction and segmentation etc. [@ParisBF; @BFdenoise; @multiscaleBF; @durand; @graphCutFilter]. Bilateral filtering was developed as an intuitive tool without theoretical justification. Since then connections between the BF and other well known filtering frameworks such as anisotropic diffusion, weighted least squares, Bayesian methods, kernel regression and non-local means have been explored [@Elad'02; @Barash; @Milanfar'13; @Singer; @Baudes].
The BF is data dependent and hence a non-linear and non-shift invariant filter. So, it does not have a spectral interpretation in the traditional frequency domain of images. However we would like to have spectral interpretation so that we can modify the global properties of the signal by changing its frequency components. To overcome this difficulty, we view the BF as a vertex domain transform on a graph with pixels as vertices, intensity values of each node as graph signal and filter coefficients as link weights that capture the similarity between nodes. This graphical views of the BF is used in [@Peyre'08; @Milanfar'13; @Noel'12; @graphCutFilter; @Jian'09] but spectral design of filters for images using this graph has not been studied.
We can define spectral filters on these graphs where spectral response is calculated in terms of eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the graph Laplacian matrix [@Hammond'11; @Sunil'12; @ShumanSPM; @Moura]. This spectral interpretation captures the oscillatory behavior of the graph signal [@nodalThm] and thus allows us to extend of the concept of frequency to irregular domains. This has led to the design of frequency selective filtering operations on graphs similar to that in traditional signal processing. These graph spectral filters also have a vertex domain implementation.
In this paper, we interpret the BF as a $1$-hop localized transform on the aforementioned graph. Because the link weights in the graph are data adaptive, the problem of structure preserving filtering boils down to low pass spectral filtering on that graph. We show that the BF can be characterized by a spectral response corresponding to a linear spectral decay. We also calculate the spectral response of iterated BF. We extend this novel insight to build better and more general bilateral-like filters using the machinery to design graph based transforms with desired spectral response. Our design allows one to choose the spectral response of the filter depending on the application which offers more flexibility. We also give a theoretical justification for the design using the framework of regularization on graphs. We show that these spectral filters do not require computationally expensive diagonalization of the graph Laplacian matrix and then provide an efficient algorithm for implementing these filters using the BF as a building block. We examine the performance of the proposed filters in a few applications.
Bilateral Filter as a Graph Based Transform
===========================================
Consider an input image ${{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}$ to the BF. The value at each position in the output image ${{\mathbf{x}}}_{out}$ is given by the weighted average of the pixels in ${{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}$. $${{\mathbf{x}}}_{out}[j] = \sum_i \frac{w_{ij}}{\sum_i w_{ij}} {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}[i]
\label{eq:BF}$$ The weights $w_{ij}$ depend on both the euclidean and photometric distance between the pixels ${{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}[i]$ and ${{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}[j]$. Let $p_i$ denote the position of the pixel $i$. The weights are then given by $$w_{ij} = \exp{\left(-\frac{\| p_i - p_j \|^2}{2\sigma_d^2}\right)} . \exp{\left(-\frac{({{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}[i] - {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}[j])^2 }{2\sigma_r^2}\right)}$$ Spatial Gaussian weighting decreases the influence of distant pixels[^2] and intensity Gaussian weighting decreases the influence of pixels with different intensities. Intuition is that only similar nearby pixels should get averaged so that blurring of edges is avoided.
Now, consider an undirected graph $G = ({{\mathcal{V}}}, E)$ where the nodes ${{\mathcal{V}}} = \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ are the pixels of the input image and the edges $E = \{(i,j,w_{ij})\}$ capture the similarity between two pixels as given by the BF weights (Figure \[fig:BFgraph\]). Image ${{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}$ can be considered as a signal defined on this graph ${{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}:{{\mathcal{V}}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ where the signal value at each node equals the corresponding pixel intensity.
[r]{}[0.15]{} {width="0.6in"}
Adjacency matrix ${{\mathbf{W}}}$ of this graph is given by ${{\mathbf{W}}} = [w_{ij}]_{n\times n}$. Let ${{\mathbf{D}}}$ be the diagonal degree matrix where each diagonal element ${{\mathbf{D}}}_{jj} = \sum_i w_{ij}$. With this notation the filtering operation in can be written as [@Milanfar'13] $${{\mathbf{x}}}_{out} = {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1} {{\mathbf{W}}} {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}
\label{eq:BFmtx}$$ It can be seen from that the output at each node in the graph depends only on the nodes in its $1$-hop neighborhood. So, the BF is a $1$-hop localized graph based transform. Also, note that the BF includes the current pixel in the weighted average. So, the graph corresponding to the BF has a [*self loop*]{} i.e. an edge connecting each node to itself with weight $1$. Other filtering techniques such as Gaussian smoothing and non-local means can also be described using similar graphical models [@Milanfar'13; @Peyre'08].
Graph Spectrum and Data Adaptivity of the BF
--------------------------------------------
Spectrum of a graph is defined in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of its Laplacian matrix. The combinatorial Laplacian matrix for the graph $G$ is defined ${{\mathbf{L}}} = {{\mathbf{D}}} - {{\mathbf{W}}}$. We use the normalized form of the Laplacian matrix given as ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}} = {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1/2}{{\mathbf{L}}} {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1/2}$. ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is a non-negative definite matrix [@Chung'97]. As a result ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ has an orthogonal set of eigenvectors ${{\mathbf{U}}} = \{{{\mathbf{u}}}_1,\ldots,{{\mathbf{u}}}_2\}$ with corresponding eigenvalues $\sigma(G) = \{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\}$. So, ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ can be diagonalized as $${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}} = {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{\Lambda}}}{{\mathbf{U}}}^t$$ where ${{\mathbf{\Lambda}}} = diag\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\}$.
Similar to classical Fourier transform, the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the Laplacian matrix ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ provide a spectral interpretation of the graph signals. The eigenvalues $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\}$ can be treated as graph frequencies, and are always situated in the interval $[0,2]$ on the real line. The eigenvectors of the Laplacian matrix demonstrate increasing oscillatory behavior as the magnitude of the graph frequency increases [@nodalThm]. The [*Graph Fourier Transform*]{} (GFT) of a signal ${{\mathbf{x}}}$ is defined as its projection onto the eigenvectors of the graph, i.e., $\tilde{x}(\lambda_i) = \langle{{\mathbf{x}}},~{{\mathbf{u}}}_i\rangle$, or in matrix form $\tilde{{{\mathbf{x}}}} = {{\mathbf{U}}}^t{{\mathbf{x}}}$. The inverse GFT is given by ${{\mathbf{x}}} = {{\mathbf{U}}} \tilde{{{\mathbf{x}}}}$.
Figure \[fig:BFgft\] shows the fraction of total signal energy captured by the first $k$ spectral components of a graph signal corresponding to a $64\times 64$ image block. In this example we consider the following underlying graphs (1) the BF graph (2) the graph corresponding to Gaussian smoothing where the weights depend only on the geometric distance between two pixels. We can see that due to the data adaptivity of the BF graph, most of the signal energy is captured in low frequency part of the BF graph spectrum in comparison with spectrum of Gaussian smoothing graph. So, the spectral basis of the BF graph offers better energy compaction for the given signal.
![$E_k$ is the fraction of total energy captured by the first $k$ spectral components.[]{data-label="fig:BFgft"}](BFgft1){width="25.00000%"}
Spectral interpretation of the bilateral filter
===============================================
Similar to conventional signal processing, [*graph spectral filtering*]{} is defined as $$\tilde{x}_{out}(\lambda_i) = h(\lambda_i) \tilde{x}_{in}(\lambda_i)
\label{eq:gsf}$$ $h(\lambda_i)$ is the spectral response of the filter according to which spectral components of an input signal are modulated. Using the definition of GFT and the diagonalized form of ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$, we can write graph spectral filtering in matrix notation as [@ShumanSPM] $${{\mathbf{x}}}_{out} = \underbrace{{{\mathbf{U}}}}_{\substack{\text{Inverse}\\\text{GFT}}} \underbrace{h({{\mathbf{\Lambda}}})}_{\substack{\text{Spectral}\\\text{response}}} \underbrace{{{\mathbf{U}}}^t {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}}_{\text{GFT}} = h({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}) {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}
\label{eq:gtf}$$
To exploit this framework of graph spectral filtering we rewrite the BF in as $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\mathbf{x}}}_{out} = {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1/2} {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1/2} {{\mathbf{W}}} {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1/2} {{\mathbf{D}}}^{1/2}{{\mathbf{x}}}_{in} \nonumber\\
\Rightarrow &{{\mathbf{D}}}^{1/2}{{\mathbf{x}}}_{out} = ({{\mathbf{I}}}-{{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}){{\mathbf{D}}}^{1/2} {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}
\label{eq:toBFsr}\end{aligned}$$ From this equation, we can see that the BF is a graph transform, similar to the one in , operating on the normalized input signal ${{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}_{in} ={{\mathbf{D}}}^{1/2}{{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}$ producing the normalized output ${{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}_{out} = {{\mathbf{D}}}^{1/2}{{\mathbf{x}}}_{out}$. This normalization allows us to define the BF in terms of the non-negative definite matrix ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and thus have a spectral interpretation. It also ensures that a constant signal when normalized, is an eigenvector of ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ associated with zero eigenvalue [@SunilBior]. Following we have, $${{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}_{out} = {{\mathbf{U}}} ({{\mathbf{I}}}-{{\mathbf{\Lambda}}}) {{\mathbf{U}}}^t {{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}_{in}
\label{eq:BFsr}$$ This shows that the BF is a frequency selective graph transform with a spectral response $h_{BF}(\lambda_i) = 1-\lambda_i$ which corresponds to linear decay (See Figure \[fig:spRes\]).
![Spectral responses of the BF and iterated BF.[]{data-label="fig:spRes"}](spRes){width="25.00000%"}
The BF tries to preserve the low frequency components and attenuate the high frequency components.
The BF is used iteratively in many applications. There are two ways to iterate the BF (1) by changing the weights at each iteration using the result of previous iteration (2) by using fixed weights at each iteration as calculated from the initial image. In the first method the BF graph changes in every iteration. So we cannot have a spectral interpretation. In the second method the graph remains fixed at every iteration. Here we consider the second method. Iterating preserves strong edges while removing weaker details. This type of effect is desirable for applications such as stylization [@ParisBF]. The BF iterated $k$-times can be written in matrix notation as $${{\mathbf{x}}}_{out} = \left({{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1} {{\mathbf{W}}}\right)^k {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in} = \left({{\mathbf{I}}} - {{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}_r \right)^k {{\mathbf{x}}}_{in}
\label{eq:BFiter}$$ where ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}_r = {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1} {{\mathbf{L}}}$ is called the random walk Laplacian matrix. It can be shown that any graph transform $h({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}_r)$ can be written in terms of ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ as $h({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}_r) = {{\mathbf{D}}}^{-1/2}h({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}){{\mathbf{D}}}^{1/2}$ [@SunilBior Proposition 2]. Using this fact, we can rewrite as $${{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}_{out} = {{\mathbf{U}}} ({{\mathbf{I}}}-{{\mathbf{\Lambda}}})^k {{\mathbf{U}}}^t {{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}_{in}
\label{eq:BFiterS}$$ The spectral responses corresponding $k=2,3,4$ are shown in Figure \[fig:spRes\]. The figure suggests that iterative application of the BF suppresses more of the high frequency component which is consistent with the observation. Equations and give a different perspective to look at the bilateral filter. They hint at filter designs with better spectral responses that can be tailored to particular applications.
Application specific spectral designs
=====================================
The BF and iterated BF have fixed spectral responses. But these responses may not be suitable for all applications. Below we discuss two applications (1) image denoising and (2) segmentation to illustrate design of more flexible spectral filters.
#### Denoising. {#denoising. .unnumbered}
We consider the problem of image denoising with additive zero-mean white noise. $${{\mathbf{y}}}[i] = {{\mathbf{x}}}[i] + {{\mathbf{e}}}[i]$$ where ${{\mathbf{x}}}$ is the original image that we want to estimate, ${{\mathbf{y}}}$ is the observed noisy image and ${{\mathbf{e}}}$ is zero-mean white noise with variance $\sigma^2$. As explained before most of the signal energy lies in the low frequency part of the BF graph spectrum due to its data adaptivity. So most energy in the high frequency spectrum corresponds to noise. We can put this intuition in a more principled framework of regularization where the problem of denoising is equivalent to minimization of a penalty functional [@Elad'02]. This penalty functional is composed of two terms. The first term is a fit measure and the second term is a data dependent smoothness constraint as captured by regularization operators on the BF graph [@Smola'03; @Zhou'04]. $$C({{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}) = \frac{1}{2}\|{{\mathbf{\hat{y}}}}-{{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}\|^2 + \frac{\rho}{2}\|h_p({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}){{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}\|^2$$ Note that we normalize ${{\mathbf{x}}}$ and ${{\mathbf{y}}}$ as in . The regularization functional can be written in spectral domain as $$\|h_p({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}){{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}\|^2 = \sum_{i=1}^n [h_p(\lambda_i)]^2[\tilde{\hat{x}}(\lambda_i)]^2$$ $h_p(\lambda) \geq 0$ is chosen to be a non-decreasing function in $\lambda$ so that the high frequency components are penalized more strongly. Putting $\partial C/\partial {{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}} = 0$ we get the optimal ${{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}}_{opt} &= ({{\mathbf{I}}} + \rho h_p^2({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}))^{-1}{{\mathbf{\hat{y}}}}\nonumber \\
&= {{\mathbf{U}}} ({{\mathbf{I}}} + \rho h_p^2({{\mathbf{\Lambda}}}))^{-1} {{\mathbf{U}}}^t {{\mathbf{\hat{y}}}}\end{aligned}$$ So, for a chosen regularization functional $h_p(\lambda)$, the spectral response of the denoising filter is given by $$h_{opt}(\lambda) = \frac{1}{1 + \rho h_p^2(\lambda)}
\label{regfilt}$$ Denoising filters suggested by the regularization framework are essentially low pass filters in the spectral domain of the graph (Figure \[fig:denoise\]). The BF has a relatively poor spectral decay profile due to which it blurs the textures in the denoising process.
#### Image Segmentation. {#image-segmentation. .unnumbered}
Shi and Malik [@MalikNormCut] formulated the problem of image segmentation as a graph partitioning problem on a graph similar to the BF graph. To obtain an $m$-way partition of the graph, we only need to find the projection of the graph signal on the first few eigenvectors with the smallest eigenvalues. This projection gives a very coarse version of the signal which then can be used to perform image segmentation. So a suitable filter for this application should be a low pass filter in the graph spectral domain with a small cut off frequency and sharp transition band (Figure \[fig:segment\]). Iterative application of the BF also gives a coarse version of the image with details removed. But it favours the eigenvector with the smallest eigenvalue [@graphCutFilter] which corresponds to the DC component of the image as seen from its spectral response. On the other hand, for graph partitioning we need the eigenvector with second smallest eigenvalue (and eigenvectors with larger eigenvalues for finer partitions).
To summarize, different applications require filters having different spectral responses $h(\lambda)$. So, we would like to design more general bilateral-like filters with desired spectral response. These filters are of the form $h({{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}) = {{\mathbf{U}}} h({{\mathbf{\Lambda}}}) {{\mathbf{U}}}^t$. A direct implementation of these filters requires diagonalization of ${{\bm{\mathcal{L}}}}$ which is of the order $O(N^3)$. For large graphs such as the one considered here, this is computationally very expensive. Fortunately, we can approximate any spectral response $h(\lambda)$ by a polynomial in $\lambda$. These polynomial spectral filters are $k$-hop localized on the graph where $k$ is the degree of the polynomial. This leads to an easy and efficient implementation scheme for these filters as explained in the next section.
Polynomial approximation and fast implementation
================================================
The spectral response of the iterative bilateral filter (Figure \[fig:fastSF\](a)) given in (\[eq:BFiterS\]) is a degree $k$ polynomial. This is a special case of a general class of real polynomials of degree $k$ given as $$\begin{aligned}
h(\Lam) = r_0\prod_{i=1}^k (\Id - r_i \Lam),
\label{eq:poly_expansion_mat}\end{aligned}$$ where the roots $r_i$ can be either real or complex conjugate pairs. This generalization allows $k+1$ degrees of freedom in choosing the spectral response of the filter. Further, the corresponding transform $\Hm$ in pixel domain is a matrix polynomial of $\Lcb_r$ with the same roots as in (\[eq:poly\_expansion\_mat\]) i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\Hm = \Dm^{-1/2}\Um h(\Lam) \Um^t\Dm^{1/2} = r_0\prod_{i = 1}^{k}(\Id - r_i\Lcb_r) .
\label{eq:poly_expansion_L}\end{aligned}$$
This leads to following result:
Any graph filter on an image having a polynomial spectral response of degree $k$ can be implemented in the pixel domain as an iterative $k$ step bilateral filter operation.
For $k = 1$, the filter $\Hm = \Id - r_1\Lcb = (1-r_1)\Id + r_1 \Dm^{-1}\Wm$. The output in this case is given in (\[eq:partial\_BF\]) whose convergence rate is $r_1$ times the convergence rate of the original bilateral filter $\Dm^{-1}\Wm$. $$\yv = \Hm \xv = (1-r_1)\xv + r_1 \Dm^{-1}\Wm\xv,
\label{eq:partial_BF}$$ For $k >1$, the transform $\Hm$ is a cascaded form of $k$ such bilateral filtering operations (See Figure \[fig:fastSF\](b)).
Further, if $h(\lambda)$ is not a polynomial of $\lambda$, it can be approximated with a polynomial kernel which can then be implemented as a generalized iterative bilateral filtering operation. It has been shown in [@Hammond'11] that minimax polynomial approximation of any kernel $h(\lambda)$ not only minimizes the Chebychev norm (worst-case norm) of the error between kernel and its approximation, it also minimizes the upper-bound on the error $||H^{\text{exact}}- H^{\text{approx}}||$ between exact and approximated filters. In our experiments, we approximate any non-polynomial $h(\lambda)$ with the truncated Chebychev polynomials (which are a good approximation of minimax polynomials).
Examples
========
\
\
We examine the performance of the proposed spectral design of bilateral-like filters in two applications. First, we consider the image denoising problem. We experiment with a spectral response obtained by the regularization framework in Section 4. We take the regularization functional $h_p(\lambda) = \lambda^2$ which suggests a denoising filter with $h(\lambda) = 1/(1+\lambda^2)$. We take its $5$ degree polynomial approximation. Figure \[fig:denoise\] shows the denoising results using this filter and the BF [^3]. It can be seen that the BF preserves edges, but it blurs the texture in the denoising process while the proposed denoising filter does a better job of preserving texture. This is also reflected in the SNR values. Next, we consider an iterative application of the BF. Iterated BF removes minor details from the image while preserving prominent edges. This can be used as an effective preprocessing step in edge-detection and segmentation etc. As stated before, iterated BF favours the DC component which is not useful for segmentation. We use a low pass spectral kernel with small cut-off and sharp transition band so that the second (and a few higher) spectral components get at least as much weight as the DC component. We use a $20$ degree polynomial approximation of this kernel and compare it with $20$ iterations of the BF. Figure \[fig:segment\] shows that weak edges are blurred more with iterated BF (as expected from the spectral response) compared to the proposed filter.
\
\
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we explained the bilateral filter as a graph spectral filtering operation. With this novel perspective, we proposed a family of more flexible bilateral-like filters with desired spectral responses. We gave an easy implementation scheme for these filters. Their utility was motivated through few examples. An immediate interesting extension to this work would be to explore different spectral filters suitable for particular applications. Another topic of interest is the design of filter banks using these bilateral-like filters.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by NSF under grant CCF-1018977.
[^2]: Eq. (\[eq:BF\]) shows that the averaging is done over all pixels. However in practice, one assumes non-zero weights only for the pixels which have $\|p_i - p_j \| \leq 2\sigma_s$ [@ParisBF].
[^3]: The BF is not the best denoising filter available. We use it in our comparison to emphasize the qualitative differences in filtering results.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on the formation of critical states in disordered graphene, at the origin of variable and unconventional transport properties in the quantum Hall regime, such as a zero-energy Hall conductance plateau in the absence of an energy bandgap and Landau level degeneracy breaking. By using efficient real-space transport methodologies, we compute both the dissipative and Hall conductivities of large size graphene sheets with random distribution of model single and double vacancies. By analyzing the scaling of transport coefficients with defect density, system size and magnetic length, we elucidate the origin of anomalous quantum Hall features as magnetic-field dependent impurity states, which percolate at some critical energies. These findings shed light on unidentified states and quantum transport anomalies reported experimentally.'
author:
- Nicolas Leconte
- Frank Ortmann
- Alessandro Cresti
- Stephan Roche
bibliography:
- 'converted\_to\_latex.bib'
title: 'Unconventional Features in the Quantum Hall Regime of Disordered Graphene: Percolating Impurity States and Hall Conductance Quantization'
---
Introduction
============
The role of disorder in the Quantum Hall Effect (QHE) [@Klitzing] has been essentially related to the existence of a localization/delocalization transition between electronic states, with the formation of critical (extended) states at the center of Landau Levels (LLs) [@Aoki:1987do]. In very clean samples, the presence of this transition is ensured by the system edges, which force the formation of extended states, while bulk states are localized by the magnetic field. The robustness of the QHE in the bulk limit is guaranteed by the contribution of either weak impurity potentials satisfying the so-called *weakness condition* [@Thouless1981; @Halperin1982], strong scattering centers sufficiently far away from each other [@Prange1982; @Chalker1984; @Joynt1984], or smooth potentials with long-range spatial variation [@Joynt1984; @Iordansky1982; @Floser2013; @Floser2013; @Prange1982b; @Kazarinov1982; @Luryi1983; @Trugman1983; @Giuliani1983; @Tsukada1976]. Whenever disorder becomes too strong, all QHE features eventually vanish away.
Under high enough magnetic fields, the electronic properties of graphene are characterized by the presence of a four-fold degenerate zero energy LL (where electrons and holes coexist) together with non-equidistant LLs at energies $E_{n}=sgn(n)\sqrt{2\hbar{v_{F}}^{2}eB|n|}$ ($v_{F}$ is the Fermi velocity, $B$ is the magnetic field and $n$ is the integer LL index) [@McClure:1956vp; @CastroNeto:2009cl; @Novoselov2005197; @Zhang2005201; @Goerbig:2011bh]. This electronic spectrum results in a Hall conductance quantization $\sigma_{\text{xy}}=\frac{4e^{2}}{h}(n+\frac{1}{2})$ [@Goerbig:2011bh], which is weakly affected by electron-hole puddles or weak surface disorder, but can exhibit further fragmentation of the plateau structure whenever additional symmetry-breaking mechanisms lift the four-fold degeneracy [@Rickhaus:2012br; @Barlas:2012et]. The presence of an additional quantized Hall plateau $\sigma_{xy}=0$ at low energy in high-mobility samples has been for instance assigned to Zeeman splitting or to the formation of quantum Hall ferromagnetism [@Zhang:2006hn; @Nomura:2006bi; @Young:2012bn], with B-field dependent transport scaling behavior conveyed by the dominant symmetry breaking mechanism at play [@Jung:2009hm; @Young:2012bn].
Recently, several experiments have reported unexplained QHE features in disordered graphene, including sets of extended states in Hall measurements and the formation of a zero energy Hall plateau [@PhysRevB.90.195433; @Li:2007ju; @Nam:2013ey; @Nam2014; @Jung:2011dk]. These features do not fit the usual energy quantization scheme of massless and massive Dirac charge carriers, and are, as such, often generically attributed to disorder. Additionally, the observation of a quantized Hall conductance in highly resistive (millimeter-scale) hydrogenated graphene, with mobility less than $10 {\rm cm}^{2}/{\rm V.s}$ and estimated mean free path far beyond the Ioffe-Regel limit [@Ioffe1960237], suggests some unprecedented robustness of the QHE in damaged graphene [@GUI_PRL110].
These findings are considered unconventional in the sense that common belief often states that high concentrations of strong disorder are detrimental to the Hall quantization in 2DEGs. In graphene, however, a variety of literature suggests that things are different and more subtle. The topological contribution to the Berry phase [@Xiao_2010], which is basically a *winding number* of the pseudo-spin $1/2$ [@Fuchs_2010; @Park_2011], is predicted to be more robust under disorder, as it should persist even in the presence of sub-lattice symmetry breaking and associated gap-opening. Such behavior has been demonstrated experimentally in hydrogenated graphene [@PhysRevB.92.125410]. Also, a robust QHE is expected in graphene, even when strong impurities are at a distance smaller than the magnetic length from each other. For instance, for dense impurity concentrations, depending on the symmetry class and impurity strength, a splitting of the critical energy within a single Landau level is predicted when disorder introduces valley mixing [@PhysRevB.75.033412; @PhysRevB.76.205408; @OST_PRB77; @PhysRevLett.112.026802; @PhysRevLett.101.036805], similar to splittings already discussed for 2DEG under the influence of certain types of smooth potential [@PhysRevB.50.7743]. In (quasi-)periodic systems, impurity-engineered Landau levels have been proposed to exist as well [@PER_PRB78].
Up to now, a proper quantitative description of these phenomena for a completely random distribution of disorder and different types of disorder has been lacking, mostly due to computational limitations.
In this Article, by using efficient computational methods, we provide tangible numerical insight into the rich physics of the QHE in disordered graphene, backing up the single-particle scenarios [@PhysRevB.75.033412; @PhysRevB.76.205408; @OST_PRB77; @PhysRevLett.112.026802; @PER_PRB78; @PhysRevLett.101.036805] in which dense distributions of defects can explain the formation of a zero energy plateau in disordered graphene [@Nam:2013ey; @Nam2014] and the presence of sets of extended states in Hall measurements [@Li:2007ju; @Jung:2011dk]. In the presence of single vacancies (SV) and double vacancies (DV), critical states are found to preclude the formation of the usual graphene LLs. Rather, two sets of extended states form at energies different from $E_n$, within each LL. Consequently, at low energy, by tuning the magnetic field and the impurity concentration, a zero energy Hall plateau can be engineered. We extend the present knowledge by characterizing these states following their real-space behavior. We find that the critical states are predominantly located in the impurity dense regions, while the localized states are trapped inside the pristine-like regions. This suggests that the disorder is triggering a percolation of states mechanism, which is also supported by our estimation of the critical exponent. Furthermore, by calculating the transverse conductivity numerically, we prove that $\sigma_{\text{xy}}(E)$ retains quantized values between Landau levels, even in a highly disordered environment. Our numerical approach circumvents the problems commonly associated with Chern number calculation from (i) a computational point of view, namely we don’t have to diagonalize matrices containing millions of elements, and (ii) a physical point of view, as the Chern number approach might become ill-defined when the gaps between extended states close due to increasing disorder contributions.
Model and Methods
=================
A single-orbital first-neighbor tight-binding (TB) model restricted to $p_z$ orbitals is used to describe graphene, with hopping terms equal to $\gamma_0$ and zero on-site energies. Model SV and DV are described by removing the corresponding carbon orbitals, and are randomly distributed on graphene samples containing up to 12 million atoms. SV and DV are short-range scatterers that entail inter-valley scattering [@PhysRevB.75.033412; @PhysRevB.76.205408; @OST_PRB77], but with genuine differences. Indeed, SV locally break the sublattice symmetry and induce stronger localization effects, whereas DV locally preserve the sublattice symmetry. Both of these defect models retain electron-hole symmetry, which simplifies calculations and analysis of the physics at play, unhindered by the full complexity of DFT-fitted models, such as for oxygenated graphene [@2053-1583-1-2-021001].
The order-N method to obtain the dissipative bulk conductivity by wavepacket evolution is already well established [@Roche19992284; @Fan2014]. By following the time evolution of the wavepackets, length-dependent conductivities $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ can be extracted, probing diffusive and localization regimes. The effect of a perpendicular magnetic field is modeled through a Peierls phase substitution [@Luttinger]. As the spin polarization is neglected in present simulations (a factor two is included to take into account the spin degree of freedom), Zeeman splitting is not considered. We don’t expect this to alter our conclusions, as is discussed at the end of the paper.
The non dissipative Hall conductivity is calculated using a newly developed efficient real-space algorithm [@OrtmannArxiv; @Ortmann_2015] \[see also Ref. [@PhysRevLett.114.116602]\] as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\sigma_{\text{xy}}(E,t) = - \frac{2}{V} \int_0^\infty dt e^{- \eta t/\hbar } \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d E^\prime f(E^\prime - E) \\ \Re e \left[ \left< \phi_{\text{RP}} \middle| \delta(E^\prime - \hat{H}) \hat{j}_y \frac{1}{E^\prime - \hat{H} + i \eta} \hat{j}_x (t) \middle| \phi_{\text{RP}} \right> \right]
\label{}\end{gathered}$$ with $V$ the volume of the system, the current operator $\hat{j}_x$, $f$ the Fermi function and $\eta \rightarrow 0$ a small parameter required for numerical convergence. $\left|\phi_{\text{RP}} \right>$ is a random phase state that allows to drastically limit the computation time.
To simulate two-terminal transport, we consider a standard configuration composed of a graphene ribbon with a central region of length $L$, where DV are randomly distributed. To mimic source and drain contacts, graphene is highly doped outside this region. An on-site energy shift of $\gamma_0$ in the Hamiltonian describing the contacts accounts for the doping. We obtain the differential conductance of the system and the spatial distribution of the spectral current by means of the Green’s function approach [@Cresti2006].
Results
=======
Density of States
-----------------
As a first step, we calculate the density of states (DOS) for different vacancy densities in the presence of a magnetic field of $80$ T, see Fig. \[fig1\]. For the chosen densities, the average distance $d$ between defects is in the order of the magnetic length ($l_B \approx 25$ nm $/ \sqrt{B/T}$), thus favoring strong coupling between impurity states. For the weakest impurity concentrations considered in Fig. \[fig1\] ($0.05\%$ for DV and $0.125\%$ for SV), LLs still exist at conventional quantization energies $E_n$. Yet, they are broadened due to lingering coupling between impurities (the transition to the non-coupled case is discussed in Sect. \[levelCondensation\]). The LLs at conventional energies gradually disappear for larger density, when impurity states emerge at energies below and above each pristine LL energy $E_n$ for the DV case, and at energies larger than $E_n$ for the SV case, in agreement with the predictions for a (quasi-) periodic model [@PER_PRB78]. In contrast, the robustness of the zero energy states in the SV case in Fig. \[fig1\] is explained by the rank-nullity theorem [@Pereira2008]. This theorem predicts the existence of zero-energy modes (ZEM) for dilute concentrations of SV, while they should not form for DV [@Trambly2011].
![\[fig1\] (color online) DOS for DV (a) and SV (b) at $80$ T, for different impurity concentrations. The curves are symmetric around $E = 0$, so only the electron side is plotted. The dashed vertical black lines indicate the energy positions $E_n$ of LLs in the conventional pristine quantization. Insets provide zooms at low energies.](fig1){width="1\columnwidth"}
Longitudinal and transverse conductivity
----------------------------------------
To study the nature of these impurity states, we perform conductivity calculations for $1\%$ of DV, see Fig. \[fig2\] (a), and for $0.25\%$ of SV in Fig. \[fig3\](a). By computing both the $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ (dark color) and $\sigma_{\text{xy}}(E)$ (light color), the occurrence of localized and extended states for different energies is clarified.
Focusing on the low energy region, Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig3\] show that, for both SV and DV, the impurity states of Fig. \[fig1\] are more extended at the energies $E_c^+$ and $E_c^-$, where $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ peaks appear. For DV, the DOS does not exhibit any double peak structure (dashed line in Fig. \[fig2\]), while the conductivity clearly resolves it. The different position of the peaks for SV and DV is reminiscent of their behavior when arranged in periodic arrays [@PER_PRB78]. For both SV and DV, the height of the two peaks ($\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E) \simeq 1.2 e^2/h$) resembles the value for the case where inter-valley mixing leads to two sets of extended states within the same Landau level [@OST_PRB77]. This explains the modified transition between quantized Hall plateaus at $-2 e^2/h$ and $2 e^2/h$, with an additional plateau at $E=0$, observed in Fig. \[fig2\] and Fig. \[fig3\] for DV and SV, respectively. The difference in strength of DV compared to SV leads to $\sigma_{\text{xy}} (E)$ profiles with varying slope between $-2 e^2/h$ and $2 e^2/h$. Such gradient in the localization strength has also been observed in Ref. [@PhysRevLett.101.036805], where the considered magnetic fields are several orders of magnitude larger. For the selected DV case in Fig. \[fig2\](a), the slope at $E_0$ is not completely equal to zero, thus still providing a limited contribution to the longitudinal conductivity (around $0.7 e^2/h$ for the calculated length-scale).
The impurity states at $E_c^-$ and $E_c^+$ below and above $E_0$ (position of the conventional zero energy LL) only contribute $2e^2/h$ each to the transverse conductance, indicating that they originate from the original LL0, which would contribute $4 e^2/h$ (spin degeneracy included). Because of the neglected spin polarization in our simulations, these results support the valley-mixing scenario predicted theoretically [@PhysRevB.75.033412; @PhysRevB.76.205408; @OST_PRB77], where the existence of the two extended states at $E_c^-$ and $E_c^+$ results from the mixing between $K$ and $K^\prime$ valleys, within the same LL.
![\[fig2\] (color online) $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ (dark-colored diamonds) and $\sigma_{\text{xy}} (E)$ (light-colored crosses) in compared with the DOS (dashed black lines) for $1\%$ of DV in (a) at $80$T. Horizontal dotted lines give the expected Hall plateaus for IQHE filling factors. Vertical dashed lines in (a) locate the energies $E_c^+$ and $E_c^-$. Inset (c) shows the PDOS for critical states at $E_c^+$ and $E_c^-$, while (d) shows the PDOS for $E_0$. Inset (b) gives the impurity density $W_i$ (see text). ](fig2){width="1\columnwidth"}
To illustrate the spatial distribution of extended impurity states at low energy, we calculate the projected DOS (PDOS) at $E_c^{\pm}$ and $E_0$ in insets (c) and (d) respectively of Fig. 2, and compare it to the local impurity density defined as $W_i = \sum_{j}^{N_{\text{imp}}} 1/d_{ij}$, where $d_{ij}$ is the distance between atom $i$ and impurity $j$, as displayed in inset (b). Both states at $E_c^+$ and $E_c^-$ give exactly the same density plots, emphasizing that they have indistinguishable real space distributions. Blue regions in (b) are less dense in impurities than the red ones. A clear correlation is observed between the location of the extended states at $E_c^{\pm}$ (c) and the impurity density (b), i.e. the extended states mainly spread over the impurity regions of the sample, while the localized states (d) are bound to impurity-free areas. The delocalized nature of states at $E_c^{\pm}$ (c) is further confirmed by the strongly reduced maximum in the PDOS ($0.06$ arb. units) compared to the maximum PDOS for $E_0$ (d) which reaches $0.25$ arb. units.
![\[fig3\] (color online) $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ (dark-colored diamonds) and $\sigma_{\text{xy}} (E)$ (light-colored crosses) in comparison with the DOS (dashed black lines) for $0.25\%$ of SV in (a) at $80$T. Horizontal dotted lines give the expected Hall plateaus for IQHE filling factors. Vertical red dashed lines in (a) locate the energies $E_c^+$ and $E_c^-$. The length-dependent conductivities $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ at selected energies are shown in (b). Solid lines with full symbols correspond to localized energies, while dashed lines with open symbols correspond to extended states. Vertical dashed lines in (a) correspond to conventional $E_n$ energies of pristine graphene. Symbols are only plotted every other tens of data points, for clarity.](fig3){width="1\columnwidth"}
In addition, to extend these results to the higher energies and to LLs different from LL0, length-dependent conductivities $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ are considered, whose decay is related to the strength of localization effects, see Fig. \[fig3\](b). The SV case is chosen as it depicts better energy resolution between extended and delocalized states at high energy. New sets of extended impurity states clearly develop also away from the Dirac point up to $-0.2 \gamma_0$, witnessed by the longitudinal conductivity. Extended state energies in $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ are confirmed by the plateau transitions in $\sigma_{\text{xy}} (E)$ \[Fig. \[fig3\](a)\]. Contrary to the LL0 case, extended impurity states at higher energy contribute to $\sigma_{\text{xy}} (E)$ with integer multiples of $4 e^2/h$; no clear step is observed at $\sigma_{\text{xy}} = \pm 4e^2/h$ for instance. Traces of quantization are found at $\pm 6e^2/h$ and $\pm 10 e^2/h$ for SV in Fig. \[fig3\](a) . Similarly to the low energy case, these states form at energies different than the ones predicted from conventional Hall quantization. The full $4 e^2/h$ steps at higher energies (in contrast with the two $2 e^2/h$ steps in LL0) are rationalized by the fact that, even for the fully periodic case where random disorder broadening is absent, the two new states within each higher-energy-LL are very close in energy [@PER_PRB78]. Thus, unrealistically small broadening and a complete absence of disorder would be required to resolve the energy lifting of extended states for LLs different than $LL0$.
Finally, from this $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ plot, we also note that, although SV significantly contribute to the DOS at $E_0$, these states (ZEM) turn out to be strongly localized, in sharp contrast with the DV case where the conductivity at $E=0$ remains finite for much larger length scale. In the next section, this different behavior is further scrutinized by simulating different densities.
Coupled impurity states
-----------------------
![\[fig4\] (color online) $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ (dashed lines) and $\sigma_{\text{xy}} (E)$ (solid lines) for DV at $80$ T (a). $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ is also calculated for $0.5\%$ at $320$ T and $2\%$ at $80$ T. Estimated localization lengths for $0.5\%$ at $80$ T with theoretical critical exponential ($\nu=2.34$) decay around $E_c^+$ (b). ](fig4){width="1\columnwidth"}
In the very dilute limit (around $0.05\%$), localized impurity states can be sufficiently separated to have no significantly overlap. In this limit, the conventional QHE is essentially preserved [@PhysRevLett.113.186803]. This limiting case will be considered separately in Sect. \[levelCondensation\]. By increasing the impurity density, noticeably extended states start to appear when $l_B$ is of the order of $d$ as in the case for $1\%$ of DV in Fig. \[fig2\](a) and for $0.25\%$ of SV in Fig. \[fig3\](a), when localized impurity states couple. This condition can be satisfied by increasing the impurity concentration or the magnetic length (by decreasing the magnetic field), which we demonstrate for several cases in Fig. \[fig4\](a) and Fig. \[fig5\](a). Once in the coupled regime, the energy of the extended states increases with $B$ [@PER_PRB78; @BAH_PRB79] and concentration, see for instance Fig. \[fig4\](a) for 0.5% DV concentration at $320$ T.
![\[fig5\] (color online) (a) $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(E)$ (dashed lines) and $\sigma_{\text{xy}}(E)$ (solid lines) for SV at $80$ T (a). (b) $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ for $E_0$ for both SV and DV. Symbols are only plotted every other tens of data points, for clarity. $y-$axis label (b) is same as (a). ](fig5){width="1\columnwidth"}
To analyze the percolation of states driven by impurities, the extracted localization lengths in the strong localization regime, using [@Leconte2011] $$\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L) \sim \exp{\left[-\frac{L}{\xi} \right]},$$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig4\](b) for an impurity concentration of $0.5\%$ (symbols) (similar results are obtained for other concentrations, not shown here). Percolation theory [@0022-3719-21-14-008; @PhysRevB.75.033412] predicts a critical exponent $\nu=2.34$ for $\xi \sim |E-E_c|^{-\nu}$ (solid line). Visual agreement is obtained between numerics and theory for the right tail of $E_c^+$. However, for the left tail, towards $E_0$, agreement cannot be claimed. This behavior results from the set of remnant states in the low impurity density regions of the samples, which are not fully localized for DV at the considered length scale. To further characterize the puzzling behavior of states at $E=0$, we plot $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ in Fig. \[fig5\](b) for SV and DV. On one hand, for SV the states are strongly localized. This is in agreement with the localization behavior of ZEM predicted at zero magnetic field [@PhysRevLett.110.196601; @PhysRevLett.113.186802], following a power-law behavior $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L) \sim L^{-2}$. On the other hand for the DV case, $\sigma_{\text{xx}}(L)$ exhibits a linear decay. This explains the finite conductivity contributions observed in Fig. \[fig2\](a) and Fig. \[fig4\](a). Actually, the highest density concentration ($2\%$), with an increased energy split between extended impurity states, even allows resolving the three sets of states at $E_c^{\pm}$ and $E_0$ in the $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ curve. This is counterintuitive in the sense that increasing the disorder decreases the amount of clean patches in the sample, the habitat for delocalized states at $E_0$. $\sigma_{\text{xx}} (E)$ at $E_0$ remains nevertheless surprisingly robust up to long length scales, which is not observed for SV. This could either be explained by the weaker DV disorder strength allowing states to propagate more easily from one pristine patch to the other, or by referring to Ostrovski *et al.* [@PhysRevLett.113.186803; @PhysRevB.85.195130] providing an argument against localization at $E=0$ for point-like chiral disorder. Ref. [@Ferreira_2015] recently demonstrated through simulations that it is very difficult and computationally much more demanding to accurately capture the singularity associated to the ZEM, even more so for stronger SV compared to DV. We thus remain cautious about making conclusions on the exact localization behavior at the $E=0$ point.
Two-terminal Calculations
-------------------------
![\[fig6\] (color online) (a) Conductance of the two-terminal system with a density $n$=0.5% of DV over a ribbon of length $L$ for 25 nm to 100 nm. Inset: Pristine case for $L$=25 nm. (b) Spatial distribution of the spectral current at $E$=0.008 $\gamma_0$ for the pristine ribbon with $L$=25 nm. The arrows indicate the current direction. (c-e) Same as (b) for DV density of 0.5% and $L$=25 nm, 50 nm and 100 nm. All simulations at $80$ T.](fig6){width="1\columnwidth"}
To gain complementary insight in the length scaling and percolation behavior of impurity states, we also use a different methodology, namely by calculating the two-terminal conductance of a $100$ nm wide ribbon for $B=80$ T. In the pristine case, the conductance shows a $2e^2/h$ plateau in the energy region of Fig. \[fig6\](a) (see the inset for a larger energy range). The corresponding spectral current injected from the left contact and transmitted along the chiral top edge channel of the ribbon is indicated by the arrows in Fig. \[fig6\](b). For Figs \[fig6\](c)-(e), $0.5\%$ of DV are distributed over a ribbon of length $L$ from $25$ nm to $100$ nm. In quantitative agreement with above calculations in 2D geometry, Fig. \[fig6\](a) shows that DV induce bulk states within a certain energy window (from $-0.015 \gamma_0$ to $0.015 \gamma_0$), which modify the pristine conductance. For $L$=25 nm, most of these states are extended enough to connect source and drain contacts and induce a conductance increase well above the pristine value. In fact, the observed conductance for this case is reminiscent of the DOS curve in Fig. \[fig1\](a) and the bulk spectral current distribution in Fig. \[fig6\](c) illustrates in real space that electrodes are connected by the states and explains the high conductance also seen in 2D simulations. When increasing $L$ to $50$ nm, less bulk states are sufficiently extended to allow the electrons reaching the drain contact. As a consequence, the conductance decreases and narrow peaks appear corresponding to the energy regions where more extended states are concentrated, contributing to the transport. The current distribution of Fig. \[fig6\](d) indicates that, for this energy, the electron penetration decreases, with a less efficient bridging between electrodes. Analogous behavior is observed for $L=100$ nm in Fig. \[fig6\](e), with a more pronounced fragmentation into peaks and a weaker conductance decrease at the center and the sides of the DV energy window \[Fig. \[fig6\](a)\], in agreement with the 2D simulations. For $L>100$ nm, the peaks reduce to isolated resonances with conductance below or almost $2e^2/h$, and a transport gap progressively opens around $E=0$ (not shown here).
Note that, in the 2D results, the narrow resonances are masked by self-averaging effects. On the other hand, two-terminal simulations should be performed over a large ensemble of disorder realizations to recover the statistical information provided by 2D bulk conductivity simulations, such as the exact position of the more extended states corresponding to the critical energies. The broadness of energy distribution of the DV-induced states and their localization is inversely proportional to the defect density. In the limit of a periodic DV distribution [@PER_PRB78], the bulk states are completely delocalized and concentrated around very specific energies.
Level-condensation {#levelCondensation}
------------------
In the previous sections, we have always considered a distance between defects short enough to allow their coupling and the formation of impurity states at new critical energies. In Ref. [@PhysRevLett.113.186803], the transition from interacting impurities to non-interacting impurities in the very low concentration regime has been considered. A distance criterion is provided at which so-called level-condensation should occur, namely $$r = \frac{l_B}{l_\text{imp}} < 0.39.
\label{}$$ For the case of $80$T and the lowest concentration considered so far ($0.05 \%$), $r = 0.63$. By reducing the concentration to $0.01\%$, one gets $r=0.28$, for which level condensation should occur. Similarly, by increasing the magnetic field, and keeping $0.05\%$ of DV, one can achieve values of $r=0.32$ (for $320$T) and $r=0.16$ (for $1280$T), respectively. The latter approach (high magnetic field - low concentration) is simpler from a computational point of view, the former (lower magnetic field - higher concentration) is more realistic from an experimental point of view.
![\[fig7\] (color online) DOS around the LL0 for DV (a). DOS for a larger energy spectrum (b). (c) gives the energy width of LL0 at selected heights \[see dotted and dashed line in (a)\], for different impurity concentrations.](fig7){width="1\columnwidth"}
When calculating the DOS, very small impurity concentrations can be considered, as reported in Fig. \[fig7\]. Panel (b) depicts a large energy range, while panel (a) focuses on the energy region around the $LL0$. A logarithmic scale was used for the zoom, for the sake of clarity. With the broadening energy set to $0.0005 \gamma_0$, the concentration-dependent width of the peak ($\Delta E$) is reported in panel (c) for two arbitrary peak heights. For the dotted line ($0.0017$ arb. unit), the value of the splitting does not vary for concentrations below $0.01 \%$. This confirms qualitatively and quantitatively (with an uncertainty related to height and numerical broadening) the level condensation from a DOS point of view. A conductivity analysis for the *condensated* regime is out of the scope of the present study, because all states become localized due to the magnetic field. Either edges or additional long-range disorder would have to be included to allow for extended states to develop at the energies $E_n$ of LLs in the conventional pristine quantization.
Conclusion
==========
We have investigated numerically the possible origin of anomalous features reported in the quantum Hall regime of low mobility graphene samples [@Nam:2013ey; @Nam2014; @Li:2007ju], such as resonances in the dissipative conductivity and a zero-energy Hall plateau. They result from the formation of disorder-induced percolating bulk states, whose density and extension is maximal around two critical energies that depend on the magnetic field and on the impurity density. The presence of defect-induced critical states on novel QHE properties does not seem to depend on the local symmetry breaking (as induced by SV), as they also form for DV impurities. Rather, valley-mixing is required. Finally, a vanishing contribution of these defect-induced critical states is observed in the very low impurity density limit, characterized by so-called *level condensation* [@PhysRevLett.112.026802]. Results on highly disordered graphene using more realistic impurities, with TB parameters extracted from *ab initio* simulations, suggest a certain universality of these impurity-induced extended states [@2053-1583-1-2-021001; @PhysRevB.78.165403; @wei2012nature], even in the presence of electron-hole asymmetry. This asymmetry can provide additional signature on the nature of the contaminating impurities [@Bai_2015]. The energy dependence of impurity states with magnetic field can be inferred from existing DOS literature for different types of impurities [@Yuan_2010; @PER_PRB78; @2053-1583-1-2-021001]. The study of electron transport, as we performed in this paper, is nevertheless required to precisely assess the extendedness of states, as is apparent from the energetically unresolved static DOS features for the DV case.
The inclusion of a Zeeman term in the present form of our Hamiltonian, while desirable for high magnetic fields, is not expected to alter our conclusions, as we do not consider spin-spin or spin-orbit interactions at this point. Such term would then simply induce two spin-dependent copies of the same physics (and an additional trivial splitting with the Zeeman energy). We also note that the present conclusions at high magnetic fields ($80$ T in this work), which are computationally less demanding for numerical convergence in the transverse conductivity than at low magnetic fields, are expected to be robust for much smaller magnetic fields (where Zeeman interaction is weakened), as is demonstrated in a separate work on oxygenated graphene [@2053-1583-1-2-021001]. In our work, we demonstrate that the unconventional transport features can be explained even with this simplification in neglecting the Zeeman term. Finally, we propose two future lines of research. First, the way the Chern number is modified or not in highly disordered graphene should be investigated (as well as simply explore if Chern number classification is still appropriate). Our method has the advantage to predict the Hall conductivity even for large disorder, but we presently do not have any tool to calculate the Chern number without going through exact diagonalization of a system containing millions of elements. Second, we comment on how interaction effects might play a role. Indeed, high magnetic fields may induce strongly localized states. The interaction between particles may thus become more relevant. Possible influences could be an interaction-induced localization of the critical states or an additional splitting as in the case of quantum Hall ferromagnetism [@Young:2012bn]; or a competition between both mechanisms.
We acknowledge PRACE for awarding us access to the Curie supercomputing center based in France. This research is partly funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 604391 Graphene Flagship. ICN2 acknowledges support from the Severo Ochoa Program (MINECO, Grant SEV-2013-0295). F.O. would like to thank the DFG for financial support (grant OR 349/1-1).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The black hole is modeled by a combined gravitational potential of the bulge, disk and halo and is subjected to an initial weak kick. The resulting differential equations are set up, and shown to possess analytical solutions. The effects of black hole accretion and dynamical friction are also incorporated into this analytical framework. The resultant frequencies and amplitudes are computed, and are compared with the ones obtained from numerical simulations. Within the valid range of parameters of the analytical model, the two sets of results are shown to be in reasonable agreement. It is shown that this model reproduces the linear dependence of the amplitude on the initial kick velocity, and the constant of proportionality is close to that obtained from the simulations. The analytical treatment presented is quite general, and its applications to other areas are also indicated.'
author:
- Manasvi Lingam
bibliography:
- 'biblio-u1.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Analytical solutions for weak black hole kicks
---
Introduction
============
In the last decade, the potential implications of black hole mergers and subsequent recoil have been widely studied. From the results of extensive simulations using general relativity, it is now believed that the recoil velocities can be extremely large, up to a few thousands of kilometers per second [@cam07a; @cam07b; @hea09; @zlo11]. Such velocities are more than sufficient to expel the black hole from the galaxy, but it has been suggested that the characteristic kick velocities tend to be much smaller, typically $\lesssim 200$ km/s, as a result of gas accretion and other associated effects [@bog07]. For kicks that lie in this range, one of the primary effects observed is the oscillation of the merged black hole [@ble08; @kor08].
The effects of black hole mergers on galactic morphology and dynamics are expected to be significant. Several studies in this area have been undertaken, both in the context of theoretical modeling as well as predicting their observational signatures. On the theoretical front, there have been investigations of the post-Newtonian corrections to gravitational recoil resulting from black hole binaries [@bla05], effects on active galactic nuclei [@kom08a; @ble11], hydrodynamical response [@cor10], ring formation [@lov10a], etc. On the other hand, there has been plenty of ongoing analysis in understanding the observational imprints that these events produce in their aftermath. Investigations in this arena include the study of recoil effects in gaseous environments [@loe07; @lip08; @dev09; @gue11; @sij11], electromagnetic signatures [@kom12; @sch13], black hole demographics [@mad04], stellar systems in the vicinity [@mer09; @lea09], cusp–core conversion [@mer04], offset active galactic nuclei [@vol08], tidal disruption flares [@sto12], etc.
Some of the most significant efforts in this area have been centered around the analysis of potential supermassive black hole candidates undergoing recoil. [@Kom08b] suugested that the quasar SDSS J0927+2943 was one such candidate, and several authors investigated the consequences in greater detail, while others proposed alternative theories [@dot09; @bog09]. Subsequently, other recoiling supermassive black hole candidates were explored in the literature, such as CID-42 [@civ12; @ble13], the supermassive black hole in M87 [@bat10] and CXO J122518.6+144545 [@jon10].
In this paper, we shall present an analytical model which describes the recoil of black holes when subjected to “weak” gravitational kicks, i.e. when the black hole oscillates with an amplitude $\lesssim$ 100 parsecs. Although such kicks are not predicted to be easily detectable [@ble08], there are several advantages to the analytical approach. It permits us to highlight the similarities between the analytical model (and the divergences) and the extensive numerical simulations. Secondly, the formalism developed in this paper is quite general, and can be applied to other massive objects subjected to small perturbations [@cha02]. We shall focus primarily on making use of the models and results from [@fuj08; @kor08; @ble08; @fuj09], which we shall henceforth refer to as F08, KL08, BL08 and F09 respectively.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section \[SecII\], we describe the basic assumptions behind the model, and present the simplest possible scenario with the appropriate equations of motion. In Section \[SecIII\], we introduce a more realistic description of the kick, and how the displacements are subsequently altered. In Section \[SecIV\], we introduce a new effect - Eddington mass accretion - and explore its consequences. In Section \[SecV\], we discuss the consequence of our analytical models, and discuss how they stack up against the numerical results. In Section \[SecV02\], we study the effects of constant and Bondi-Hoyle mass accretion on the dynamics of black hole kicks. Finally, in Section \[SecVI\], we summarize the results and explore the prospects for future work.
Building the model {#SecII}
==================
In this section, we begin building our model by describing the various components that constitute it. The approach we follow is similar to that of F08, KL08 and F09. The gravitational potential arises from three distinct components, $$\label{Pottot}
\Phi = \Phi_b + \Phi_g + \Phi_h,$$ where the subscripts $b$, $g$ and $h$ indicate that these are the contributions arising from the bulge, the gaseous disk and the dark matter halo respectively. We shall assume that the bulge is modelled by the Plummer potential [@plu11], the disk by the Miyamoto-Nagai potential [@miy75], and the dark matter halo by the Binney logarithmic potential [@bin81]. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PotEqns}
\Phi_b &=& -\frac{GM_b}{\sqrt{r_b^2+R^2+z^2}}, \\ \nonumber
\Phi_g &=& -\frac{GM_g}{\sqrt{R^2+\left(a+\sqrt{z^2+b^2}\right)^2}}, \\ \nonumber
\Phi_h &=& \frac{1}{2}v_h^2 \ln \left[R^2 + \left(\frac{z}{q}\right)^2+r_c^2 \right].\end{aligned}$$ In the above expressions, we note that $R^2 = x^2+y^2$, and that all three potentials are axisymmetric. The characteristic values associated with each of the above potentials is listed in Table \[Tab1\]. The values for the bulge and the dark matter halo are chosen to be identical to KL08, but the spherical symmetry of the halo in KL08 has been replaced with a slight degree of asymmetry. The values for the disk are reproduced from F08 and F09.
Model Parameter \#1 Parameter \#2
------- ---------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
Bulge $M_{b}=10^{10}M_{\odot}$ $r_{b}=1\,\mathrm{kpc}$
Disk $M_{g}=10^{11}M_{\odot}$ $a=6.5\,\mathrm{kpc},$ $b=0.26\,\mathrm{kpc}$
Halo $v_{h}=250\,\mathrm{km/s}$ $r_{c}=2\,\mathrm{kpc}$, $q=0.9$
: List of parameters[]{data-label="Tab1"}
Since we are interested in developing an analytical model to describe weak kicks, we shall assume that the deviations experienced by the black hole are small, i.e. we assume that $R/L \ll 1$ and $z/L \ll 1$ where $L=\mathrm{min}\left(r_b,a,r_c\right)$. It is evident from Table \[Tab1\] that all these length scales are of the order of a few kiloparsecs. Hence, this model is restricted to the study of kicks that result in the black hole traversing distances smaller than $100\,\mathrm{pc}$. With such an assumption, it is valid to express (\[PotEqns\]) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_b &\approx& -\frac{GM_b}{r_b} \left(1-\frac{R^2}{2r_b^2}-\frac{z^2}{2r_b^2}\right), \\ \nonumber
\Phi_g &\approx& -\frac{GM_g}{a+b} \left(1-\frac{R^2}{2\left(a+b\right)^2}-\frac{z^2}{2b\left(a+b\right)}\right), \\ \nonumber
\Phi_h &\approx& v_h^2 \ln{r_c} + \frac{v_h^2}{2 r_c^2} R^2 + \frac{v_h^2}{2 q^2 r_c^2} z^2.\end{aligned}$$ We introduce the new variables $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Omega_b^2 = \frac{GM_b}{r_b^3}, \quad \Omega_g^2 = \frac{GM_g}{\left(a+b\right)^3}, \quad \Omega_h^2 = \frac{v_h^2}{r_c^2}, \\ \nonumber
&&\zeta^2 = 1+ \frac{a}{b}, \quad \Omega_{gz} = \zeta \Omega_g, \quad \Omega_{hz} = \frac{\Omega_h}{q}, \\ \nonumber
&& \Omega^2 = \Omega_b^2 + \Omega_g^2 + \Omega_h^2, \quad \Omega_z^2 = \Omega_b^2 + \Omega_{gz}^2 + \Omega_{hz}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Using the definition of $\Phi$ from (\[Pottot\]) and the above relations, we find that $$\label{Phigrad}
\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x} = \Omega^2 x, \quad \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial y} = \Omega^2 y, \quad \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial z} = \Omega_z^2 z.$$ We shall not consider the effects of dynamical friction at this moment, since the dynamical friction damping timescale is expected to be much longer, ensuring that it does not play a significant role [@kor08; @ble08; @fuj08; @lov10a]. We can solve for the displacements since we know that ${\bf{a}} = - \nabla \Phi$, which we have determined in (\[Phigrad\]). However, there is one other factor that we need to take into account - the initial “kick” adminstered to the black hole. If we assume that the kick is sharp, we can model this additional force by approximating it as a delta function (in time). Hence, the additional force (per unit mass) is modelled via $$\label{akick1}
{\bf{a}}_{kick} = {{\bf{v}}_0} \delta(t),$$ where the vector $\bf{v}_0$ can be oriented in any random direction, but the magnitude $v_0$ must equal that of the initial kick velocity. It is easy to verify, given that the delta function has units of inverse time, that the above expression is also dimensionally correct. Thus, our final set of equations are given by $$\label{sys1}
\ddot{l} + \Omega^2 l = v_{0l} \delta(t), \quad \ddot{z} + \Omega_z^2 z = v_{0z} \delta(t),$$ where $l=x,y$.
Analytical solutions for the black hole trajectory {#SecIII}
==================================================
In this section, we shall solve the system of differential equations given by (\[sys1\]) and furnish an analysis of the same. The formal solution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
l(t) &=& C_l \sin\left(\Omega t\right) + D_l \cos\left(\Omega t\right) \\ \nonumber
&+& \frac{v_{0l}}{\Omega} \int_0^t \delta(t-\tau) \sin\left(\Omega \tau \right) d\tau,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
z(t) &=& C_z \sin\left(\Omega_z t\right) + D_z \cos\left(\Omega_z t\right) \\ \nonumber
&+& \frac{v_{0z}}{\Omega_z} \int_0^t \delta(t-\tau) \sin\left(\Omega_z \tau \right) d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ We use the boundary conditions $\dot{l}(0)=v_{0l}$, $\dot{z}(0)=v_{0z}$ and $l(0)=z(0)=0$ to simplify the above expressions. As a result, we obtain the remarkably simple expressions $$\label{deltasol1}
R(t) = \frac{v_{0R}}{\Omega} \sin\left(\Omega t\right), \quad z(t) = \frac{v_{0z}}{\Omega_z} \sin\left(\Omega_z t\right),$$ where $v_{0R}^2 = v_{0x}^2 + v_{0y}^2$. This indicates that the solutions are oscillatory, and that their amplitude is linearly proportional to the initial velocity. If we assume that the initial velocity was solely in the $\hat{z}$-direction, we find that the black hole oscillates only along the $\hat{z}$-axis. This is because $v_{0R}=0$ for this system, and hence $R(t)=0$. On the other hand, if we assume that the kick was in the $x-y$ plane, it is found that $z(t)=0$, which implies that the black hole oscillates only in the $x-y$ plane. In this analysis, it was assumed that the black hole received a kick, wherein the acceleration was governed by (\[akick1\]). However, this is somewhat unphysical, since the acceleration is infinite at $t=0$ and zero everywhere else. Hence, we can replace $\delta(t)$ with $\omega \exp(-\omega t)$, where $\omega$ is chosen to be suitably “large”. Thus, we assume $\omega \gg \Omega$ and $\omega \gg \Omega_z$ hold true. With this choice of ansatz, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expo1NA}
R(t) &=& \frac{v_{0R}}{\Omega} \left(1+\frac{\omega^2}{\Omega^2+\omega^2}\right) \sin\left(\Omega t\right) \\ \nonumber
&+& {v_{0R}} \frac{\omega}{\Omega^2+\omega^2} \left[\exp(-\omega t) - \cos\left(\Omega t\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expo2NA}
z(t) &=& \frac{v_{0z}}{\Omega_z} \left(1+\frac{\omega^2}{\Omega_z^2+\omega^2}\right) \sin\left(\Omega_z t\right) \\ \nonumber
&+& {v_{0z}} \frac{\omega}{\Omega_z^2+\omega^2} \left[\exp(-\omega t) - \cos\left(\Omega_z t\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that these expressions satisfy the boundary conditions specified earlier. From the above expressions, we see that the values of $R$ and $z$ are linearly proportional to $v_{0R}$ and $v_{0z}$ respectively, which matches with the results obtained in KL. As a result, if $v_{0R}=0$, then there are no oscillations along $R$ and the motion becomes purely oscillatory about the $\hat{z}$-axis. The converse holds true if $v_{0z}=0$, leading to oscillations only in the $x-y$ plane.
The exponential term in both of the above expressions can be neglected for reasonably high values of $t$, as it results in an extremely steep falloff. In addition, we use the fact that $\omega$ is “large” which yields the following expressions for $R$ and $z$. $$\label{Rapprox1}
R(t) = \frac{2 v_{0R}}{\Omega} \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\Omega}{2\omega}\right)^2} \sin\left(\Omega t - \phi\right),$$ $$\label{zapprox1}
z(t) = \frac{2 v_{0z}}{\Omega_z} \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\Omega_z}{2\omega}\right)^2} \sin\left(\Omega_z t - \phi_z\right),$$ where $\tan\phi = \frac{\Omega}{2\omega}$ and $\tan\phi_z = \frac{\Omega_z}{2\omega}$. It must be emphasized however that (\[Rapprox1\]) and (\[zapprox1\]) are only approximate expressions, despite their simple functional form.
The effects of black hole accretion {#SecIV}
===================================
Until now, we have implicitly proceeded with the assumption that the black hole did not accrete from its surroundings. Hence, we were able to compute the acceleration by determining the force per unit mass. In a more general scenario however, one must note that $${\bf{F}} = \frac{d{\bf{p}}}{dt} = \frac{d\left(M{\bf{v}}\right)}{dt},$$ and hence we obtain a term involving $\dot{M}$ as well, where $M$ is the mass of the black hole. By modifying (\[sys1\]) to incorporate the effects of mass accretion, we end up with $$\label{sysBHA}
\ddot{l} + \frac{\dot{M}}{M} \dot{l} + \Omega^2 l = v_{0l} \delta(t), \quad \ddot{z} + \frac{\dot{M}}{M} \dot{z} + \Omega_z^2 z = v_{0z} \delta(t),$$ where $l=x,y$. It remains now to choose a suitable functional form of the mass accretion rate, and solve the problem. There are three different possibilities that present themselves. The first is the case where $\dot{M} = \mathrm{const}$, the second involves the Eddington accretion rate with $\dot{M} \propto M$, and the third is the Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate. We wish to build a fairly simple heuristic model that is analytically tractable, but also captures enough of the underlying physics. As a result, we rule out the Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate, because it involves a factor of $\left(c_s^2 + v_{rel}^2\right)^{3/2}$, which contributes a non-linearity to the problem. The first and third cases are treated in Section \[SecV02\] separately, since they are somewhat more intricate and merit a separate discussion.
We shall work in this section with the second case since the problem can still be easily solved, but we see new effects appear. We assume $\dot{M} = \gamma M$, and defer a discussion of the value of $\gamma$ until the next section. Furthermore, we shall assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the black hole can accrete from an infinite reservoir, i.e. we shall assume that the masses $M_b$, $M_g$ and $M_h$ remain constant in time.
There are multiple scenarios that present themselves, depending on the sign of the discriminant $\Delta = \gamma^2 - 4\Omega^2$. If $\Delta > 0$, it implies that there exist two negative real roots. Neither of these lead to the oscillatory behaviour observed in numerical simulations of KL08 and BL08. The case with $\Delta = 0$ leads to a special class of solutions, but this is a very narrow constraint on $\Delta$, and we shall return to the case later. For now, we focus on the case with $\Delta < 0$, and define $\Gamma = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-\Delta}$. Similarly, one can define $\Delta_z$ and $\Gamma_z$ where we replace $\Omega$ with $\Omega_z$ instead. The solutions are found to be $$\begin{aligned}
l(t) &=& \exp\left({-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right) \left[C_l \sin\left(\Gamma t\right) + D_l \cos\left(\Gamma t\right)\right] \\ \nonumber
&+& \frac{v_{0l}}{\Gamma} \int_0^t \delta(t-\tau) \exp\left({-\frac{\gamma \tau}{2}}\right) \sin\left(\Gamma \tau \right) d\tau,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
z(t) &=& \exp\left({-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right) \left[C_z \sin\left(\Gamma_z t\right) + D_z \cos\left(\Gamma_z t\right)\right] \\ \nonumber
&+& \frac{v_{0z}}{\Gamma_z} \int_0^t \delta(t-\tau) \exp\left({-\frac{\gamma \tau}{2}}\right) \sin\left(\Gamma_z \tau \right) d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ After the use of the boundary conditions, we find that $$\label{deltasol21}
R(t) = \frac{v_{0R}}{\Gamma} \exp\left({-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right) \sin\left(\Gamma t\right),$$ $$\label{deltasol22}
z(t) = \frac{v_{0z}}{\Gamma_z} \exp\left({-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right) \sin\left(\Gamma_z t\right).$$ We find that the above two expressions are quite similar to (\[deltasol1\]), except for two crucial differences. In (\[deltasol1\]), the solutions are purely oscillatory, while our new solutions also damp out with time. Secondly, the frequency of oscillations in (\[deltasol1\]) is $\Omega$ ($\Omega_z$) while it is $\Gamma$ ($\Gamma_z$) for the models that undergo accretion. From the expression for $\Gamma$ ($\Gamma_z$), it can be easily verified it is smaller than $\Omega$ ($\Omega_z$). As a result, the oscillatory time scales for (\[deltasol21\]) and (\[deltasol22\]) are longer than their counterparts in (\[deltasol1\]). It is also seen from (\[deltasol21\]) and (\[deltasol22\]) that the amplitudes are directly proportional to the velocity of the initial kick, which is consistent with the results derived earlier. Lastly, note that the limit $\gamma \rightarrow 0$ allows us to recover the expressions obtained in (\[deltasol1\]). Next, we consider the ansatz where the $\delta$-function is replaced with the more realistic case of a rapidly decaying exponential, following the approach outlined in Section \[SecIII\]. Upon carrying out the same procedure, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expofall21}
R(t) &=& \frac{v_{0R}}{\Gamma} e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}} \left[1+\frac{2\omega(2\omega-\gamma)}{4\Gamma^2+(2\omega-\gamma)^2}\right] \sin\left(\Gamma t\right) \\ \nonumber
&+&\frac{4\omega v_{0R}}{4\Gamma^2+(2\omega-\gamma)^2}\left[e^{-\omega t} - e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}} \cos\left(\Gamma t\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expofall22}
z(t) &=& \frac{v_{0z}}{\Gamma_z} e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}} \left[1+\frac{2\omega(2\omega-\gamma)}{4\Gamma_z^2+(2\omega-\gamma)^2}\right] \sin\left(\Gamma_z t\right) \\ \nonumber
&+&\frac{4 \omega v_{0z}}{4\Gamma_z^2+(2\omega-\gamma)^2}\left[e^{-\omega t} - e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}} \cos\left(\Gamma_z t\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ Note that these two expressions reduce to (\[expo1NA\]) and (\[expo2NA\]) under the limit $\gamma \rightarrow 0$. The analysis undertaken for (\[expo1NA\]) and (\[expo2NA\]) is also valid here, provided one accounts for the additional features included as a result of black hole accretion. These involve the existence of damping and the modification of the frequencies $\Omega$ and $\Omega_z$ to $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma_z$ respectively. There are three different frequency scales present, and if we assume that $\omega \gg \gamma$, $\omega \gg \Gamma$ and $\omega \gg \Gamma_z$, we find that we recover (\[Rapprox1\]) and (\[zapprox1\]), if we replace the $\Omega$’s by their equivalent $\Gamma$’s. In addition, there is also the damping factor present, which ensures that $R(t)$ and $z(t)$ tend to zero as $t \rightarrow \infty$.
Finally, we consider the unique case where $\Delta = 0$, and hence the relations $\gamma = 2 \Omega$ and $\gamma_z = 2\Omega_z$ hold true. We shall investigate the behaviour when the initial kick is described by the $\delta$-function, and not the decaying exponential, since the former yields a simpler and more intuitive result. The homogeneous solution can be expressed in the form $K_1 \exp(-bt)+ K_2 t \exp(-bt)$, and neither of these exhibit any oscillatory behaviour. As a result, we do not consider this case further since it does match with the results from numerical simulations.
Discussion {#SecV}
==========
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHgamma0.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHgamma104.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHgamma103.png}\\
\quad\quad(a) & \quad\quad(b) & \quad\quad(c)\\
\includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHgamma102.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHgamma101.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHgamma1.png}\\
\quad\quad(d) & \quad\quad(e) & \quad\quad(f) \\
\end{array}$$
Until now, our discussion was hitherto restricted to studying several classes of solutions analytically. In this section, we shall provide some simple estimates of the parameters used in our equations. In Section \[SecII\], it was pointed out that choosing values of $R$ and $z$ beyond 100 parsecs would violate the assumption that $R^2/L^2 \ll 1$ and $z^2/L^2 \ll 1$. We shall use this fact in determining the maximum possible value of $v_0$, for which our model remains valid.
Let us consider the simplest scenario, described by (\[deltasol1\]). The value of the $\Omega$’s can be calculated from Table \[Tab1\]. The amplitude in the plane of the disk is given by $v_0/\Omega$, indicating that it has a linear dependence on the velocity. Upon substituting the appropriate values, we find that it is equal to $4.08\times10^{-3} \left(v_0\right)_{km/s}\,\mathrm{kpc}$, where $\left(v_0\right)_{km/s}$ denotes the initial kick velocity in units of $km/s$. KL08 showed that the relation between the amplitude and the velocity was linear, with a slope of $\left(9.30\pm0.53\right)\times10^{-3}$ in the above choice of units. The result that we derived is smaller than the one obtained by KL08 roughly by a factor of $2$. This arises from the differences in the parameters of the two models as well as the simplifying assumptions used in the analytical case. As a result of the simplifications employed, our model does not give rise to a $y$-intercept in the amplitude vs velocity plot. Similarly, the amplitude, normal to the plane, in the $\hat{z}$-direction can be found via $v_0/\Omega_z$ and is equal to $3.20\times10^{-3} \left(v_0\right)_{km/s}\,\mathrm{kpc}$.
Next, we investigate the limits of our model. Since the distance travelled must be smaller than 100 parsecs, we find that the maximum possible value of the velocity is $24.5$ km/s if one considers kicks in the plane, and is $31.25$ km/s for kicks normal to the plane. As a result, this explains the discrepancy in the frequency dependence on $v_0$ for our model and KL08. The latter find that the frequency is a (weakly) linear function of the initial in-plane kick velocity. However, for the range of velocities where our model is applicable, we find that the weak linear dependence obtained by KL08 becomes insignificant. Hence, in this range, the frequency can be treated as being nearly independent of the velocity, which is also consistent with our results. However, our model yields a (velocity-independent) frequency that is roughly an order of magnitude higher than that obtained by KL08.
Next, we consider the scenario where black hole accretion plays a significant role. The simplest scenario is where the kick is modelled via a $\delta$-function, and the governing equations are (\[deltasol21\]) and (\[deltasol22\]). In order to proceed further, we need to determine the value of $\gamma$. We shall use the following expression from [@koc13] $$\gamma^{-1} = t_{\mathrm{Edd}} = 4\times 10^7 \left(\frac{\epsilon/(1-\epsilon)}{0.1}\right)\left(\frac{L}{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}}\right)^{-1}\,\mathrm{yr},$$ where $\epsilon$ is the radiative efficiency, $L$ is the luminosity and $L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ is the Eddington luminosity. If we assume that $\epsilon \sim 0.1$ and $L \sim L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$, we find that $\gamma \approx 7.93 \times 10^{-16} s^{-1} \approx 0.1 \Omega$. As a result, one finds that $\Gamma \approx \Omega$, and $\Gamma_z \approx \Omega_z$. Hence, the amplitudes still remain linear in the velocity, and are virtually identical to the results discussed above, except that they are slightly higher.
Lastly, we consider the effects of dynamical friction. We will turn our attention to the simplest case, where there is no black-hole accretion taking place. The stellar bulge exerts a dynamical friction which can be easily estimated via Chandrasekhar’s dynamical friction formula [@bin87] which states that the drag experienced is given by $${\bf{F}} = - \beta {\bf{v}},$$ where $\bf{v}$ is the velocity of the black hole, and $\beta$ is given by $$\label{betaexact}
\beta = 16\pi^2 \ln{\Lambda} G^2 M (M+m) \frac{\int_0^v f(r,u) u^2 du}{v^3},$$ where $M$ is the mass of the black hole, $m$ represents the mass of each individual black hole, $\ln{\Lambda}$ is the Coulomb logarithm, and $f$ is the distribution function of the stellar bulge. From Section \[SecII\], we know that the bulge is modelled by the Plummer potential–density pair, which has a well-known polytropic distribution function. In addition, we have shown that our model is only valid for initial kicks whose *maximum* velocities are in the range $20$-$30$ km/s. The escape velocity $v_{esc}$ of the Plummer model is known to be $\sqrt{-2\Phi}$ which can be approximated by $\sqrt{2GM_b/r_b}$ since the kicks result only in small perturbations. The escape velocity is approximately $300$ km/s, and hence the approximation $v/v_{esc} \ll 1$ is (mostly) a valid one. With this approximation and using the fact that $r/r_b \ll 1$, we can simplify (\[betaexact\]) to yield $$\label{betaapprox}
\beta = \frac{128\sqrt{2}}{7\pi}\ln{\Lambda} \sqrt{\frac{G}{M_b r_b^3}} M^2,$$ where we also used $M \gg m$ and the explicit expression for the Plummer distribution function [@bin87; @lin14]. Since $\beta$ is independent of $v$, we find that the dynamical friction is linearly proportional to the velocity. As we are considering the case with no black hole accretion, we are interesting in calculating the force per unit mass. Combining (\[betaapprox\]) with (\[sys1\]), we find that the governing equations are $$\ddot{l} + \zeta \dot{l} + \Omega^2 l = v_{0l} \delta(t), \quad \ddot{z} + \zeta \dot{z} + \Omega_z^2 z = v_{0z} \delta(t),$$ where $\zeta = \beta/M$. Note that the above equation is exactly the same as (\[sysBHA\]), since we assumed that $\gamma = \dot{M}/M$ was constant in time. Hence, the case with zero black hole accretion and a non-zero dynamical friction is mathematically identical to the case with non-zero black hole accretion and zero dynamical friction. As a result, the mathematical results are identical with $\gamma$ replaced by $\zeta$ instead. Let us now estimate the value of $\zeta$. We assume $\ln{\Lambda} \approx 3$, and that $M \approx 10^8 M_\odot$ and substitute them into (\[betaapprox\]). After simplification, we find that $\zeta = 0.01 \Omega_b \approx 6.74 \times 10^{-17} s^{-1}$. Hence, we find that $\zeta \ll \Omega$ is a valid assumption, indicating that over timescales of $\Omega^{-1}$, dynamical friction does not play a significant role in our model. This ensures that our neglect of dynamical friction was quite a reasonable assumption. For our choice of parameters and models, we find that $\zeta = 0.085 \gamma$, indicating that the black hole accretion induced damping is somewhat more significant that the one caused by dynamical friction. We have only considered the case where only one of these two effects (black hole accretion and dynamical friction) are present. It is possible, in principle, to deduce analytical solutions even when the two mechanisms are considered simultaneously. However, the resultant solutions are mathematically complex, involving hypergeometric and Laguerre functions. The solutions are not particularly illuminating either, i.e. we do not see any unexpected behaviour.
Lastly, we note that our discussion has not hitherto considered the case where the kick is described by an exponential falloff, as opposed to the $\delta$-function. This is because of the fact that there is no *a priori* means of estimating the value of $\omega$, which represents the inverse timescale for the falloff. However, it does alter the behaviour $R(t)$ and $z(t)$, evident from \[fig1\], which is a graphical representation of (\[expofall22\]). This plot reduces to (\[expo2NA\]) under the limit $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, which is depicted in the first panel of the figure. The corresponding plots for $R(t)$ are not given, since the behaviour is exactly the same, provided one replaces $v_{0z}$, $\Gamma_z$ and $\Omega_z$ with $v_{0R}$, $\Gamma$ and $\Omega$ respectively. The choice of $\omega = 10^{9} \,\Omega_z$ is the closest to representing a true “kick”, since it implies that the exponential falloff of the kick is sharp; the timescale $\omega^{-1}$ is of the order of a few years. The other values of $\omega$ have been plotted to show that this model can also be used to model phenonema, wherein the external force is not really a “kick” per se, but a slower exponential falloff. It is found that the function $z(t)$ is not significantly altered by $\omega$ only when it is roughly the same order of magnitude as $\Omega_z$. In other words, for all $\omega \gg \Omega_z$, the curves nearly overlap with one another. Also note that the last panel, with the highest value of $\gamma$ exhibits the maximum amount of damping, which is to be expected.
Alternative black hole accretion rates and their consequences {#SecV02}
=============================================================
In the discussion and derivations presented after (\[sysBHA\]), we used the Eddington accretion rate as our choice, as it yielded analytically tractable and simple solutions. In this section, we shall consider the other two possibilities, and explore their consequences. Before doing so, let us note that we used two different methods to model the kick - the first was via the delta function, and the second was by introducing an exponential falloff. The most realistic “kick” for the latter scenario is modelled via $\omega = 10^{9} \,\Omega_z$ in Figure \[fig1\], since the kick must be sharp and have a rapid exponential decay. It is found that this particular choice does not deviate much from the first case wherein the kick is modelled by a delta function. As a result, we shall consider (\[sysBHA\]) alone, and solve it for the cases with $\dot{M} = \mathrm{const}$ and the Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate.
Constant accretion rate
-----------------------
![The figure depicts $z(t)$ vs $t$. The red, green, blue, orange and black curves correspond to the values of $\epsilon=0.01$, $\epsilon=0.1$, $\epsilon=1$, $\epsilon=10$ and $\epsilon=100$ respectively, where $\epsilon= \Omega M_0/\alpha$. Note that $t$ is plotted in units of $\Omega_z^{-1}$ and $z$ is plotted in units of $v_{0z}/\Omega_z$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](BHbessfunc.png "fig:"){width="5.68cm"}\
If we assume that $\dot{M} = \alpha$, with $\alpha$ held constant, then it immediately follows that $M(t) = M_0 + \alpha t$, and $M_0$represents the black hole mass at time $t=0$. Let us consider the first equation in (\[sysBHA\]), since the second one is found simply by replacing $\Omega$ by $\Omega_z$ and $v_{0l}$ by $v_{0z}$. Hence, our equation is given by $$\label{constevol}
\ddot{l} + \frac{\alpha}{\alpha t + M_0} \dot{l} + \Omega^2 l = v_{0l} \delta(t),$$ and we shall use the same boundary conditions as in the prior sections. We recover exact solutions given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rbess}
R(t)&=&\frac{v_{0R}}{\Omega}\Bigg[J_{1}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)Y_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right) \nonumber \\
&&-J_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)Y_{1}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)\Bigg]^{-1}\times \nonumber \\
&&\Big[J_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)Y_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}+\Omega t\right) \nonumber \\
&&-Y_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)J_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}+\Omega t\right)\Bigg],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zbess}
z(t)&=&\frac{v_{0z}}{\Omega}\Bigg[J_{1}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)Y_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right) \nonumber \\
&&-J_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)Y_{1}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)\Bigg]^{-1}\times \nonumber \\
&&\Big[J_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)Y_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}+\Omega t\right) \nonumber \\
&&-Y_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}\right)J_{0}\left(\frac{\Omega M_{0}}{\alpha}+\Omega t\right)\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$
In Fig \[fig2\], we plot (\[zbess\]) for different values of $\epsilon = \Omega M_0/\alpha$. It is seen that the plots are highly sensitive to the values of $\epsilon$, but they grow progressively sinusoidal for increasingly higher values of $\epsilon$. This can be explained in the following manner. First, note that the ratio of $\alpha/M_0$ has the units of frequency, and it can be interpreted as a measure of the growth rate, i.e. a higher value of this quantity leads to the black hole’s quicker growth. In Section \[SecV\], the analogies between black hole accretion and dynamical friction were pointed out. In other words, a higher value of $\alpha/M_0$ leads to a higher damping rate. A higher value of $\alpha/M_0$, also leads to a lower value of $\epsilon$ as seen from the formula. Hence, we see that the curves with the lowest values of $\epsilon$ exhibit the highest damping. In the limit when $\alpha \rightarrow 0$, we see that (\[constevol\]) reduces to (\[sys1\]), which has been shown to possess sinusoidal solutions. As a result, this explains why higher values of $\epsilon$ lead to progressively sinusoidal curves in Fig \[fig2\].
Bondi-Hoyle accretion
---------------------
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHnu3z.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHnu2z.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHnu1z.png}\\
\quad\quad(a) & \quad\quad(b) & \quad\quad(c)\\
\includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHnu3M.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHnu2M.png} & \includegraphics[width=5.28cm]{BHnu1M.png}\\
\quad\quad(d) & \quad\quad(e) & \quad\quad(f) \\
\end{array}$$
Let us now consider the scenario where the black hole accretes via Bondi-Hoyle accretion. The accretion rate is known to be $$\label{BondHoyacc}
\dot{M} = 4\pi \rho_0 \frac{G^2 M^2}{v^3_{\mathrm{rms}}},$$ where $\rho_0$ represents the ambient medium density and $v_{\mathrm{rms}}$ denotes the gas velocity relative to that of the black hole, obeying the relation $v^2_{\mathrm{rms}} = c_s^2 + V^2$. Here, $c_s$ denotes the sound speed and $V$ denotes the relative velocity of the black hole [@koc13]. Before proceeding further, we note that fully analytical solutions can be obtained in the limits where $V \ll c_s$ - the relative velocity of the black hole with respect to the surrounding medium is much smaller than the sound speed. In this event, we find that $\dot{M} = \mu M^2$, where $\mu = 4\pi \rho_0 G^2 M^2 c_s^{-3}$. The first equation of (\[sysBHA\]) reduces to $$\label{BHanaly}
\ddot{l} + \left(\frac{\mu M_0}{1-\mu M_0 t}\right) \dot{l} + \Omega^2 z = v_{0l} \delta(t),$$ and $M_0$ represents the initial mass at $t=0$. The $z$ component is found by replacing $\Omega$ and $v_{0l}$ with $\Omega_z$ and $v_{0z}$ respectively. A further analysis of the above equation is unnecessary since the similarities with (\[constevol\]) are evident. In particular, it is seen that the second terms in (\[constevol\]) and (\[BHanaly\]) are exactly similar, if one identifies $\alpha$ with $\mu M_0$ and reverses the sign in the denominator of the second term in (\[constevol\]).
In Sections \[SecII\] - \[SecV\], we have seen that the final solution for $R$ and $z$ depend on $v_{0R}$ and $v_{0z}$ respectively. Effectively, this implies that a in-plane kick excites in-plane oscillations and a perpendicular kick (in the $z$-direction) results in oscillations in the $z$-direction; in other words, the motions in the $x$-$y$ plane and in the $z$-direction are decoupled. For the sake of simplicity, we shall consider the latter scenarion. In this event, our set of three equations reduce to just one equation - the second one in (\[sysBHA\]). In this scenario, we find that the $z$-component couples to (\[BondHoyacc\]) to yield two interlinked equations $$\label{BHzrate}
\dot{M} = 4\pi \rho_0 \frac{G^2 M^2}{\left(c_s^2+\dot{z}^2\right)^{3/2}},$$ $$\label{BHaccz}
\ddot{z} + \frac{\dot{M}}{M} \dot{z} + \Omega_z^2 z = v_{0z} \delta(t).$$ In order to render them more transparent and easier to solve, we scale each of these variables to make them dimensionless. Our new variables are now given by $$\label{dimlessvari}
\bar{t} = \Omega_z t,\quad \bar{z} = \frac{\Omega_z}{v_{0z}} z,\quad \bar{M} = \frac{1}{M_0} M,$$ and we introduce the following two dimensionless variables $$\mathcal{M} = \frac{v_{0z}}{c_s},\quad \nu = \frac{\mu M_0}{\Omega_z},$$ which both possess an elegant physical interpretation. $\mathcal{M}$ can be interpreted as a Mach number of the initial kick velocity to that of the isothermal sound speed. $\nu$ is interpreted as ratio of the timescale of oscillation, on the order of $\Omega_z^{-1}$, and that of the timescale of accretion, on the order of $\left(\mu M_0\right)^{-1}$. We shall drop the overbars henceforth, and note that the two equations below are expressed purely in terms of *dimensionless* quantities. $$\label{NDBHzrate}
\ddot{z} + \frac{\dot{M}}{M} \dot{z} + z = \delta(t),$$ $$\label{NDBHaccz}
\dot{M} = \nu M^2 \left(1+ {\mathcal{M}}^2 \dot{z}^2 \right)^{-3/2}.$$ Note that the $\delta$ function in (\[NDBHzrate\]) is actually a function of $\bar{t}$, and is also dimensionless. The boundary conditions for this system are given by $M(0) = 1$, $z(0) = 0$ and $\dot{z}(0) = 1$.
The resultant figures have been plotted in Fig \[fig3\]. In (\[NDBHaccz\]), if we set $\mathcal{M} = 0$, then we find that it decouples from (\[NDBHzrate\]). Furthermore, it is found that the mass (in dimensionless units) grows as $M= \left(1-\nu t\right)^{-1}$ in this case. In other words, we hit a singularity by the time $t=\nu^{-1}$. If we let $\nu$ be of order unity, then $t$ blows up at around unity as well. Since our domain in Fig \[fig3\] ranges from $0$ to $10$, we consider only those values of $\nu$ that are at least one order smaller than unity. This is also physically justified since the timescale of accretion is expected to be longer than that of oscillation, and by the interpretation of $\nu$ outlined above, this results in smaller values than unity.
There are several interesting trends that emerge from Fig \[fig3\]. In all the cases, we see that the higher the value of $\mathcal{M}$, the slower is the black hole’s mass growth. This is to be expected by mathematically inspecting (\[NDBHaccz\]), but it has a simpler physical explanation. The Bondi radius is proportional to $v^2_{\mathrm{rms}}$, resulting in a fairly strong inverse dependence on $\mathcal{M}$. As the Bondi radius represents the region over which the black hole can accrete, a higher $\mathcal{M}$ leads to a lower Bondi radius and accretion.
Next, let us consider the black hole trajectories depicted in Fig \[fig3\]. As the value of $\nu$ increases, we see that the curves with different values of $\mathcal{M}$ grow increasingly distinguishable. The reason is simple: the lower the value of $\nu$, the closer is the behaviour to that of the scenario considered in Section \[SecIII\] with no black hole accretion. As a result, the lower values of $\nu$ ensures that all the curves cluster together, undergoing minimal damping. In panel (c) of Fig \[fig3\], we see that curves with lower values of $\mathcal{M}$ exhibit greater damping. This is again on expected lines - the lower the value of $\mathcal{M}$, the higher is the accretion rate, and hence the greater is the damping.
Conclusion {#SecVI}
==========
In general, modelling the dynamics of a black hole is a highly complex process as it entails the inclusion of multiple processes such as the gravitational potentials of the bulge, disk and halo, the presence of dynamical friction, accretion onto the black hole, etc. A fully consistent theory requires the use of extensive numerical simulations, as undertaken in KL08 and BL08 respectively. However, we have shown that a simplified description of the black hole recoil can be constructed, which can then be solved analytically.
Our model includes the contributions from all the gravitational potentials, and even allows for simplified accretion models to be taken into account. We also illustrate that the inclusion of dynamical friction does not play a significant role, as the timescale is much longer than the period of oscillations. We also show that dynamical friction can be described by the same mathematics as black hole accretion, i.e. they both act as damping processes where the retarding force is linearly proportional to the velocity. As a result, one can either model a black hole with no accretion and non-zero dynamical friction, or vice-versa.
In Sections \[SecIII\] and \[SecIV\], we derived different classes of analytical solutions which depended on the specific ansatz chosen for the force produced by the kick. In Section \[SecV\] the algebraic expressions were evaluated to yield explicit expressions that were compared against those obtained by KL08. It was shown that the two results were in reasonable agreement with one another for the range of displacements (and velocity kicks) where our analytical models were valid. In Section \[SecV02\], we generalize the results of Section \[SecIV\] by considering the cases of constant mass accretion and Bondi-Hoyle accretion, and the latter scenario was shown to couple the mass accretion and dynamics together. In each case, we see that the overall behaviour is exactly as one would expect from basic physical reasoning, confirming that the models accurately capture the essential physics.
It is possible to extend the formalism to include velocity anisotropy in the dynamical friction by making use of the results from [@bin77]. In conclusion, we note that we can adapt our methodology and use it to study associated phenomena, since the basic tenets of our model are quite general. A natural extension of this approach would involve the extension of our model to study the dynamics of supermassive black holes subjected to stochastic kicks [@cha02], or in modeling the stochastic oscillations of relativistic disks [@har12].
The author thanks Philip Morrison for his support and guidance, and Santiago Jose Benavides for providing a couple of clarifications. This work was supported by the U.S. Dept. of Energy Contract \# DE-FG05-80ET-53088.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'G. Rauw'
- 'Y. Nazé[^1]'
- 'M. Spano'
- 'T. Morel'
- 'A. ud-Doula'
date: 'Received date / Accepted date'
title: 'HD45314: a new $\gamma$Cas analog among Oe stars[^2]'
---
Introduction
============
The class of Oe stars was defined by Conti & Leep ([@CL]) as O stars displaying emission lines of the H[i]{} Balmer series as well as of lower ionization elements such as He[i]{} and Fe[ii]{}, but that do not show typical Of emission lines such as He[ii]{}$\lambda$4686 and N[iii]{}$\lambda$4634-40. These stars were commonly considered to be massive analogs of Be stars. However, Negueruela et al. ([@NSB]) revised the spectral types of most Oe stars, arguing that previous classifications were too early because of infilling of the He[i]{} lines. Most Oe stars would thus have true spectral types in the range O9 – B0 (the earliest member of the Oe category is the O7.5IIIe star HD155806, Negueruela et al. [@NSB]). As for Be-type stars, the emission lines of Oe stars frequently display a double-peaked morphology and both their line strength and profile (e.g. the intensity ratio of the blue and red peaks) undergo strong variations (e.g. Rauw et al. [@ibvs]). By analogy with Be stars (Porter & Rivinius [@PR]), these features are traditionally attributed to a geometrically thin decretion disk-like equatorial wind undergoing density variations. However, unlike the situation of Be stars, no direct images of the disks of Oe stars have been obtained so far, and the mere existence of disk-like winds around Oe stars has been questioned by Vink et al. ([@Vink]). Indeed, the linear spectropolarimetric observations of Vink et al. ([@Vink]) showed the depolarization effect across the H$\alpha$ emission line, that is expected in the presence of a disk, for only one case out of six[^3]: HD45314, which is one of our targets here.
Because the X-ray emission of single early-type stars arises in their winds (e.g. Güdel & Nazé [@GN]), X-ray observations could help shed some light on the circumstellar environment of Oe stars. Previously, two Oe stars have been observed in X-rays, HD119682 (O9.7-B0Ve[^4], Rakowski et al. [@Rakowski]) and HD155806 (O7.5IIIe, Nazé et al. [@NRU]). On the one hand, HD155806 has a very soft X-ray spectrum with two plasma temperatures of $kT = 0.2$ and $0.6$keV, as well as broad emission lines and an emission level consistent with normal O-type stars (Nazé et al. [@NRU]). On the other hand, HD119682 (O9.7e) displays a very hard X-ray spectrum with a dominant plasma component at kT $\sim 10$keV, making this object a so-called $\gamma$Cas analog (Rakowski et al. [@Rakowski]).
The definition of $\gamma$Cas analogs is based on their remarkable X-ray properties (e.g. Smith et al. [@Smith1]) that we shortly summarize here. Their $\frac{L_{\rm X}}{L_{\rm bol}}$ ratio is a factor 10 higher than for normal OB stars (which have $\frac{L_{\rm X}}{L_{\rm bol}} \sim 10^{-7}$, e.g. Berghöfer et al. [@Berghoefer], Nazé [@Naze]), but at least an order of magnitude below that of Be X-ray binaries. Variability is found on many timescales up to several months. The fastest variations, so-called flares, occur on timescales from several seconds to minutes. Their X-ray spectrum consists of 3 - 4 thermal plasma components, but is dominated by the hot plasma (around 14keV for $\gamma$Cas, but sometimes exceeding 30keV for HD110432, Smith et al. [@Smith2]).
There are two main scenarios for the origin of the X-ray emission of $\gamma$Cas analogs: accretion of the Be disk by a white dwarf companion[^5], or magnetic star-disk interactions (see Smith et al. [@Smith1] and references therein).
To enlarge the sample of X-ray observations of Oe stars, we obtained [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations of HD45314 (PZGem) and HD60848 (BNGem). Both stars were on the list of Oe stars of Conti & Leep ([@CL]). Originally classified as O9?pe and O8V?pe, they were reclassified by Negueruela et al. ([@NSB]) as B0IVe and O9.5IVe for HD45314 and HD60848, respectively.
Observations and data reduction \[observations\]
================================================
HD45314 and HD60848 were observed with [*XMM-Newton*]{} (Jansen et al. [@Jansen]) in April 2012 (ObsIDs 0670080301 and 0670080201 respectively, see Table\[journal\]). The EPIC cameras (Turner et al. [@MOS], Strüder et al. [@pn]) were operated in full-frame mode and were used with the thick filter to reject optical and UV photons. The data were processed with the SAS software version 11.0. Both observations were affected by high-background events (so-called soft-proton flares). For HD45314, these high-background events took the form of two relatively short flares, whereas for HD60848 only the first $\sim 6$ks of the integration benefit from a low background level. Except when stated otherwise, our subsequent analysis refers to data products obtained after rejecting the high-background episodes. Both Oe stars are detected, although with very different count rates (Table\[journal\]). We extracted the spectra and light-curves in three energy bands, medium (1.0 – 2.0keV), hard (2.0 – 8.0keV) and total (0.5 – 10keV), for each star and each of the three EPIC instruments. For the brighter of our targets, HD45314, we also processed the data collected with the RGS reflection spectrometer (den Herder et al. [@RGS]). However, given the relatively modest count rate, the short integration time and the properties of HD45314’s X-ray spectrum (see below), the RGS spectra do not provide useful data.
[c c c c c c]{}\
Target & Date & Exposure & Clean & MOS & pn\
& JD-2450000 & (ks) & (ks) & (cts$^{-1}$) & (cts$^{-1}$)\
HD45314 & 6031.94 & 24.3 & 20.0 & 0.136 & 0.198\
HD60848 & 6020.21 & 30.2 & 6.0 & 0.007 & 0.033\
[c c c c c]{}\
Target & Date & Exp. time & Instrument & EW(H$\alpha$)\
& JD-2450000 & (min) & & (Å)\
HD45314 & 5995.29 & 10 & SOPHIE & $-22.7$\
HD45314 & 5997.51 & 18 & CORALIE & $-23.2$\
HD45314 & 6032.48 & 22 & CORALIE & $-22.3$\
HD60848 & 6019.50 & 25 & CORALIE & $-4.5$\
In support of the X-ray observations, we obtained several optical echelle spectra with the CORALIE and SOPHIE spectrographs at the Swiss 1.2m Leonhard Euler Telescope at La Silla and the 1.93m telescope at Observatoire de Haute Provence (Table\[journal\]). CORALIE is an evolution of the ELODIE spectrograph (Baranne et al. [@Baranne]) and covers the spectral range from 3850 to 6890Å. The SOPHIE spectrograph (Perruchot et al. [@Sophie]) covers the domain from 3870 to 6940Å. The data were first reduced with the pipelines of the spectrographs and were subsequently normalized by fitting a spline function through a large number of carefully selected continuum windows. Equivalent widths (EWs) of the H$\alpha$ emission were measured and both stars are found to be at the lower end of the range of values observed by Rauw et al. ([@ibvs]), which span between $-20$ and $-39$Å for HD45314, and between $-6$ and $-15$Å for HD60848.
X-ray spectra
=============
As can be seen in Fig\[fig1\] and from the count rates in Table\[journal\], HD45314 (left panel) is a bright and hard source, whereas HD60848 (right panel) is much weaker and displays a much softer spectrum. For HD45314, 58% of the received X-ray photons in the 0.5 - 10keV energy range, have energies above 2keV, whilst this fraction amounts to only 1% for HD60848.
To further quantify these differences, we analysed the EPIC spectra of our targets with the [xspec]{} software (version 12.7, Arnaud [@Arnaud]). For this purpose, we used optically thin thermal plasma ([apec]{}, Smith & Brickhouse [@apec]) models with solar abundances according to Anders & Grevesse ([@AG]), as well as non-thermal power-law models. The interstellar neutral-hydrogen column density was taken from the compilation of Gudennavar et al. ([@ISM]). To account for a possible additional absorption of the X-rays by the stellar winds, we also included an ionized-wind absorption model (Nazé et al. [@wind]), when this was necessary to achieve a good fit.
For HD45314, the best fit is obtained with a model of the kind [phabs\*wind\*apec]{}, i.e. containing a single-temperature plasma component (see Table\[fitspec\]). The most remarkable result concerns the best-fit temperature, $kT = 21$keV, which is much higher than in other O-type stars, which typically have $kT \simeq 0.6$keV (e.g. Nazé [@Naze]). There is no need for a second temperature component. An almost equally good fit was achieved for an absorbed power-law model ($\chi^2_{\nu} = 1.20$, $\Gamma = 1.4$). For both types of models, the observed and ISM absorption-corrected fluxes amount to $1.21 \times 10^{-12}$ and $1.33 \times 10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, respectively. The EPIC-pn spectrum reveals a weak Fe K line redwards of the Fe [xxvi]{} Ly$\alpha$ line. Including a Gaussian to fit this line slightly improves the fit ($\chi^2_{\nu} = 1.15$) and yields a best-fit energy of $6.48^{+.14}_{-.23}$keV, consistent with fluorescence from highly ionized Fe and an equivalent width of 0.11keV (33mÅ). All these properties, except for the fact that a single plasma component is sufficient to fit the spectra, indicate that HD45314 is a new $\gamma$Cas analog, the first one among the stars of the original Oe class of Conti & Leep ([@CL]).
The situation is quite different for HD60848. Although the spectra of the latter source are of poor quality, a good fit requires a two-temperature plasma, but both plasma temperatures are below 1keV. A slightly better fit is obtained if one of the plasma components is replaced by a steep power-law component ($\chi^2_{\nu} = 1.02$, $kT = 0.23$, $\Gamma = 2.9$). The observed and absorption-corrected fluxes are about a factor 35 lower than for HD45314. The X-ray spectrum of HD60848 is quite typical for normal O-type stars (e.g. Nazé [@Naze]).
[c c c c c c c c c c]{} Star & d.o.f.& $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & N$_{\rm H}$ & $\log{N_{\rm wind}}$ & $kT_1$ & $kT_2$ & norm$_2$/norm$_1$ & $f_X^{\rm obs}$ & $f_X^{\rm un}$\
& & & ($10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$) & (cm$^{-2}$) & (keV) & (keV) & & (ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) & (ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$)\
HD45314 & 225 & 1.16 & 0.19 (fixed) & $21.0^{+.2}_{-.2}$ & $21^{+8}_{-5}$ & – & – & $(1.21^{+.02}_{-.02}) \times 10^{-12}$ & $(1.33^{+.04}_{-.04}) \times 10^{-12}$\
\
HD60848 & 16 & 1.21 & 0.03 (fixed) & – & $0.12^{+.08}_{-.03}$ & $0.83^{+.51}_{-.15}$ & $0.13 \pm 0.11$ & $(3.2^{+.3}_{-.3}) \times 10^{-14}$ & $(3.8^{+.5}_{-.5}) \times 10^{-14}$\
\
Most O-type stars display a scaling relation between their X-ray and bolometric luminosity: $\log{\frac{L_{\rm X}}{L_{\rm bol}}} \simeq -6.5$ to $-7.2$ (Berghöfer et al. [@Berghoefer], Nazé [@Naze] and references therein). The relation is tight, but the exact value depends on the details of the analysis. To derive the $\log{\frac{L_{\rm X}}{L_{\rm bol}}}$ of the two Oe stars analysed here, we used the distance-independent ratio between X-ray and bolometric fluxes. The bolometric fluxes were obtained from the observed magnitudes and colours of the stars, and adopting the spectral types derived by Negueruela et al. ([@NSB]). For HD45314, we used the bolometric correction from Lanz & Hubeny ([@LH2]) that corresponds to a temperature of 26000K and $\log{g} = 3.75$, whilst for HD60848 we adopted the bolometric correction from Lanz & Hubeny ([@LH1]) for the same gravity, but a temperature of 31000K. In this way, we obtained $\log{\frac{L_{\rm X}}{L_{\rm bol}}} = -6.10 \pm 0.03$ for HD45314 and $-7.29 \pm 0.07$ for HD60848.
X-ray variability
=================
We briefly consider the variability of the X-ray emission of the two Oe stars, on short and long timescales.
Regarding the short-term, intra-pointing variability, we restrict ourselves to HD45314, which has the higher count rate and the cleaner observation. Light curves with short time-bins ($ < 100$s) show variations, but they are similar to the error bars on the count rates, and are thus not significant. Figure\[fig2\] illustrates the EPIC-pn light curve for time bins of 100s. As can be seen, the count rate varies by more than a factor 2 in a rather erratic way, although a $\chi^2$ test shows that these variations are significant at more than the 99.9% level. A Fourier analysis of this light curve does not reveal a dominant frequency in these variations. This is again consistent with results found for $\gamma$Cas analogs (Smith et al. [@Smith1; @Smith2], Torrejón et al. [@TSN]).
As for long-term variability, we have checked the HEASARC archives[^6] for previous observations of our targets. For HD45314, Chlebowski et al. ([@CHS]) quoted an upper limit of $12.5 \times 10^{-3}$ctss$^{-1}$ for the IPC instrument onboard [*EINSTEIN*]{}. The two Oe stars are apparent counterparts of [*EXOSAT*]{} sources within 6 and 10 - 15for HD45314 and HD60848, respectively. The [*EXOSAT*]{} medium-energy proportional counter (ME) count rate is $0.13 \pm 0.05$ cts/s for HD45314. Unfortunately, the [*EXOSAT*]{} data of HD60848 are unreliable, because this observation was taken with the low-energy instrument and the 3000 Lexan filter, which was badly affected by UV leakage, especially for a bright, essentially unreddened O-star such as HD60848.
Adopting the parameters of our best-fit model for HD45314 and folding it through the IPC response matrix, we would expect a count rate of $14.5 \times 10^{-3}$ctss$^{-1}$, slightly above the upper limit of Chlebowski et al. ([@CHS]), but not inconsistent with the latter. We then used W3PIMMS to simulate an observation of HD45314 with the ME instrument onboard [*EXOSAT*]{}. This yields a predicted count rate of $7.3 \times 10^{-2}$ctss$^{-1}$, i.e. about half the observed one, although the latter has a large error-bar (see above). The X-ray emission of HD45314 seems thus relatively stable over long time scales.
Discussion and conclusions\[conclusion\]
========================================
The X-ray observations presented here reveal that HD45314 is very likely a new member of the class of $\gamma$Cas analogs.
HD45314 might be a binary system. Mason et al. ([@Mason1]) reported speckle observations revealing a companion at 0.05from HD45314, although the companion was not detected a decade later by Mason et al. ([@Mason2]), who argued that the companion could have moved closer to the main star. However, this companion is unlikely to be responsible for the $\gamma$Cas-like X-ray spectrum. Indeed, although Mason et al. ([@Mason1]) did not report an estimate of its magnitude, its detection probably rules out the possibility that it might be a white dwarf. Moreover, in such a wide orbit, accretion would certainly be very inefficient. In parallel, Boyajian et al. ([@Boyajian]) reported a jump in radial velocity between two observing runs separated by two months, which could indicate binarity with a period of a few months, although Boyajian et al. ([@Boyajian]) cautioned that the H$\alpha$ line profile on which they measured the radial velocity had changed between the two campaigns. Once again, the putative orbital period would probably be too long for accretion to be efficient.
HD45314 most likely features a prominent decretion disk (Silaj et al. [@Silaj]), and this assumption is supported by the depolarization effect across the H$\alpha$ line reported by Vink et al. ([@Vink]). Therefore, the star-disk interaction scenario could explain the X-ray properties of HD45314. We stress that such an interaction is unlikely to take the form of a collision between magnetically channelled winds from the upper and lower stellar hemisphere with the dense equatorial disk, since strong magnetic fields and Keplerian Oe/Be disks are unlikely to coexist (ud-Doula et al. [@Asif]), because the fields would torque the material too much. Furthermore, to reach $kT = 21$keV by collisions of wind material with the disk would require a wind velocity of $\sim 4000$kms$^{-1}$, which seems rather unlikely.
In $\gamma$Cas, the H$\alpha$ equivalent width correlates to first order with the variations of the $B-V$ colour index, and the column density towards the X-ray emission correlates with the $B-V$ index (Smith et al. [@Smith1]). Hence the X-ray absorption should correlate with the disk condition. For HD45314, we have found a significant but low column density in excess of the interstellar column. Still, it seems unlikely that this moderate column could totally hide lower-temperature plasma components, if they existed. Our optical data indicate that at the time of the X-ray observation, the disk had a relatively low density level, as judged from the strength of the H$\alpha$ emission, compared with the range of values seen by Rauw et al. ([@ibvs]). Hence, an even higher circumstellar column would be expected at times when the H$\alpha$ emission is stronger[^7].
In conclusion, whilst the X-ray emission of HD60848 is quite typical for a late O-type star, HD45314 displays a very different behaviour, making it a new member of the class of $\gamma$Cas analogs. The most pressing question in this context is to understand the defining property that gives rise to a $\gamma$Cas-like behaviour.
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197 Arnaud, K.A. 1996, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, eds. Jacoby, G., & Barnes, J., (San Francisco, ASP), 101, 17 Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., et al. 1996, A&AS, 119, 373 Berghöfer, T.W., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., Danner, R., & Cassinelli, J.P. 1997, A&A, 322, 167 Boyajian, T.S., Gies, D.R., Baines, E.K., et al. 2007, PASP, 119, 742 Chlebowski, T., Harnden, F.R.Jr., & Sciortino, S. 1989, ApJ, 341, 427 Conti, P.S., & Leep, E.M. 1974, ApJ, 193, 113 den Herder, J.W., Brinkman, A.C., Kahn, S.M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L7 Gudennavar, S.B., Bubbly, S.G., Preethi, K., & Murthy, J. 2012, ApJS, 199, 8 Güdel, M., & Nazé, Y. 2009, A&ARv, 17, 309 Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1 Lanz, T., & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJS, 146, 417 Lanz, T., & Hubeny, I. 2007, ApJS, 169, 83 Mason, B.D., Gies, D.R., Hartkopf, W.I., Bagnuolo, W.G.Jr., Ten Brummelaar, T., & McAlister, H.A. 1998, AJ, 115, 821 Mason, B.D., Hartkopf, W.I., Gies, D.R., Henry, T.J., & Helsel, J.W. 2009, AJ, 137, 3358 Nazé, Y. 2009, A&A, 506, 1055 Nazé, Y., Rauw, G., Vreux, J.-M., & De Becker, M. 2004, A&A, 417, 667 Nazé, Y., Rauw, G., & ud-Doula, A. 2010, A&A, 510, 59 Nazé, Y., Rauw, G., & ud-Doula, A. 2011, in Active OB stars: structure, evolution, mass loss and critical limits, Proc. IAU Symp. 272, eds. Neiner, C., Wade, G., Meynet, G., & Peter, G., (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 624 Negueruela, I., Steele I.A., & Bernabeu, G. 2004, AN, 325, 749 Perruchot, S., Kohler, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2008, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, eds. I.S. McLean, & M.M. Casali, Proceedings of the SPIE, 7014, 70140J Porter, J.M., & Rivinius, T. 2003, PASP, 115, 1153 Rakowski, C.E., Schulz, N.S., Wolk, S.J., & Testa, P. 2006, ApJ, 649, L111 Rauw, G., Nazé, Y., Marique, P.X., et al. 2007, IBVS, 5773, 1 Silaj, J., Jones, C.E., Tycner, C., Sigut, T.A.A., & Smith, A.D. 2010, ApJS, 187, 228 Smith, M.A., Lopes de Oliveira, R., Motch, C., et al. 2012a, A&A, 540, A53 Smith, M.A., Lopes de Oliveira, R., & Motch, C. 2012b, ApJ, 755, 64 Smith, R.K., & Brickhouse, N.S. 2001, ApJ, 556, L91 Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18 Torrejón, J.M., Schulz, N.S., & Nowak, M.A. 2012, ApJ, 750, 75 Turner, M.J.L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27 ud-Doula, A., Townsend, R.H.D., & Owocki, S.P. 2006, ApJ, 640, L191 Vink, J.S., Davies, B., Harries, T.J., Oudmaijer, R.D., & Walborn, N.R. 2009, A&A, 505, 743
[^1]: Research Associate FRS-FNRS (Belgium)
[^2]: Based on observations collected with [*XMM-Newton*]{}, an ESA Science Mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA), and observations collected at the European Southern Observatory (La Silla, Chile) and the Observatoire de Haute Provence (France).
[^3]: Two of the Oe stars of Vink et al. ([@Vink]) had H$\alpha$ in absorption and were thus unlikely to feature a dense circumstellar disk at the time of their observations. See also Nazé et al. ([@NRU2]).
[^4]: This star was not classified as one of the original Oe stars.
[^5]: $\gamma$Cas is indeed a binary system with an unseen companion that might well be a white dwarf, see Smith et al. ([@Smith1]), although the orbit is wide, making accretion inefficient (Torrejón et al. [@TSN]).
[^6]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/archive.html
[^7]: Smith et al. ([@Smith1]) reported variations of the column density towards the harder X-ray component of $\gamma$Cas by at least one order of magnitude, whilst EW(H$\alpha$) changes by $\simeq 50$%. Whether or not a similar relation holds for HD45314 is unclear, as we have only a single epoch of X-ray spectroscopy available.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Large scale simulations of Centaurs have yielded vast amounts of data, the analysis of which allows interesting but uncommon scenarios to be studied. One such rare phenomenon is the temporary capture of Centaurs as Trojans of the giant planets. Such captures are generally short (10 kyr to 100 kyr), but occur with sufficient frequency ($\sim 40$ objects larger than 1 km in diameter every Myr) that they may well contribute to the present-day populations. Uranus and Neptune seem to have great difficulty capturing Centaurs into the 1:1 resonance, while Jupiter captures some, and Saturn the most ($\sim 80 \%$). We conjecture that such temporary capture from the Centaur population may be the dominant delivery route into the Saturnian Trojans. Photometric studies of the Jovian Trojans may reveal outliers with Centaur-like as opposed to asteroidal characteristics, and these would be prime candidates for captured Centaurs.'
author:
- |
J. Horner$^1$ and N. Wyn Evans$^2$\
$^1$ Physikalisches Institut, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland\
$^2$ Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK
date: 'Received / Accepted'
title: The Capture of Centaurs as Trojans
---
\[start\]
Solar system: general – Comets: general – Minor planets, asteroids – Planets and satellites: general
Introduction
============
Lagrange was the first to observe that there is an exact solution of the three body problem in which the bodies lie at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. This has a direct application to the Solar system. The Trojan asteroids librate about the so-called $L_4$ and $L_5$ Lagrange points, and lie roughly $60^\circ$ ahead and behind the mean longitude of the planet. (e.g., Danby 1988).
Jupiter provides the best known and longest studied case. The population of the Jovian Trojans is substantial. For example, the number of objects with radii in excess of 1 km may exceed $\sim 10^5$ in total (Jewitt, Trujillo & Luu 2000). By contrast, very few Trojans of the other planets are known. Only 3 Mars Trojans (namely (5261) Eureka, 1998 VF$_{31}$ and 1999 UJ$_7$) have been securely identified (see e.g., Tabachnik & Evans 1999; Rivkin et al. 2003). Recent wide-field surveys of the outer Solar system (Chiang et al. 2003; Sheppard & Trujillo 2005) have also discovered 2 Neptunian Trojans (namely 2001 QR$_{322}$ and 2004 UP$_{10}$). There have been surveys for Trojans of Saturn, Uranus, and the Earth, but they have not yielded any positive detections (e.g., Whiteley & Tholen 1998; Sheppard & Trujillo 2005). Nonetheless, numerical simulations by a number of authors (e.g., Holman & Wisdom 1987; Evans & Tabachnik 2000) suggest that Trojans could exist in long-lived and stable orbits in the vicinity of these planets.
A number of possible formation scenarios for the Jovian Trojan asteroids have been proposed. One suggestion is that the Trojans are planetesimals formed near, and captured by, the growing Jupiter possibly with the aid of a dissipative mechanism like gas drag or collisions (e.g., Marzari & Scholl 1998; Fleming & Hamilton 2000). Another possibility is that the Trojans were captured into co-orbital motion with Jupiter in the early Solar system, during the time of migration of the giant planets (Morbidelli et al. 2005). The origin of the Trojan asteroids of Mars and Neptune may however be different to the Jovian case. Chiang et al. (2003) suggest that debris from planetesimal collisions occurring after Neptune reached its current location may have accreted naturally in the $1:1$ resonance to provide its Trojan clouds.
In this [*Letter*]{}, we consider the possibility that some of the Trojans may originate from capture of Centaurs. This idea seems to have been first suggested by Rabe (1970), but hard evidence from numerical simulations has so far been lacking. The mechanism of capture is often invoked to explain the irregular outer satellites of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune (e.g., Sheppard & Jewitt 2003; Sheppard et al. 2005). Here, we supply examples from our suite of numerical integrations to confirm that it can also provide Trojans.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Object Type Number $\langle
T_{\rm cap} \rangle $ (in kyr)
---------------------- -------- ----------------------------------
Jupiter Trojans 10 81
Saturn Trojans 54 37
Uranus Trojans 3 139
Neptune Trojans 0 -
Jovian Satellites 1 -
Saturnian Satellites 0 -
Uranian Satellites 0 -
Neptunian Satellites 0 -
------------------------------------------------------------------
: The numbers of objects captured as Trojans or satellites of the giant planets during 3 Myr integrations of 23328 Centaur-like objects. $\langle T_{\rm cap} \rangle$ gives the mean duration of these capture events.[]{data-label="tab:capture"}
Simulations
===========
In order to understand the behaviour of the comet-like Centaurs, 32 of them were chosen as the subject for large-scale numerical integrations. The orbits of each of the chosen objects – as given by [*The Minor Planet Center*]{} in June 2002 – were then incrementally modified to give 729 “clones”, which formed a $9 \times 9 \times 9$ grid in the space of semimajor axis $a$, eccentricity $e$ and inclination $i$. This gave a total of 23328 test particles, which were then followed for 3 Myr under the gravitational influence of the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, using the [MERCURY]{} integrator (Chambers 1999). The gravitational effects of the terrestrial planets were neglected. A more detailed exposition of the simulations is given in Horner et al. (2004a,b).
One of the areas of interest that prompted the integrations was the question of the temporary capture of objects by the giant outer planets, both to Trojan-like and satellite-like orbits. The orbits of the clones were recorded only at 100 year intervals. Although short-lived satellite-like behaviour, such as that displayed by comets P/Helin-Roman-Crockett (Tancredi et al. 1990) and P/Gehrels 3 (Rickman et al. 1981), is missed, longer-term captures are detectable within our numerical dataset. Consequently, the data were searched for objects whose semimajor axis stayed within one Hill radius of that of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – temporarily captured as either a moon or a Trojan. These provisional candidates were then examined in the co-rotating frame of the planet’s orbit to see whether they had Trojan-like or satellite-like behaviour. To ensure that an object was indeed captured, a minimum number of 800 orbital periods was required. For example, in the case of Jupiter, the object had to show Trojan-like or satellite-like behaviour for at least 9.5 kyr ($\sim
800$ orbital periods of Jupiter).
![\[fig:sat\] Capture of a clone of (10199) Chariklo as a Saturnian Trojan. The upper panel shows the orbit plotted in a frame co-rotating with Saturn. The positions of the Sun and Saturn are marked. The lower panel shows the evolution of the orbital properties. The Tisserand parameter $T_{\rm S}$ is evaluated with respect to Saturn. \[The initial semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclination of the clone are $a = 15.724$ au, $e = 0.154$ and $i = 23.46^\circ$.\]](./308CCharTrojan.ps){width="0.7\hsize"}
![\[fig:sat\] Capture of a clone of (10199) Chariklo as a Saturnian Trojan. The upper panel shows the orbit plotted in a frame co-rotating with Saturn. The positions of the Sun and Saturn are marked. The lower panel shows the evolution of the orbital properties. The Tisserand parameter $T_{\rm S}$ is evaluated with respect to Saturn. \[The initial semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclination of the clone are $a = 15.724$ au, $e = 0.154$ and $i = 23.46^\circ$.\]](./308CChar.ps){width="\hsize"}
![\[fig:jove\] Capture of a clone of 1996 AR$_{20}$ as a Jovian Trojan. The upper panel shows the orbit plotted in a frame co-rotating with Jupiter. The lower panel shows the evolution of semimajor axis, perihelion and aphelion distance (all in au), inclination (in degrees) and eccentricity and the Tisserand parameter with respect to Jupiter $T_{\rm J}$. \[The initial semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclination of the clone are $a = 15.177$ au, $e = 0.617$ and $i =
6.17^\circ$.\]](./12CAR20Trojan.ps){width="0.7\hsize"}
![\[fig:jove\] Capture of a clone of 1996 AR$_{20}$ as a Jovian Trojan. The upper panel shows the orbit plotted in a frame co-rotating with Jupiter. The lower panel shows the evolution of semimajor axis, perihelion and aphelion distance (all in au), inclination (in degrees) and eccentricity and the Tisserand parameter with respect to Jupiter $T_{\rm J}$. \[The initial semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclination of the clone are $a = 15.177$ au, $e = 0.617$ and $i =
6.17^\circ$.\]](12CAR20.ps){width="\hsize"}
Results and Discussion
======================
From a total sample of 23328 objects, 67 were captured as Trojans for a period of 800 or more orbital periods. This is approximately $0.3\%$ of the sample. The numbers are broken down according to each giant planet in Table \[tab:capture\]. It is interesting that – even though there are no known Saturnian Trojans – Saturn is more efficient at capturing Centaurs temporarily into Trojan-like orbits than Jupiter. Table \[tab:capture\] also gives the mean duration $\langle T_{\rm cap} \rangle$ of the capture events. Of course, Newton’s equations of motion are time-reversible, so some form of dissipation is required for permanent capture. All the captures in our dataset are temporary with average durations of the order of kyrs. It must be remembered that no capture events shorter than 800 orbital periods were examined and that such short captures could be the most common type of event.
Holman & Wisdom (1992) carried out surveys of the stability of test particles placed in the vicinity of the Lagrange points of Jupiter and Saturn. They noted that the stable regions are much more ragged for Saturn than for Jupiter. In the case of Saturn, the stability zone is disrupted by islands of instability, possibly caused by the near $5:2$ resonance between Jupiter and Saturn (Innanen & Mikkola 1989). Therefore, it is understandable that the long-lived population of Jovian Trojans is larger than that of Saturn. Our calculations raise the possibility that the reverse may pertain to temporary captures. Such temporary Saturnian Trojans may well exist in substantial numbers. It may be that for Saturn the main delivery mechanism of Trojans is temporary capture from the Centaur region, rather than primordial capture of planetesimals.
Let us give two examples out of the 67 events listed in Table \[tab:capture\]. Figure \[fig:sat\] shows the temporary capture of a clone of (10199) Chariklo into the $1:1$ resonance with Saturn. The upper panel shows the projection of the orbit onto the invariable plane in a frame co-rotating with Saturn. It is clear that the clone follows a tadpole orbit (e.g., Murray & Dermott 2000), librating about the leading or $L_4$ Lagrange point. The temporary Trojan phase lasts for $\sim 400$ kyr, during which the eccentricity $e$ and inclination $i$ librations are modest compared to its prior and subsequent evolution.
Figure \[fig:jove\] shows the temporary capture of a clone of 1996 AR$_{20}$ into the $1:1$ resonance with Jupiter. The upper panel again shows that the clone is librating about the $L_4$ Lagrange point. The clone displays moderate variations in semimajor axis $a$, eccentricity $e$ and inclination $i$ whilst in the resonance. It resides in the resonance for $\sim 0.5$ Myr before ejection from the Solar system. This is the longest example of Trojan capture in our dataset.
In addition to the Trojan-like objects, we also searched for temporary satellite-like captures of Centaurs. As shown in Table \[tab:capture\], this is a much rarer occurrence. We found only one convincing example – a clone of (32532) Thereus (or 2001 PT$_{13}$) displayed behaviour which hints at a temporary moon capture by Jupiter. Although it has often been conjectured that the outer irregular satellites of the giant planets may have been captured, this seems to be a scarcer phenomenon that Trojan capture in our dataset.
In previous work (Horner et al. 2004a), the current population of the Centaurs with nuclei larger than $\sim 1$ km in diameter was estimated at $\sim 44300$. Using the results of our simulations, we reckon that the capture rate of Centaurs as temporary Trojans is $\sim 40$ objects every Myr (for lengthy captures). The average duration of such a capture is a few tens of thousands of years. Given the length of time the clones can spend in these stable orbits, it is quite possible that there are objects lurking in the Trojan clouds of the outer planets which are temporary Centaur captures. In fact, simulations of the Jovian Trojans show that at least two objects currently classified as Trojans are experiencing only a brief visit to the region, rather than a prolonged stay (Karlsson 2004, and simulations by the authors).
The permanent Trojans of Jupiter are known to be more populous in the leading ($L_4$) cloud than in the trailing ($L_5$) cloud. Analyzing the captured objects in our dataset, no such trend is present. Table \[tab:L4-5populations\] shows the breakdown of the capture locations for our sample. It seems that the captured population has a different profile to the permanent one, with nearly equal likelihood of capture in the L4 or L5 regions. Finally, Table \[tab:L4-5populations\] also records the fact that few of the captures are into horseshoe orbits. One possible reason is that such orbits are significantly less stable than their tadpole brethren. Hence, captures in such orbits may be far less likely to survive the 800 revolutions required for detection in this survey.
Planet $L_4$ capture $L_5$ capture Horseshoe
----------------- --------------- --------------- -----------
Jupiter Trojans 2 5 3
Saturn Trojans 25 26 3
Uranus Trojans 2.5 0 0.5
Neptune Trojans 0 0 0
: The number of objects captured into the leading (L4) and trailing (L5) Trojan clouds, along with those objects captured onto horseshoe orbits. Objects that displayed two periods of Trojan behaviour in different regions gave a score of 0.5 in each region occupied.[]{data-label="tab:L4-5populations"}
Conclusions
===========
This [*Letter*]{} has demonstrated a new possibility for the origin of some of the Trojans of the giant planets. They may be Centaurs, temporarily captured into the $1:1$ resonances. We have used data from 3 Myr simulations of representatives of the Centaur population to provide specific examples of this delivery mechanism. In particular, Saturn seems to be most efficient at making such temporary captures from the Centaur region. Saturn captures the bulk of the $\sim 40$ Centaurs every Myr that pass through a lengthy temporary Trojan phase (a capture for 800 or more orbital periods of the parent object). Since we expect $\sim 40$ such lengthy captures, it is quite likely that the number of shorter captures is significantly higher, and hence that there may well be such temporary visitors residing in these regions at the present time. The objects captured within these simulations display a roughly equal likelihood of capture into the leading and trailing Trojan clouds, a quantitative difference to the observed long-lived population of Jovian Trojans.
Possible evidence of such interlopers within the Trojan clouds might be garnered from observations of colours or from photometric activity. For example, it would be interesting to see whether any Jovian Trojans display cometary out-gassing, since recently captured Centaurs may still contain volatiles, whilst any Trojans captured since the birth of the Solar system are unlikely to display such activity. Similarly, if any Jovian Trojans are found be of significantly different colour to other objects in the cloud, this may hint at a different delivery mechanism, and may help the identification of such temporary visitors. At Saturn, since it is unlikely that many Trojans would survive at the $L_4$ and $L_5$ points on timescales approaching the age of the Solar system, it is likely that any Trojans discovered in the future represent recent, temporary captures, rather than a native population.
Morbidelli et al. (2005) suggested that the Jovian Trojan population may have been captured into co-orbital motion with Jupiter during the latter part of its proposed migration. The fact that temporary captures can be seen in our dataset with such frequency seems to add weight to this mechanism for the formation of the Trojan clouds, by illustrating that temporary captures are not uncommon even at the current day. Given the fact of Jupiter’s migration, it is quite feasible that objects originally captured on temporary orbits could be converted to ones which could reside in the Trojan region for the age of the Solar System.
Chambers J. E. 1999, , 304, 793
Chiang E. I., et al. 2003, , 126, 430
Danby J.M.A. 1988, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics (Willmann-Bell, Richmond)
Evans N. W., Tabachnik S. A. 2000, , 319, 80
Fleming H. J., Hamilton D. P. 2000, Icarus, 148, 479
Holman M.J., Wisdom J. 1993, AJ, 105, 1987
Horner J., Evans N. W., Bailey M. E. 2004a, , 354, 798
Horner J., Evans N. W., Bailey M. E. 2004b, , 355, 321
Innanen K., Mikkola S., 1989, AJ, 97, 900
Jewitt D. C., Trujillo C. A., Luu J. X. 2000, , 120, 1140
Karlsson O. 2004, , 413, 1153
Marzari F., Scholl H. 1998, Icarus, 131, 41
Morbidelli A., Levison H. F., Tsiganis K., Gomes R. 2005, , 435, 462
Murray C. D., Dermott S. F. 2000, Solar System Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, sec. 3.9
Rabe, E. 1972, IAU Symp. 45: The Motion, Evolution of Orbits, and Origin of Comets, p 55
Rickman H., Malmort A. M. 1981, , 102, 165
Rivkin A. S., Binzel R. P., Howell E. S., Bus S. J., Grier J. A. 2003, Icarus, 165, 349
Sheppard S. S., Jewitt, D. C. 2003, , 423, 261
Sheppard S. S., Trujillo C. 2005, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, 37.5615
Sheppard S. S., Jewitt D., Kleyna J. 2005, , 129, 518
Tancredi G., Lindgren M., Rickman H. 1990, , 239, 375
Tabachnik S., Evans N. W. 1999, , 517, L63
Whiteley R.J., Tholen D.J. 1998, Icarus, 136, 154
\[finish\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove that Gaussian thermal input states minimize the output von Neumann entropy of the one-mode Gaussian quantum-limited attenuator for fixed input entropy. The Gaussian quantum-limited attenuator models the attenuation of an electromagnetic signal in the quantum regime. The Shannon entropy of an attenuated real-valued classical signal is a simple function of the entropy of the original signal. A striking consequence of energy quantization is that the output von Neumann entropy of the quantum-limited attenuator is no more a function of the input entropy alone. The proof starts from the majorization result of De Palma et al., IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 62, 2895 (2016), and is based on a new isoperimetric inequality. Our result implies that geometric input probability distributions minimize the output Shannon entropy of the thinning for fixed input entropy. Moreover, our result opens the way to the multimode generalization, that permits to determine both the triple trade-off region of the Gaussian quantum-limited attenuator and the classical capacity region of the Gaussian degraded quantum broadcast channel.'
author:
- 'Giacomo De Palma, Dario Trevisan, Vittorio Giovannetti [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Gaussian States Minimize the Output Entropy of the One-Mode Quantum Attenuator'
---
Gaussian quantum channels, Gaussian quantum attenuator, thinning, von Neumann entropy, isoperimetric inequality.
Introduction
============
communication schemes encode the information into pulses of electromagnetic radiation, that is transmitted through metal wires, optical fibers or free space, and is unavoidably affected by signal attenuation. The maximum achievable communication rate of a channel depends on the minimum noise achievable at its output. A continuous classical signal can be modeled by a real random variable $X$. Signal attenuation corresponds to a rescaling $X\mapsto\sqrt{\lambda}\,X$, where $0\leq\lambda\leq1$ is the attenuation coefficient (the power of the signal is proportional to $X^2$ and gets rescaled by $\lambda$). The noise of a real random variable is quantified by its Shannon differential entropy $H$ [@cover2006elements]. The Shannon entropy of the rescaled signal is a simple function of the entropy of the original signal [@cover2006elements]: $$\label{scaling}
H\left(\sqrt{\lambda}\;X\right)=H\left(X\right)+\ln\sqrt{\lambda}\;.$$ This property is ubiquitous in classical information theory. For example, it lies at the basis of the proof of the Entropy Power Inequality [@dembo1991information; @gardner2002brunn; @shannon2001mathematical; @stam1959some; @verdu2006simple; @rioul2011information; @cover2006elements].
Since the energy carried by an electromagnetic pulse is quantized, quantum effects must be taken into account [@gordon1962quantum]. They become relevant for low-intensity signals, such as for satellite communications, where the receiver can be reached by only few photons for each bit of information [@chen2012optical]. In the quantum regime the role of the classical Shannon entropy is played by the von Neumann entropy [@wilde2013quantum; @holevo2013quantum] and signal attenuation is modeled by the Gaussian quantum-limited attenuator [@chan2006free; @braunstein2005quantum; @holevo2013quantum; @weedbrook2012gaussian; @holevo2015gaussian].
A striking consequence of the quantization of the energy is that the output entropy of the quantum-limited attenuator is not a function of the input entropy alone. A fundamental problem in quantum communication is then determining the minimum output entropy of the attenuator for fixed input entropy. Gaussian thermal input states have been conjectured to achieve this minimum output entropy [@guha2007classicalproc; @guha2007classical; @guha2008entropy; @guha2008capacity; @wilde2012information; @wilde2012quantum]. The first attempt of a proof has been the quantum Entropy Power Inequality (qEPI) [@konig2013limits; @konig2014entropy; @de2014generalization; @de2015multimode], that provides the lower bound $$\label{qEPI}
S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\geq n\;\ln\left(\lambda\left(e^{\left.S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right/n}-1\right)+1\right)$$ to the output entropy of the $n$-mode quantum-limited attenuator $\Phi_\lambda$ in terms of the entropy of the input state $\hat{\rho}$. However, the qEPI is *not* saturated by thermal Gaussian states, and thus it is not sufficient to prove their conjectured optimality.
Here we prove that Gaussian thermal input states minimize the output entropy of the one-mode quantum-limited attenuator for fixed input entropy (Theorem \[thmmain\]). The proof starts from a recent majorization result on one-mode Gaussian quantum channels [@de2015passive], that reduces the problem to input states diagonal in the Fock basis. The key point of the proof is a new isoperimetric inequality (Theorem \[thmiso\]), that provides a lower bound to the derivative of the output entropy of the attenuator with respect to the attenuation coefficient.
The restriction of the one-mode quantum-limited attenuator to input states diagonal in the Fock basis is the map acting on discrete classical probability distributions on $\mathbb{N}$ known in the probability literature under the name of thinning [@de2015passive]. The thinning has been introduced by Rényi [@renyi1956characterization] as a discrete analogue of the rescaling of a continuous real random variable. The thinning has been involved with this role in discrete versions of the central limit theorem [@harremoes2007thinning; @yu2009monotonic; @harremoes2010thinning] and of the Entropy Power Inequality [@yu2009concavity; @johnson2010monotonicity]. Most of these results require the ad hoc hypothesis of the ultra log-concavity (ULC) of the input state. In particular, the Restricted Thinned Entropy Power Inequality [@johnson2010monotonicity] states that the Poisson input probability distribution minimizes the output Shannon entropy of the thinning among all the ULC input probability distributions with a given Shannon entropy. We prove (Theorem \[thmthin\]) that the geometric distribution minimizes the output entropy of the thinning among all the input probability distributions with a given entropy, without the ad hoc ULC constraint.
Theorem \[thmmain\] constitutes a strong evidence for the validity of the conjecture in the multimode scenario, whose proof could exploit a multimode generalization of the isoperimetric inequality . The multimode generalization of Theorem \[thmmain\] is necessary for the proof of the converse theorems for the achievable rates in two communication scenarios. The first is the triple trade-off coding for simultaneous classical and quantum communication and entanglement sharing, or simultaneous public and private communication and secret key distribution through the Gaussian quantum-limited attenuator [@wilde2012public; @wilde2012information; @wilde2012quantum]. The second is the transmission of classical information to two receivers through the Gaussian degraded quantum broadcast channel [@guha2007classicalproc; @guha2007classical]. The multimode generalization of Theorem \[thmmain\] would imply the optimality of Gaussian encodings in both scenarios.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \[setup\] we define the Gaussian quantum attenuator and state the main result (Theorem \[thmmain\]). Section \[seciso\] presents the isoperimetric inequality (Theorem \[thmiso\]). Theorem \[thmmain\] is proved in Section \[secproof\]. Section \[broadcast\] discusses the relation with the Gaussian degraded broadcast channel. Section \[secthinning\] links the Theorems \[thmmain\] and \[thmiso\] to the thinning operation, and the conclusions are in Section \[secconcl\]. Finally, Appendix \[auxlemmas\] contains the proof of some auxiliary lemmas.
Setup and main result {#setup}
=====================
We consider the Hilbert space of one harmonic oscillator, or one mode of electromagnetic radiation. Its ladder operator $\hat{a}$ satisfies the canonical commutation relation $\left[\hat{a},\;\hat{a}^\dag\right]=\hat{\mathbb{I}}$, and its Hamiltonian $\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dag\hat{a}$ counts the number of excitations, or photons. The state annihilated by $\hat{a}$ is the vacuum $|0\rangle$, from which the Fock states are built: $$\label{fock}
|n\rangle=\frac{\left(\hat{a}^\dag\right)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|0\rangle\;,\quad\langle m|n\rangle=\delta_{mn}\;,\quad \hat{N}|n\rangle=n|n\rangle\;.$$
The quantum-limited attenuator $\Phi_\lambda$ of transmissivity $0\leq\lambda\leq 1$ mixes the input state $\hat{\rho}$ with the vacuum state of an ancillary quantum system $B$ through a beamsplitter of transmissivity $\lambda$. The beamsplitter is implemented by the unitary operator $$\label{defU}
\hat{U}_\lambda=\exp\left(\left(\hat{a}^\dag\hat{b}-\hat{a}\,\hat{b}^\dag\right)\arccos\sqrt{\lambda}\right)\;,$$ that satisfies $$\hat{U}_\lambda^\dag\;\hat{a}\;\hat{U}_\lambda=\sqrt{\lambda}\;\hat{a}+\sqrt{1-\lambda}\;\hat{b}\;,$$ where $\hat{b}$ is the ladder operator of the ancilla system $B$ (see Section 1.4.2 of [@ferraro2005gaussian]). We then have $$\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_B\left[\hat{U}_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\otimes |0\rangle_B\langle0|\right)\hat{U}_\lambda^\dag\right]\;.$$
For input states diagonal in the Fock basis , i.e. with definite photon number, $\Phi_\lambda$ lets each photon be transmitted with probability $\lambda$ and reflected or absorbed with probability $1-\lambda$ (see Section \[secthinning\]), hence the name “quantum-limited attenuator”.
The Gaussian thermal state with average energy $E\geq0$ is $$\label{omegaE}
\hat{\omega}_E=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{E+1}\left(\frac{E}{E+1}\right)^n\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;,\quad\mathrm{Tr}\left[\hat{N}\;\hat{\omega}_E\right]=E\;,$$ with von Neumann entropy $$\label{defg}
S\left(\hat{\omega}_E\right)=\left(E+1\right)\ln\left(E+1\right)-E\ln E:=g(E)\;,$$ and corresponds to a geometric probability distribution of the energy. The quantum-limited attenuator sends thermal states into themselves, i.e. $\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\omega}_E\right)=\hat{\omega}_{\lambda E}$, hence $$S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\omega}_E\right)\right)=g(\lambda E)=g\left(\lambda\;g^{-1}\left(S\left(\hat{\omega}_E\right)\right)\right)\;.$$
Our main result is:
\[thmmain\] Gaussian thermal input states minimize the output entropy of the quantum-limited attenuator among all the input states with a given entropy, i.e. for any input state $\hat{\rho}$ and any $0\leq\lambda\leq1$ $$\label{epni}
S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\geq g\left(\lambda\;g^{-1}\left(S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\right)\;.$$
Isoperimetric inequality {#seciso}
========================
The main step to prove Theorem \[thmmain\] is the proof of its infinitesimal version. It states that Gaussian states minimize the derivative of the output entropy of the quantum-limited attenuator with respect to the attenuation parameter for fixed entropy:
\[thmiso\] For any quantum state $\hat{\rho}$ with finite support $$\label{logs}
\left.\frac{d}{dt}S\left(\Phi_{e^{-t}}\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\right|_{t=0}:=-F\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\geq f\left(S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\;,$$ where $$\label{deff}
f(S):=-g^{-1}(S)\;g'\left(g^{-1}(S)\right)\;.$$
The starting point of the proof is the recent result of Ref. [@de2015passive], that links the constrained minimum output entropy conjecture to the notions of passive states. The passive states of a quantum system [@pusz1978passive; @lenard1978thermodynamical; @gorecki1980passive; @vinjanampathy2015quantum; @goold2015role; @binder2015quantum] minimize the average energy for a given spectrum. They are diagonal in the energy eigenbasis, and their eigenvalues decrease as the energy increases. The passive rearrangement $\hat{\rho}^\downarrow$ of a quantum state $\hat{\rho}$ is the only passive state with the same spectrum of $\hat{\rho}$. The result is the following:
\[thmmaj\] The passive rearrangement of the input does not increase the output entropy, i.e. for any quantum state $\hat{\rho}$ and any $0\leq\lambda\leq1$ $$\label{passiveS}
S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\geq S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}^\downarrow\right)\right)\;.$$
Follows from Theorem 34 and Remark 20 of [@de2015passive].
In the following, we will show that this result reduces the proof to the set of passive states. On this set, we will use the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) necessary conditions [@kuhn1951] for the maximization of the right-hand side of for fixed entropy, and prove that in the limit of infinite support the maximizer tends to a thermal Gaussian state.
Let us fix $S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)=S$.
If $S=0$, from the positivity of the entropy we have for any quantum state $-F\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\geq0=f(0)$, and the inequality is proven.
We can then suppose $S>0$. Taking the derivative of with respect to $t$ for $t=0$ we get $$\label{passiveF}
F\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\leq F\left(\hat{\rho}^\downarrow\right)\;,$$ hence it is sufficient to prove Theorem \[thmiso\] for passive states with finite support.
Let us fix $N\in\mathbb{N}$, and consider a quantum state $\hat{\rho}$ with entropy $S$ of the form $$\label{defp}
\hat{\rho}=\sum_{n=0}^N p_n\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;.$$ Let $\mathcal{D}_N$ be the set of decreasing probability distributions on $\left\{0,\ldots,\,N\right\}$ with Shannon entropy $S$. We recall that the Shannon entropy of $p$ coincides with the von Neumann entropy of $\hat{\rho}$. The state in is passive if $p\in\mathcal{D}_N$.
\[lemcpt\] $\mathcal{D}_N$ is compact.
The set of decreasing probability distributions on $\left\{0,\ldots,\,N\right\}$ is a closed bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^{N+1}$, hence it is compact. The Shannon entropy $H$ is continuous on this set. $\mathcal{D}_N$ is the counterimage of the point $S$, hence it is closed. Since $\mathcal{D}_N$ is contained in a compact set, it is compact, too.
\[cons\] A probability distribution $p$ on $\left\{0,\ldots,\,N\right\}$ has connected support iff $p_n>0$ for $n=0,\ldots,\,N'$, and $p_{N'+1}=\ldots=p_N=0$, where $0\leq N'\leq N$ can depend on $p$ ($N'=N$ means $p_n>0$ for any $n$). We call $\mathcal{P}_N$ the set of probability distributions on $\left\{0,\ldots,\,N\right\}$ with connected support and Shannon entropy $S$.
We relax the passivity hypothesis, and consider all the states as in with $p\in\mathcal{P}_N$. We notice that any decreasing $p$ has connected support, i.e. $\mathcal{D}_N\subset\mathcal{P}_N$.
From Equations (VIII.5), (VIII.6) and Theorem 56 of Ref. [@de2015passive], we have for any $t\geq0$ $$\Phi_{e^{-t}}\left(\hat{\rho}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^N p_n(t)\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;,$$ where $$\label{pnt}
p_n(t)=\sum_{k=n}^N\binom{k}{n}e^{-nt}\left(1-e^{-t}\right)^{k-n}p_k$$ satisfies $p_n'(0)=\left(n+1\right)p_{n+1}-n\,p_n$ for $n=0,\ldots,\,N$, and we have set for simplicity $p_{N+1}=0$.
Since $p_{N'+1}=\ldots=p_N=0$, from we get $p_{N'+1}(t)=\ldots=p_N(t)=0$ for any $t\geq0$. We then have $$S\left(\Phi_{e^{-t}}\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)=-\sum_{n=0}^{N'}p_n(t)\ln p_n(t)\;,$$ and $$\label{defF}
F\left(\hat{\rho}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{N'}p_n'(0)\left(\ln p_n+1\right)=\sum_{n=1}^{N'} n\,p_n\ln\frac{p_{n-1}}{p_n}\;.$$
Let $F_N$ be the $\sup$ of $F(p)$ for $p\in\mathcal{P}_N$, where with a bit of abuse of notation we have defined $F(p)=F\left(\hat{\rho}\right)$ for any $\hat{\rho}$ as in . From , $F_N$ is also the $\sup$ of $F(p)$ for $p\in\mathcal{D}_N$. From Lemma \[lemcpt\] $\mathcal{D}_N$ is compact. Since $F$ is continuous on $\mathcal{D}_N$, the $\sup$ is achieved in a point $p^{(N)}\in\mathcal{D}_N$. This point satisfies the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) necessary conditions [@kuhn1951] for the maximization of $F$ with the entropy constraint. The proof then comes from
\[lemmain\] There is a subsequence $\left\{N_k\right\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\lim_{k\to\infty}F_{N_k}=-f(S)\;.$$
The point $p^{(N)}$ is the maximum of $F$ for $p\in\mathcal{P}_N$. The constraints read $$p_0,\ldots,\,p_N\geq0\;,\quad \sum_{n=0}^{N} p_n=1\;,\quad-\sum_{n=0}^{N} p_n\ln p_n=S\;.$$ $p^{(N)}$ must then satisfy the associated KKT necessary conditions [@kuhn1951]. We build the functional $$\tilde{F}(p)=F(p)-\lambda_N\sum_{n=0}^N p_n+\mu_N\sum_{n=0}^N p_n\ln p_n\;.$$ Let $N'$ be such that $$\label{pdecr}
p^{(N)}_0\geq\ldots\geq p^{(N)}_{N'}>p^{(N)}_{N'+1}=\ldots=p^{(N)}_N=0\;.$$
\[remN\] We must have $N'\geq1$.
Indeed, if $N'=0$ we must have $p_0^{(N)}=1$ and $p^{(N)}_1=\ldots=p^{(N)}_N=0$, hence $S=0$, contradicting the hypothesis $S>0$.
The KKT stationarity condition for $n=0,\ldots,\,N'$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prec}
\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial p_n}\tilde{F}\right|_{p=p^{(N)}} =& \;n\ln\frac{p_{n-1}^{(N)}}{p_n^{(N)}}-n+(n+1)\frac{p_{n+1}^{(N)}}{p_n^{(N)}}\nonumber\\
&-\lambda_N+\mu_N\ln p_n^{(N)}+\mu_N=0\;.\end{aligned}$$ If $N'<N$, $p^{(N)}$ satisfies the KKT dual feasibility condition associated to $p^{(N)}_{N'+1}$. To avoid the singularity of the logarithm in $0$, we make the variable change $$y=-p_{N'+1}\ln p_{N'+1}\;,\qquad p_{N'+1}=\psi(y)\;,$$ where $\psi$ satisfies $$\label{defpsi}
\psi\left(-x\ln x\right)=x\qquad\forall\;0\leq x\leq\frac{1}{e}\;.$$ Since $\psi(0)=0$, the point $p_{N'+1}=0$ corresponds to $y=0$. Differentiating with respect to $x$, we get $$\psi'\left(-x\ln x\right)=-\frac{1}{1+\ln x}\qquad\forall\;0<x<\frac{1}{e}\;,$$ and taking the limit for $x\to0$ we get that $\psi'(y)$ is continuous in $y=0$ with $\psi'(0)=0$.
For hypothesis $p^{(N)}\in\mathcal{P}_{N'}\subset\mathcal{P}_{N'+1}\subset\mathcal{P}_N$. Then, $p^{(N)}$ is a maximum point for $F(p)$ also if we restrict to $p\in\mathcal{P}_{N'+1}$. We can then consider the restriction of the functional $\tilde{F}$ on $\mathcal{P}_{N'+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{F}(p) =& \sum_{n=1}^{N'}n\,p_n\ln\frac{p_{n-1}}{p_n}+\left(N'+1\right)\psi(y)\ln p_{N'}\nonumber\\
&+\left(N'+1\right)y-{\lambda_N}\sum_{n=0}^{N'}p_n-\lambda_N\;\psi(y)\nonumber\\
&+{\mu_N}\sum_{n=0}^{N'}p_n\ln p_n-\mu_N\,y\;.\end{aligned}$$ The KKT dual feasibility condition is then $$\label{muN}
\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{F}\right|_{p=p^{(N)}}=N'+1-\mu_N\leq0\;,$$ where we have used that $\psi'(0)=0$.
We define for $n=0,\ldots,\,N'$ $$z_n^{(N)}=\frac{p_{n+1}^{(N)}}{p_n^{(N)}}\;.$$ Condition implies $$\label{z01}
0<z_n^{(N)}\leq1\qquad \forall\;n=0,\ldots,\,N'-1\;,\qquad z_{N'}^{(N)}=0\;.$$ From Remark \[remN\] $N'\geq1$, hence $z_0^{(N)}>0$.
Taking the difference of for two consecutive values of $n$ we get for $n=0,\ldots,\,N'-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{znrec}
\left(n+2\right)z_{n+1}^{(N)} =& \left(n+2\right)z_n^{(N)}+1-z_n^{(N)}\nonumber\\
&+\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln z_n^{(N)}+n\ln\frac{z_n^{(N)}}{z_{n-1}^{(N)}}\;.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemincr\] We must have $$\label{mudecr}
1-\mu_N\geq\frac{z_0^{(N)}-1}{\ln z_0^{(N)}}\geq0\;.$$ Moreover, $z^{(N)}_n$ is decreasing in $n$ and $N'=N$, i.e. $$1\geq z^{(N)}_0\geq\ldots\geq z^{(N)}_{N-1}>z^{(N)}_{N}=0\;.$$
Let us suppose $1-\mu_N<\left.\left(z_0^{(N)}-1\right)\right/\ln z_0^{(N)}$. We will prove by induction on $n$ that the sequence $z^{(N)}_n$ is increasing in $n$. The inductive hypothesis is $0<z_0^{(N)}\leq\ldots\leq z_n^{(N)}\leq1$, true for $n=0$. Since the function $\left.\left(z-1\right)\right/\ln z$ is strictly increasing for $0\leq z\leq1$, we have $$1-\mu_N<\frac{z_0^{(N)}-1}{\ln z_0^{(N)}}\leq\frac{z_n^{(N)}-1}{\ln z_n^{(N)}}\;,$$ and hence $\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln z_n^{(N)}\geq z_n^{(N)}-1$. Since $z_{n-1}^{(N)}\leq z_n^{(N)}$, from we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(n+2\right)\left(z^{(N)}_{n+1}-z^{(N)}_n\right) &=& 1-z_n^{(N)}+\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln z_n^{(N)}\nonumber\\
&&+n\ln\frac{z_n^{(N)}}{z_{n-1}^{(N)}}\geq0\;,\end{aligned}$$ and hence $z_{n+1}^{(N)}\geq z_n^{(N)}$. However, this is in contradiction with the hypothesis $z^{(N)}_{N'}=0$.
We must then have $1-\mu_N\leq\left.\left(z_0^{(N)}-1\right)\right/\ln z_0^{(N)}$. We will prove by induction on $n$ that the sequence $z^{(N)}_n$ is decreasing in $n$. The inductive hypothesis is now $1\geq z_0^{(N)}\geq\ldots\geq z_n^{(N)}>0$, true for $n=0$. If $n+1=N'$, since $z^{(N)}_{N'}=0$ there is nothing to prove. We can then suppose $n+1<N'$. We have $$1-\mu_N\geq\frac{z_0^{(N)}-1}{\ln z_0^{(N)}}\geq\frac{z_n^{(N)}-1}{\ln z_n^{(N)}}\;,$$ and hence $\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln z_n^{(N)}\leq z_n^{(N)}-1$. Since $z_{n-1}^{(N)}\geq z_n^{(N)}$, from we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(n+2\right)\left(z^{(N)}_{n+1}-z^{(N)}_n\right) &=& 1-z_n^{(N)}+\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln z_n^{(N)}\nonumber\\
&&+n\ln\frac{z_n^{(N)}}{z_{n-1}^{(N)}}\leq0\;,\end{aligned}$$ and hence $z_{n+1}^{(N)}\leq z_n^{(N)}$. Since $n+1< N'$, we also have $z_{n+1}^{(N)}>0$, and the claim is proven.
From Definition \[cons\] and Remark \[remN\] we have $1\leq N'\leq N$. Let us suppose $1\leq N'<N$. Then, the sequence $p^{(N)}$ satisfies the KKT dual feasibility condition , and $N'\leq\mu_N-1$. From we get $\mu_N-1\leq0$, hence $N'\leq0$, in contradiction with $N'\geq1$. We must then have $N'=N$.
\[lemzbar\] We have $$\limsup_{N\to\infty}z^{(N)}_{\bar{n}}<1\;,$$ where $$\bar{n}=\min\left\{n\in\mathbb{N}:n+2>e^S\right\}$$ does not depend on $N$.
We recall that $z_n^{(N)}\leq1$ for any $n$ and $N$, hence $$\limsup_{N\to\infty}z^{(N)}_{\bar{n}}\leq1\;.$$ Let us suppose that $\limsup_{N\to\infty}z^{(N)}_{\bar{n}}=1$. Then, there is a subsequence $\left\{N_k\right\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{(N_k)}_{\bar{n}}=1$. Since $z^{(N)}_n$ is decreasing in $n$ for any $N$, we also have $$\label{limbar}
\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{(N_k)}_n=1\qquad \forall\;n=0,\ldots,\,\bar{n}\;.$$ Let us define for any $N$ the probability distribution $q^{(N)}\in\mathcal{D}_{\bar{n}+1}$ as $$q^{(N)}_n=\frac{p^{(N)}_n}{\sum_{k=0}^{\bar{n}+1}p^{(N)}_k}\;,\qquad n=0,\ldots,\,\bar{n}+1\;.$$ From we get for $n=0,\ldots,\,\bar{n}+1$ $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{q^{(N_k)}_n}{q^{(N_k)}_0}=\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{(N_k)}_0\ldots z^{(N_k)}_{n-1}=1\;.$$ For any $k$ $$\label{sumq}
\sum_{n=0}^{\bar{n}+1}q^{(N_k)}_n=1\;.$$ Dividing both members of by $q^{(N_k)}_0$ and taking the limit $k\to\infty$ we get $\lim_{k\to\infty}q^{(N_k)}_0=1/\left(\bar{n}+2\right)$, hence $\lim_{k\to\infty}q^{(N_k)}_n=1/\left(\bar{n}+2\right)$ for $n=0,\ldots,\,\bar{n}+1$, and $$\lim_{k\to\infty}H\left(q^{(N_k)}\right)=\ln\left(\bar{n}+2\right)>S\;.$$ However, from Lemma \[lemtrunc\] we have $H\left(q^{(N)}\right)\leq H\left(p^{(N)}\right)=S$.
\[corz\] There exists $0\leq\bar{z}<1$ (that does not depend on $N$) such that $z^{(N)}_{\bar{n}}\leq\bar{z}$ for any $N\geq\bar{n}$.
The sequence $\left\{\mu_N\right\}_{N\in\mathbb{N}}$ is bounded.
An upper bound for $\mu_N$ is provided by . Let us then prove a lower bound.
For any $N\geq\bar{n}+1$ we must have $z_{\bar{n}+1}^{(N)}\geq0$. The recursive equation for $n=\bar{n}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{znbar}
0 &\leq \left(\bar{n}+2\right)z_{\bar{n}+1}^{(N)}\nonumber\\
&= \left(\bar{n}+1\right)z_{\bar{n}}^{(N)}+1+\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln z_{\bar{n}}^{(N)}+\bar{n}\ln\frac{z_{\bar{n}}^{(N)}}{z_{\bar{n}-1}^{(N)}}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Since $z^{(N)}_n$ is decreasing in $n$, we have $z_{\bar{n}}^{(N)}\leq z_{\bar{n}-1}^{(N)}$. Recalling from that $1-\mu_N\geq0$, and from Corollary \[corz\] that $z^{(N)}_{\bar{n}}\leq\bar{z}<1$, implies $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\leq& \left(\bar{n}+1\right)z_{\bar{n}}^{(N)}+1+\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln z_{\bar{n}}^{(N)}\nonumber\\
&\leq&\left(\bar{n}+1\right)\bar{z}+1+\left(1-\mu_N\right)\ln \bar{z}\;,\end{aligned}$$ hence $1-\mu_N\leq\left.-\left(\left(\bar{n}+1\right)\bar{z}+1\right)\right/\ln\bar{z}<\infty$.
The sequence $\left\{\mu_N\right\}_{N\in\mathbb{N}}$ has then a converging subsequence $\left\{\mu_{N_k}\right\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ with $\lim_{k\to\infty}\mu_{N_k}=\mu$.
Since the sequences $\left\{z^{(N)}_0\right\}_{N\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $\left\{p^{(N)}_0\right\}_{N\in\mathbb{N}}$ are constrained between $0$ and $1$, we can also assume $$\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_0=z_0\;,\qquad\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_0=p_0\;.$$ Taking the limit of we get $$\label{mulim0}
1-\mu\geq\frac{z_0-1}{\ln z_0}\geq0\;.$$
\[lemzn\] $\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=z_n$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, where the $z_n$ are either all $0$ or all strictly positive, and in the latter case they satisfy for any $n$ in $\mathbb{N}$ the recursive relation with $\mu_N$ replaced by $\mu$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zreclim}
\left(n+2\right)z_{n+1} &=& \left(n+2\right)z_n+1-z_n+\left(1-\mu\right)\ln z_n\nonumber\\
&&+n\ln\frac{z_n}{z_{n-1}}\;.\end{aligned}$$
If $z_0=0$, since $z^{(N)}_n$ is decreasing in $n$ we have for any $n$ in $\mathbb{N}$ $$\limsup_{k\to\infty}z^{(N_k)}_n\leq\limsup_{k\to\infty}z^{(N_k)}_0=z_0=0\;,$$ hence $\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{(N_k)}_n=0$.
Let us now suppose $z_0>0$, and proceed by induction on $n$. From the inductive hypothesis, we can suppose $$z_0=\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_0\geq\ldots\geq\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=z_n>0\;.$$ Then, taking the limit in we get $$\begin{aligned}
z_{n+1} &= \lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_{n+1}\nonumber\\
&=z_n+\frac{1-z_n+\left(1-\mu\right)\ln z_n+n\ln\frac{z_n}{z_{n-1}}}{n+2}\;.\end{aligned}$$ If $z_{n+1}>0$, the claim is proven. Let us then suppose $z_{n+1}=0$. From we get then $$0\leq\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_{n+2}=\frac{1+\left(n+2-\mu\right)\ln0-\left(n+1\right)\ln z_n}{n+3}\;,$$ that implies $\mu\geq n+2\geq2$. However, implies $\mu\leq1$.
\[zlim\] There exists $0\leq z<1$ such that $z_n=\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=z$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
If $z_0=0$, Lemma \[lemzn\] implies the claim with $z=0$. Let us then suppose $z_0>0$.
If $z_0=1$, we can prove by induction on $n$ that $z_n=1$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. The claim is true for $n=0$. From the inductive hypothesis we can suppose $z_0=\ldots=z_n=1$. The relation implies then $z_{n+1}=1$.
However, from Lemma \[lemzn\] and Corollary \[corz\] we must have $z_{\bar{n}}=\lim_{k\to\infty}z^{\left(N_k\right)}_{\bar{n}}\leq\bar{z}<1$. Then, it must be $0<z_0<1$.
Since the sequence $\left\{z^{(N)}_n\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is decreasing for any $N$, also the sequence $\left\{z_n\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is decreasing. Since it is also positive, it has a limit $\lim_{n\to\infty}z_n=\inf_{n\in\mathbb{N}}z_n=z$, that satisfies $0\leq z\leq z_0<1$. Since $z_n\leq z_{n-1}\leq z_0<1$, implies $$\left(n+2\right)\left(z_n-z_{n+1}\right)+1-z_n+\left(1-\mu\right)\ln z_n\geq0\;,$$ hence $$\label{zdecrineq}
1-\mu\leq\frac{\left(n+2\right)\left(z_n-z_{n+1}\right)}{-\ln z_n}+\frac{z_n-1}{\ln z_n}\;.$$ The sequence $\left\{z_n-z_{n+1}\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is positive and satisfies $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(z_n-z_{n+1}\right)=z_0-z<\infty\;.$$ Then, from Lemma \[lemnx\] $\liminf_{n\to\infty}\left(n+2\right)\left(z_n-z_{n+1}\right)=0$, and since $-\ln z_n\geq-\ln z_0>0$, also $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{\left(n+2\right)\left(z_n-z_{n+1}\right)}{-\ln z_n}=0\;.$$ Then, taking the $\liminf$ of for $n\to\infty$ we get $1-\mu\leq\left.\left(z-1\right)\right/\ln z$. Combining with and recalling that $z\leq z_0$ we get $$\label{mulim}
\frac{z-1}{\ln z}\leq\frac{z_0-1}{\ln z_0}\leq1-\mu\leq\frac{z-1}{\ln z}\;,$$ that implies $z=z_0$. Since $z_n$ is decreasing and $z=\inf_{n\in\mathbb{N}}z_n$, we have $z_0=z\leq z_n\leq z_0$ for any $n$, hence $z_n=z$.
\[lemp0lim\] $\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=p_0\,z^n$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
The claim is true for $n=0$. The inductive hypothesis is $\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_{n'}=p_0\,z^{n'}$ for $n'=0,\ldots,\,n$. We then have $\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_{n+1}=\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_n\,z^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=p_0\,z^{n+1}$, where we have used the inductive hypothesis and Lemma \[zlim\].
\[limp\] $p_0=1-z$, hence $\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=\left(1-z\right)z^n$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
We have $\sum_{n=0}^N p^{(N)}_n=1$ for any $N\in\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, since $z^{(N)}_n$ is decreasing in $n$, we also have $$p^{(N)}_n=p^{(N)}_0\,z^{(N)}_0\ldots\,z^{(N)}_{n-1}\leq p^{(N)}_0\left(z^{(N)}_0\right)^n\;.$$ Since $\lim_{k\to\infty}z_0^{\left(N_k\right)}=z<1$, for sufficiently large $k$ we have $z_0^{\left(N_k\right)}\leq\left(1+z\right)/2$, and since $p^{(N)}_0\leq1$, $$\label{boundp}
p^{\left(N_k\right)}_n\leq\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^n\;.$$ The sums $\sum_{n=0}^{N_k} p^{\left(N_k\right)}_n$ are then dominated for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$ by $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^n<\infty$, and from the dominated convergence theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
1 &=& \lim_{k\to\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{N_k}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{\left(N_k\right)}_n=p_0\sum_{n=0}^\infty z^n\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{p_0}{1-z}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Lemma \[lemp0lim\].
\[z(S)\] $z=g^{-1}(S)\left/\left(g^{-1}(S)+1\right)\right.$.
The function $-x\ln x$ is increasing for $0\leq x\leq1/e$. Let us choose $n_0$ such that $\left(\left.\left(1+z\right)\right/2\right)^{n_0}\leq1/e$. Recalling , the sums $-\sum_{n=n_0}^{N_k} p^{(N_k)}_n\ln p^{(N_k)}_n$ are dominated for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$ by $-\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty n\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^n\ln\frac{1+z}{2}<\infty$. For any $N$ we have $S=-\sum_{n=0}^N p^{(N)}_n\ln p^{(N)}_n$. Then, from the dominated convergence theorem and Lemma \[limp\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sz}
S &= -\sum_{n=0}^\infty\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{(N_k)}_n\ln p^{(N_k)}_n\nonumber\\
&= -\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(1-z\right)z^n\left(\ln\left(1-z\right)+n\ln z\right)=g\left(\frac{z}{1-z}\right)\;,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the definition of $g$ . Finally, the claim follows solving with respect to $z$.
It is convenient to rewrite $F_{N_k}=F\left(p^{(N_k)}\right)$ as $$\label{FN}
F_{N_k}=-\sum_{n=0}^{N_k-1}\left(n+1\right)p^{(N_k)}_n\,z^{(N_k)}_n\ln z^{(N_k)}_n\;.$$ Since $z^{(N_k)}_n\leq1$, each term of the sum is positive. Since $-x\ln x\leq1/e$ for $0\leq x\leq1$, and recalling , the sum is dominated by $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{n+1}{e}\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^n<\infty$. We then have from the dominated convergence theorem, recalling Lemmas \[limp\] and \[zlim\], $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\to\infty}F_{N_k} &= -\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(n+1\right)\lim_{k\to\infty}p^{(N_k)}_n\,z^{(N_k)}_n\ln z^{(N_k)}_n=\nonumber\\
&= -\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(n+1\right)\left(1-z\right)z^{n+1}\ln z=\frac{z\ln z}{z-1}=\nonumber\\
&= g^{-1}(S)\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{g^{-1}(S)}\right)=-f(S)\;,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Lemma \[z(S)\] and the definitions of $f$ and $g$ .
Then, since $\mathcal{D}_N\subset\mathcal{D}_{N+1}$ for any $N$, $F_N$ is increasing in $N$, and for any $p\in\mathcal{P}_N$ $$F(p)\leq F_N\leq \sup_{N\in\mathbb{N}}F_N=\lim_{N\to\infty}F_N=\lim_{k\to\infty}F_{N_k}=-f(S).$$
Proof of Theorem \[thmmain\] {#secproof}
============================
The idea for the proof is integrating the infinitesimal version .
From Theorem \[thmmaj\], it is sufficient to prove Theorem \[thmmain\] for passive states, i.e. states of the form $$\hat{\rho}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;,\qquad p_0\geq p_1\geq\ldots\geq0\;.$$
\[finites\] If Theorem \[thmmain\] holds for any passive state with finite support, then it holds for any passive state.
Let $\hat{\rho}$ be a passive state. If $S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)=\infty$, there is nothing to prove. We can then suppose $S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)<\infty$.
We can associate to $\hat{\rho}$ the probability distribution $p$ on $\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\hat{\rho}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;,$$ satisfying $-\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n\ln p_n=S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)$. Let us define for any $N\in\mathbb{N}$ the quantum state $$\hat{\rho}_N=\sum_{n=0}^N \frac{p_n}{s_N}\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;,$$ where $s_N=\sum_{n=0}^N p_n$. We have $$\left\|\hat{\rho}_N-\hat{\rho}\right\|_1 = \frac{1-s_N}{s_N}\sum_{n=0}^Np_n+\sum_{n=N+1}^\infty p_n\;,$$ where $\left\|\cdot\right\|_1$ denotes the trace norm [@wilde2013quantum; @holevo2013quantum]. Since $$\lim_{N\to\infty}s_N=1\;,\qquad \sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n=1\;,$$ we have $\lim_{N\to\infty}\left\|\hat{\rho}_N-\hat{\rho}\right\|_1 =0$. Since $\Phi_\lambda$ is continuous in the trace norm, we also have $$\label{limPhiN}
\lim_{N\to\infty}\left\|\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}_N\right)-\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right\|_1=0\;.$$ Moreover, $$\label{limSN}
\lim_{N\to\infty}S\left(\hat{\rho}_N\right)=\lim_{N\to\infty}\left(\ln s_N-\sum_{n=0}^N \frac{p_n}{s_N}\ln p_n\right)=S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\;.$$ Notice that holds also if $S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)=\infty$.
Let us now define the probability distribution $q$ on $\mathbb{N}$ as $$\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty q_n\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;,$$ satisfying $$\label{Sq}
S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)=-\sum_{n=0}^\infty q_n\ln q_n\;.$$ From [@ivan2011operator], Section IV.B, or [@de2015passive], Equation (II.12), the channel $\Phi_\lambda$ sends the set of states supported on the span of the first $N+1$ Fock states into itself. Then, for any $N\in\mathbb{N}$ there is a probability distribution $q^{(N)}$ on $\left\{0,\ldots,\,N\right\}$ such that $$\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}_N\right)=\sum_{n=0}^N q_n^{(N)}\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;.$$ From we get for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ $$\label{limqN}
\lim_{N\to\infty}q^{(N)}_n=q_n\;.$$ Since $\Phi_\lambda$ is trace preserving, we have $\sum_{n=0}^\infty q_n=1$, hence $\lim_{n\to\infty} q_n=0$. Then, there is $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ (that does not depend on $N$) such that for any $n\geq n_0$ we have $q_n\leq p_0/e$. Since $s_N\;\hat{\rho}_N\leq\hat{\rho}$ and the channel $\Phi_\lambda$ is positive, we have $s_N\;\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}_N\right)\leq\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)$. Then, for any $n\geq n_0$ $$q_n^{(N)}\leq\frac{q_n}{s_N}\leq\frac{q_n}{p_0}\leq\frac{1}{e}\;,$$ where we have used that $s_N\geq p_0>0$. Since the function $-x\ln x$ is increasing for $0\leq x\leq1/e$, the sums $$-\sum_{n=n_0}^N q^{(N)}_n\ln q^{(N)}_n$$ are dominated by $$\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty \frac{q_n\ln p_0-q_n\ln q_n}{p_0}\leq\frac{\ln p_0+S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)}{p_0}<\infty\;,$$ where we have used . Then, from the dominated convergence theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N\to\infty}S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}_N\right)\right) &=& -\lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=0}^N q^{(N)}_n\ln q^{(N)}_n\nonumber\\
&=& -\sum_{n=0}^\infty\lim_{N\to\infty}q^{(N)}_n\ln q^{(N)}_n\nonumber\\
&=& S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\;,\end{aligned}$$ where we have also used .
If Theorem \[thmmain\] holds for passive states with finite support, for any $N$ in $\mathbb{N}$ we have $$S\left(\Phi_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}_N\right)\right)\geq g\left(\lambda\;g^{-1}\left(S\left(\hat{\rho}_N\right)\right)\right)\;.$$ Then, the claim follows taking the limit $N\to\infty$.
From Lemma \[finites\], we can suppose $\hat{\rho}$ to be a passive state with finite support.
\[lemcomp\] The quantum-limited attenuator $\Phi_\lambda$ satisfies the composition rule $\Phi_\lambda\circ\Phi_{\lambda'}=\Phi_{\lambda\,\lambda'}$.
Follows from Lemma 13 of [@de2015passive].
The function $g(x)$ defined in is differentiable for $x>0$, and continuous and strictly increasing for $x\geq0$, and its image is the whole interval $[0,\,\infty)$. Then, its inverse $g^{-1}(S)$ is defined for any $S\geq0$, it is continuous and strictly increasing for $S\geq0$, and differentiable for $S>0$. We define for any $t\geq0$ the functions $$\phi(t)=S\left(\Phi_{e^{-t}}\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\;,\qquad\phi_0(t)=g\left(e^{-t}\;g^{-1}\left(S\left(\hat{\rho}\right)\right)\right)\;.$$ It is easy to show that $$\label{start}
\phi(0)=\phi_0(0)\;,$$ and $$\label{phi0}
\frac{d}{dt}\phi_0(t)=f\left(\phi_0(t)\right)\;,$$ where $f$ is defined by .
$f$ is differentiable for any $S\geq0$.
We have $$f'(S)=\frac{1}{\left(1+g^{-1}(S)\right)\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{g^{-1}(S)}\right)}-1\;,$$ hence $\lim_{S\to0}f'(S)=-1$.
Since the quantum-limited attenuator sends the set of passive states with finite support into itself (see Equation (II.12) of [@de2015passive]), we can replace $\hat{\rho}\to \Phi_{e^{-t}}\left(\hat{\rho}\right)$ in equation , and from Theorem \[thmiso\] and Lemma \[lemcomp\] we get $$\label{phi}
\frac{d}{dt}\phi(t)\geq f\left(\phi(t)\right)\;.$$ The claim then follows from
Let $\phi,\,\phi_0:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ be differentiable functions satisfying , and with $f:[0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}$ differentiable. Then, $\phi(t)\geq\phi_0(t)$ for any $t\geq0$.
See e.g. Theorem 2.2.2 of [@ames1997inequalities].
Relation with the degraded Gaussian broadcast channel {#broadcast}
=====================================================
The quantum degraded Gaussian broadcast channel [@guha2007classicalproc; @guha2007classical] maps a state $\hat{\rho}_A$ of the quantum system $A$ to a state $\hat{\rho}_{A'B'}$ of the joint quantum system $A'B'$ with $$\label{defbr}
\hat{\rho}_{A'B'}=\hat{U}_\lambda\left(\hat{\rho}_A\otimes|0\rangle_B\langle0|\right)\hat{U}_\lambda^\dag\;,$$ where $\hat{U}_\lambda$ is the unitary operator defined in , and $1/2\leq\lambda\leq1$. It can be understood as follows. $A$ encodes the information into the state of the electromagnetic radiation $\hat{\rho}_A$, and sends it through a beamsplitter of transmissivity $\lambda$. $A'$ and $B'$ receive the transmitted and the reflected part of the signal, respectively, whose joint state is $\hat{\rho}_{A'B'}$.
The rate pair $\left(R_{A'},\,R_{B'}\right)$ is achievable if for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ $A$ can send to $A'$ and $B'$ with $n$ uses of the channel any couple of messages chosen from sets $I_{A'}^{(n)}$ and $I_{B'}^{(n)}$ with $$\left|I_{A'}^{(n)}\right|\geq e^{nR_{A'}}\;,\qquad\left|I_{B'}^{(n)}\right|\geq e^{nR_{B'}}$$ with vanishing maximum error probability in the limit $n\to\infty$ (see [@yard2011quantum], Section II, and [@guha2007classical], Sections II and III; see also [@savov2015classical], Definition 1). The closure of the set of the achievable rate pairs constitutes the capacity region of the channel.
Let $E>0$ be the maximum average energy per copy of the input states. Ref. [@guha2007classical] first proves in Section IV that superposition coding allows to achieve with the quantum degraded Gaussian broadcast channel any rate pair $(R_{A'},\,R_{B'})$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RA2}
R_{A'} &\leq g\left(\lambda\,\beta\,E\right)\;,\\
R_{B'} &\leq g\left(\left(1-\lambda\right)E\right)-g\left(\left(1-\lambda\right)\beta\,E\right)\label{RB2}\end{aligned}$$ for some $0\leq\beta\leq1$. For the converse, Ref. [@guha2007classical] proves an outer bound for the achievable rate pairs in Eqs. (22) and (23). Any achievable rate pair $\left(R_{A'},\,R_{B'}\right)$ must satisfy the following property. For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ there must exist an ensemble of encoding *pure* states $\left\{p^{(n)}_iq^{(n)}_j,\;\hat{\rho}^{A(n)}_{ij}\right\}$ on $n$ copies of the quantum system $A$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RA}
n\,R_{A'} \leq \sum_j q^{(n)}_j & \left(S\left(\hat{\rho}^{A'(n)}_j\right)\phantom{\sum_i}\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.\;\;-\sum_ip^{(n)}_i\;S\left(\hat{\rho}^{A'(n)}_{ij}\right)\right) + n\,\epsilon_n''\;,\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{RB}
n\,R_{B'} \leq S\left(\hat{\rho}^{(n)}_{B'}\right)-\sum_jq^{(n)}_j\;S\left(\hat{\rho}^{B'(n)}_j\right) + n\,\epsilon_n'\;,$$ where $\epsilon_n',\,\epsilon_n''\to0$ for $n\to\infty$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}^{A'B'(n)}_{ij} &= \hat{U}_\lambda^{\otimes n}\left(\hat{\rho}^{A(n)}_{ij}\otimes\left(|0\rangle_B\langle0|\right)^{\otimes n}\right)\hat{U}_\lambda^{\dag\otimes n}\;,\\
\hat{\rho}^{B'(n)}_j &= \sum_i p^{(n)}_i\;\hat{\rho}^{B'(n)}_{ij}\;,\label{rhoBj}\\
\hat{\rho}^{(n)}_{B'} &= \sum_j q^{(n)}_j\;\hat{\rho}^{B'(n)}_j\;.\end{aligned}$$ Using the outer bounds , and assuming the multimode version of the inequality , Ref. [@guha2007classical] proves that any achievable rate pair $(R_{A'},R_{B'})$ must satisfy and for some $0\leq\beta\leq1$. Eqs. and then describe the capacity region of the quantum degraded Gaussian broadcast channel.
One may ask whether the one-mode inequality implies the outer bounds , in the setting where the sender $A$ cannot entangle the input state among successive uses of the channel, i.e. when the pure states $\hat{\rho}^{A(n)}_{ij}$ are product states. This would be the case if the bounds , were additive, i.e. if they did not require the regularization over $n$. In this case determining them for $n=1$ would be sufficient. The answer is negative. Indeed, the subadditivity of the entropy for the terms $S\left(\hat{\rho}^{B'(n)}_j\right)$ in goes in the wrong direction. Additivity would hold if $\hat{\rho}^{B'(n)}_j$ were product states, but from in general this is not the case.
The thinning {#secthinning}
============
The thinning [@renyi1956characterization] is the map acting on classical probability distributions on the set of natural numbers that is the discrete analogue of the continuous rescaling operation on positive real numbers.
Let $N$ be a random variable with values in $\mathbb{N}$. The thinning with parameter $0\leq\lambda\leq1$ is defined as $$T_\lambda(N)=\sum_{i=1}^N B_i\;,$$ where the $\{B_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}^+}$ are independent Bernoulli variables with parameter $\lambda$, i.e. each $B_i$ is one with probability $\lambda$, and zero with probability $1-\lambda$.
From a physical point of view, the thinning can be understood as follows: each incoming photon has probability $\lambda$ of being transmitted, and $1-\lambda$ of being reflected or absorbed. Let $N$ be the random variable associated to the number of incoming photons, and $\{p_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ its probability distribution, i.e. $p_n$ is the probability that $N=n$ (i.e. that $n$ photons are sent). Then, $T_\lambda(p)$ is the probability distribution of the number of transmitted photons. It is easy to show that $$\label{Tn}
\left[T_\lambda(p)\right]_n=\sum_{k=0}^\infty r_{n|k}\;p_k\;,$$ where the transition probabilities $r_{n|k}$ are given by $$\label{rnk}
r_{n|k}=\binom{k}{n}\lambda^n(1-\lambda)^{k-n}\;,$$ and vanish for $k<n$.
The thinning coincides with the restriction of the attenuator to input states diagonal in the Fock basis:
\[thinatt\] Let $\Phi_\lambda$ and $T_\lambda$ be the quantum-limited attenuator and the thinning of parameter $0\leq\lambda\leq1$, respectively. Then for any probability distribution $p$ on $\mathbb{N}$ $$\Phi_\lambda\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n\;|n\rangle\langle n|\right)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[T_\lambda(p)\right]_n\;|n\rangle\langle n|\;.$$
See Theorem 56 of [@de2015passive].
Thanks to Theorem \[thinatt\], our main results Theorems \[thmmain\] and \[thmiso\] apply also to the thinning:
\[thmthin\] Geometric input probability distributions minimize the output Shannon entropy of the thinning for fixed input entropy, i.e. for any probability distribution $p$ on $\mathbb{N}$ and any $0\leq\lambda\leq 1$ we have $$H\left(T_\lambda(p)\right)\geq g\left(\lambda\;g^{-1}\left(H(p)\right)\right)\;,$$ where $g$ has been defined in .
For any probability distribution $p$ on $\mathbb{N}$ $$\left.\frac{d}{dt}H\left(T_{e^{-t}}(p)\right)\right|_{t=0}\geq f\left(H(p)\right)\;,$$ where $f$ has been defined in .
Conclusion {#secconcl}
==========
We have proved that Gaussian thermal input states minimize the output von Neumann entropy of the Gaussian quantum-limited attenuator for fixed input entropy (Theorem \[thmmain\]). The proof is based on a new isoperimetric inequality (Theorem \[thmiso\]). Theorem \[thmmain\] implies that geometric input probability distributions minimize the output Shannon entropy of the thinning for fixed input entropy (Theorem \[thmthin\]). Its multimode extension would permit to determine both the triple trade-off region of the Gaussian quantum-limited attenuator [@wilde2012public; @wilde2012information; @wilde2012quantum] and the classical capacity region of the Gaussian quantum degraded broadcast channel [@guha2007classicalproc; @guha2007classical]. The proof of Theorem \[thmmain\] for the multimode attenuator would follow from the multimode generalization of the isoperimetric inequality . However, our proof of relies on the majorization result of Ref. [@de2015passive], that does not hold for the multimode attenuator (see [@de2016passive], Section IV.A).
Auxiliary Lemmas {#auxlemmas}
================
\[lemtrunc\] Let us choose a probability distribution $p\in\mathcal{D}_N$, fix $0\leq N'\leq N$, and define the probability distribution $q\in\mathcal{D}_{N'}$ as $$q_n=\frac{p_n}{\sum_{k=0}^{N'}p_k}\;,\qquad n=0,\ldots,\,N'\;.$$ Then, $H(q)\leq H(p)$.
We have for $n=0,\ldots,\,N'$ $$\sum_{k=0}^n q_k=\frac{\sum_{k=0}^n p_k}{\sum_{l=0}^{N'}p_l}\geq\sum_{k=0}^n p_k\;,$$ Then, $q$ majorizes $p$ and the claim follows from Remark 20 of [@de2015passive].
\[lemnx\] Let $\left\{x_n\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a positive sequence with finite sum. Then $\liminf_{n\to\infty}n\,x_n=0$.
Let us suppose $\liminf_{n\to\infty}n\,x_n=c>0$. Then, there exists $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $n\,x_n\geq c/2$ for any $n\geq n_0$. Then, $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n\geq\sum_{n=n_0}^\infty\frac{c}{2n}=\infty\;,$$ contradicting the hypothesis.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The Authors thank Luigi Ambrosio for comments and fruitful discussions.
[Giacomo De Palma]{} was born in Lanciano (CH), Italy, on March 15, 1990. He received the B.S. degree in Physics and the M.S. degree in Physics from the University of Pisa, Pisa (PI), Italy, in 2011 and 2013, respectively. He also received the “Diploma di Licenza” in Physics and the Ph.D. degree in Physics from Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa (PI), Italy, in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
He is currently a postdoc at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
His research interests include quantum information, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum thermodynamics. He is author of eleven scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
[Dario Trevisan]{} was born in the Province of Venice, Italy. He received the B.S. degree in mathematics from the University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, in 2009, the M.S. degree in mathematics from the University of Pisa, in 2011, and the Ph.D. degree in mathematics from the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy, in 2014.
He is currently Assistant Professor at the University of Pisa.
Dr. Trevisan is a member of the GNAMPA group of the Italian National Institute for Higher Mathematics (INdAM).
[Vittorio Giovannetti]{} was born in Castelnuovo di Garfagnana (LU) Italy, on April 1, 1970. He received the M.S. degree in Physics from the University of Pisa and PhD degree in theoretical Physics from the University of Perugia.
He is currently Associate Professor at the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa.
[^1]: G. De Palma is with QMATH, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; NEST, Scuola Normale Superiore, Istituto Nanoscienze-CNR and INFN, I-56126 Pisa, Italy.
[^2]: D. Trevisan is with Università degli Studi di Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy.
[^3]: V. Giovannetti is with NEST, Scuola Normale Superiore and Istituto Nanoscienze-CNR, I-56126 Pisa, Italy.
[^4]: This paper was presented at the 11th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography, Berlin (Germany), September 2016; at the Beyond IID in Information Theory 4 Workshop, Barcelona (Spain), July 2016; at the Quantum Roundabout Conference, Nottingham (United Kingdom), July 2016; and at the 13th Central European Quantum Information Processing Workshop, Valtice (Czech Republic), June 2016.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
LMU-ASC 47/14\
MITP/14-052\
[ ]{}\
\
${}^a$ [ *PRISMA Cluster of Excellence & Institut für Physik (WA THEP),\
Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität, 55099 Mainz, Germany\
*]{} ${}^b$ [ *Arnold Sommerfeld Center for Theoretical Physics,\
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 80333 München, Germany* ]{}\
${}^c$ [ *Physics Department, National Technical University of Athens,\
Zografou Campus, 15780 Athens, Greece* ]{}\
${}^d$ [ *Department of Theoretical Physics, Physics Institute, UNAM\
Mexico D.F. 04510, Mexico* ]{}\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We argue that neutron spectra in a short-range ordered Valence Bond state is dominated by two-spinon states localized in small spatial regions such as a pinwheel. These excitations lead to angle averaged dynamic structure factor that is spread over a wide frequency range up to about $2.5 J$, whereas its wavevector dependence at all frequencies remains very close to that of isolated dimers. These results are in excellent agreement with recent Neutron scattering data in the Herbertsmithite materials ZnCu$_3$(OH)$_6$Cl$_2$.'
author:
- 'R. R. P. Singh'
title: 'Neutron spectra of Herbertsmithite Materials: Observation of a Valence Bond Liquid phase?'
---
Recent experimental studies[@shores; @helton; @shlee; @olariu; @imai; @devries1] of the Herbertsmithite material ZnCu$_3$(OH)$_6$Cl$_2$ with structurally perfect Kagome planes has brought renewed interest in the study of Quantum Spin-Liquid phases in the Kagome Lattice Heisenberg Model.[@pwa; @elser; @mila; @misguich; @palee; @mpaf] The issues of Quantum Spin-Liquid versus Valence Bond Crystal Order,[@VBC] of a possible gap in the spin excitation spectra and of deconfinement of fractional spin excitations continue to be subjects of intense theoretical debate.[@ed; @dmrg; @singh-huse; @ybkim; @ms07; @laeuchli; @vidal; @tchernyshyov; @poilblanc] The experimental studies provide a complimentary perspective to this long standing problem.
In a recent letter de Vries et al presented neutron scattering data on these materials over a range of momentum and frequency transfers.[@devries] They discuss their data primarily in the context of Algebraic Spin-Liquid and other theories.[@palee; @mpaf] Here, we would like to argue that the data is much better understood in terms of a Valence Bond phase[@VBC; @singh-huse] with well developed short-ranged Valence Bond order but no long-range Valence Bond Crystal order. Such a finite temperature phase, lacking long-range quantum coherence, may appropriately be called a classical Valence Bond Liquid.
The powder-diffraction neutron data of de Vries et al covers a temperature range from 2K to 120 K, an energy transfer of up to $30$ meV and the full range of momentum transfer values. Their key findings can be summarized as follows: After allowance is made for phonons as well as for some impurity spins, the magnetic behavior intrinsic to the system, is rather well described by an angle averaged q-dependent form-factor which is essentially identical to that of a single spin-dimer. However, unlike a single dimer, where such a spectrum would be strongly peaked at the singlet-triplet energy gap ($J$ for an isolated dimer), the spectral weight is spread nearly uniformly over a wide range of energies extending at least down to $4$meV and up beyond $30$ meV. Furthermore, this behavior is evident at 2K but persists also at 120 K. The frequency dependence makes the behavior clearly inconsistent with that of isolated dimers and the temperature dependence makes it inconsistent with a Valence Bond Crystal order (and any other quantum ground state with an ordering scale much smaller than 100K as expected in the model).
![\[fig:Fig1\] Proposed Valence Bond Phase of the Kagome Lattice Heisenberg Model consists of a Honeycomb Lattice of resonating hexagons (H), where six hexagons surround a pinwheel (P). The pinwheels are isolated from empty triangles leading to substantially reduced quantum fluctuations on their dimer bonds. Triplets on dimers represented by black thick lines are heavy nearly immobile particles, whereas triplets on grey thick lines represent particles mobile throughout the lattice. ](Kagome.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
We first note that the exchange constant for the material has been estimated[@helton; @rigol07; @sindzingre07] to be in the range 170K-190K, which translates to about $15$meV. There is increasing theoretical support for a Valence Bond Crystal (VBC) ground state of the Kagome-Lattice Heisenberg Model with a 36-site unit cell.[@singh-huse; @vidal] One of the distinctive features of the VBC state is a pin-wheel (See Fig. 1) in each unit cell, a defect free structure of Valence-Bond containing triangles, where the bonds remain almost completely dimerized. An isolated pinwheel is an example of a Delta chain,[@kubo; @shastry; @tchernyshyov] a system of corner sharing triangles, where the Hamiltonian is minimized by dimerization.[@majumdar] In the VBC state, their is significant quantum fluctuations. In particular, the dimerization inside the resonating hexagons is strongly reduced. But, the pinwheel region is geometrically protected against quantum fluctuations and hence remains essentially fully dimerized.[@singh-huse2]
Different Valence Bond phases have energy difference of only $0.001$ J per site.[@singh-huse] Thus one expects any phase transition to such a state to occur at a very low temperature. However, short-range Valence Bond order is set by $J$ and can develop at significantly higher temperatures. Once this short-range order is a few lattice constants, pin-wheel like structures should begin to form locally. Because they have extremely low local energies, they should be stable up to higher temperatures.
![\[fig:Fig2\] Kink-antikink or 2-spinon states for the pinwheel. A triplet excitation is created by breaking a singlet bond in the ground state. The Kink spinon lies on the inner hexagon, while the more mobile antikink spinon can move on the outside vertices of the pinwheel through states (a) through (f) shown in the figure. When the two spinons are together as in Fig. (a), the kink spin can also move by going through higher energy intermediate states.](2-spinons.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The triplet excitations of the pinwheel are kink-antikink pairs.[@kubo; @shastry; @tchernyshyov] In an infinite Delta chain, the kinks are immobile, where as the antikink can hop from one triangle to another. The kink has zero excitation energy, whereas the energy of the antikink can be approximated by $$\epsilon(k)=5/4-\cos{k}.$$ Note that this means that excitations extend over the energy range $J/4<\epsilon<9 J/4$. For the infinite system more detailed analytical and numerical calculations show[@kubo; @shastry] that the lowest energy antikink is roughly at $0.219 J$, whereas the upper energy may extend up to as much as $3J$. For the finite system, spin excitation from the ground state creates a pair of parallel spins on one of the singlet bonds of the ground state. While the kink antikink description is roughly valid, because both the kink and antikink remain in each other’s vicinity, both free spins or spinons become mobile. Fig. 2, shows the configurations that correspond to the mobile antikink. On the other hand the kink can also move by going through higher energy intermediate configuration, when the two spins are next to each other. In the $S^z=1$ sector, assuming two free spins and the rest of the system in the ground state leads to 66 states, of which $36$ states are of the kink-antikink type, where one spin is in the inner hexagon, whereas the other spin is on the outside vertices of the pinwheel. One expects the spectral weight to be primarily spread over these states, giving rise to spectral weight spread roughly over the energy range $J/4<\epsilon< 9J/4$.
![\[fig:Fig3\] Angle averaged dynamic structure factor versus frequency of the Pinwheel state at $T=0$ with small broadening.](spectra-omega-p01.ps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:Fig4\] Angle averaged dynamic structure factor versus frequency of the Pinwheel state at $T=0$ with larger broadening.](spectra-omega-p1.ps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:Fig5\] Angle averaged dynamic structure factor at different frequencies, scaled to have a maximum of unity, versus wavenumber compared with results of a single dimer.](sf-q-scaled.ps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
This can be easily confirmed by exact diagonalization of the 12-site Heisenberg model on a pinwheel. One finds that the lowest triplet state has an excitation energy of $0.260 J$. The spectral weight is spread over a large number of states. The highest spectral weight of any one single state is only about $5$ percent. The states with the highest 36 spectral weights are spread over the energy range $0.260 J<\epsilon<2.039J$ and they contribute above 80 percent to the spectral weight. If we look at total spectral weight up to some energy, roughly $95.5$ percent of the weight extends up to an energy of $2.25$ J, $97.7$ percent of the weight extends up to an energy of $2.5 $ J and roughly $99.7$ percent of the weight extends up to an energy of $3$ J. This strongly confirms that the dominant spectral contributions come from the kink-antikink states.
In the Valence Bond Crystal state, these triplets can ultimately decay to still lower lying light triplets,[@singh-huse2] though those decay times are likely to be very long, because the pinwheels are surrounded by dimerized triangles and have no empty triangles in their immediate vicinity, which strongly reduces quantum fluctuations. In the liquid phase, these excitations should have a shorter finite lifetime, which one could represent by a Lorentzian broadening. The frequency dependence of the angle averaged dynamic structure factor, for several q-values, at a small Lorentzian broadening (0.01 J) is shown in Fig 3, where as at a larger broadening (0.10 J) it is shown in Fig. 4. The latter may be more representative of the liquid state. One finds that at higher broadening one has a spectral weight that is spread roughly continuously up to an energy of about $3J$.
For any pair of spins at a distance $r$, the angle averaged value of $\exp{(i\vec q\cdot\vec r)}$ is given by $\sin{(qr)}/qr$. This can be used to calculate the angle averaged dynamic structure factor for any given $q$. For all frequencies, the structure factor as a function of wavenumber shows dependence, which is very close to that of an isolated dimer (See Fig. 5). In an isolated pinwheel, the equal-time correlation function is strictly that of a dimer, but excitations are extended over the full pin-wheel. Thus the energy integrated structure factor is strictly that of an isolated dimer, but not the spectral weight at a given energy. However, what the calculations show is that while the spectral weight is spread out over a wide range of frequencies, the q-dependence is always near that of an isolated dimer. Since delta chains are likely to be ubiquitous in the short-range Valence Bond ordered phase of the Kagome Lattice Heisenberg model,[@tchernyshyov] this spectral feature may persist up to energy comparable to $J$, that is, as long as the system has short range Valence Bond order.
This picture implies that the equal-time spin-spin correlations in the system are essentially only nearest neighbor. However, the arrangement of dimerized triangles makes any triplet excitation break into a kink-antikink pairs. These lead to spectral weight spread over a wide frequency range.
In fact, the spectra obtained by exact-diagonalization of 24, 30 and 36-site clusters by Laeuchli and Lhuillier[@laeuchli] show very similar frequency dependence, where much of the spectral weight is nearly uniformly spread between $J/4$ to about $2.5 J$. The finite size system has only short-range Valence bond order. This is further evidence that almost all states with short range Valence Bond order have these features.
One also knows that the Herbertsmithite materials have a small Dzyaloshinski-Moria anisotropy.[@rigol; @mendels; @cepas] These anisotropies would strongly influence the low energy spectra and the nature of long-range order without significantly altering the high energy spectral properties. In the experiments, the reduction in spectral weight at low temperatures below an energy of $4$ meV may well be related to the DM anisotropy which would cause the low energy spectral weight to move to even lower energies.
Furthermore, the true signature of long-range VBC order, would be the observation of low energy light triplets, which live on the perfect hexagon and bridging dimers.[@singh-huse2; @ybkim] In the VBC phase these provide an extended network for the triplets to move around, whereas the pinwheels form isolated pristine regions which are nearly protected from quantum fluctuations, and have only localized triplets. The honeycomb VBC state has 50 percent of the spectral weight in the non-fluctuating dimer-like heavy excitations and the rest of the 50 percent of the spectral weight in the light mobile triplets, which with long-range VBC order have an energy gap of order $J/20$.[@ed; @dmrg]
In conclusion, we have argued that the observation of dimer-like q-dependence combined with a spectral weight spread over a wide frequency range and remaining nearly temperature independent over a wide range of temperature is strongly suggestive of a Valence Bond Liquid phase, with short-range Valence Bond Order exceeding a couple of lattice constants. These excitations can be regarded as a kink-antikink pair or two spinons, which are confined in a very small spatial region. They extend up to fairly high temperatures of order $J$, where such excitations are necessarily broadened by the underlying classical liquid environment. Whether at low enough temperatures, the development of long-range quantum coherence leads to truly delocalized spinons as in algebraic quantum spin-liquid phases or to the development of much sharper localized and extended triplet excitations as in a Valence Bond Crystal remains to be seen.
We would like to thank Mark de Vries for valuable discussions.
[2]{}
M. P. Shores et al J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 13462 (2005).
J. S. Helton et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 107204 (2007).
S. H. Lee et al, Nat. Mat. 6, 853 (2007).
A. Olariu et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 087202 (2008).
T. Imai et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 077203 (2008).
M. A. De Vries et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 157205 (2008).
P. W. Anderson, Mater. Res. Bull. 8, 153 (1973).
C. Zeng and V. Elser, Phys. Rev. B 51, 8318 (1995).
F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2356 (1998).
G. Misguich, D. Serban and V. Pasquier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137202 (2002).
Y. Ran, M. Hermele, P. A. Lee, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 117205 (2007).
M. Hermele, T. Senthil, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 72, 104404 (2005).
J. B. Marston and C. Zeng, J. Appl. Phys. [**69**]{}, 5962 (1991); A. V. Syromyatnikov and S. V. Maleyev, Phys. Rev. B[**66**]{}, 132408 (2002); P. Nikolic and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 214415 (2003); R. Budnik and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 187205 (2004);
C. Waldtmann et al, Eur. Phys. J. B 2 501 (1998); P. Sindzingre and C. Lhuillier, EPL 88, 27009 (2009).
H. C. Jiang et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 117203 (2008).
R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 180407 (2007).
B.-J. Yang, Y. B. Kim, J. Yu and K. Park, Phys. Rev. B 77, 224424 (2008).
G. Misguich and P. Sindzingre, J. Phys.-Cond. Matt. 19, 145202 (2007).
A. Laeuchli, C. Lhuillier, arXiv:0901.1065.
G. Evenbly, G. Vidal, arXiv:0904.3383.
Z. Zhao and O. Tchernyshyov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 187203 (2009).
D. Poilblanc, M. Mambrini, D. Schwandt, arXiv:0912.0724.
M. A. de Vries et al Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 237201 (2009).
M. Rigol and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 207204 (2007).
G. Misguich and P. Sindzingre, Eur. Phys. J. B [**59**]{}, 305 (2007).
T. Nakamura and K. Kubo, Phys. Rev. B 53, 6393 (1996).
D. Sen et al., Phys. Rev. B 53, 6401 (1996).
C. K. Majumdar, J. Phys. C 3, 911 (1970).
R. R. P. Singh and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 77, 144415 (2008).
M. Rigol and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. B 76, 184403 (2007).
A. Zorko et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 026405 (2008).
O. Cepas, C. M. Fong, P. W. Leung, and C. Lhuillier, Phys. Rev. B 78, 140405(R) (2008).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present new results from our test of Lorentz invariance, which compares two orthogonal cryogenic sapphire microwave oscillators rotating in the lab. We have now acquired over 1 year of data, allowing us to avoid the short data set approximation (less than 1 year) that assumes no cancelation occurs between the $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ parameters from the photon sector of the standard model extension. Thus, we are able to place independent limits on all eight $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ parameters. Our results represents up to a factor of 10 improvement over previous non rotating measurements (which independently constrained 7 parameters), and is a slight improvement (except for $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$) over results from previous rotating experiments that assumed the short data set approximation. Also, an analysis in the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl framework allows us to place a new limit on the isotropy parameter $P_{MM}=\delta-\beta+\frac{1}{2}$ of $9.4(8.1)\times10^{-11}$, an improvement of a factor of 2.'
author:
- 'Paul L. Stanwix$^1$'
- 'Michael E. Tobar$^1$'
- 'Peter Wolf$^{2,3}$'
- 'Clayton R. Locke$^1$'
- 'Eugene N. Ivanov$^1$'
title: 'Improved test of Lorentz Invariance in Electrodynamics using Rotating Cryogenic Sapphire Oscillators\'
---
In recent times there has been an increase in activity in experimental tests of Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI), in particular light speed isotropy tests with at least 6 experiments reported in the last 3 years [@Lipa; @Muller; @Wolf04; @Antonini; @Stanwix; @Herrmann]. This is largely due to advances in technology, allowing more precise measurements, and the emergence of the Standard Model Extension (SME) as a framework for the analysis of experiments, providing new interpretations of LLI tests. None of these experiments have yet reported a violation of LLI, though the constraints on a putative violation have become more stringent by approximately three orders of magnitude in the same time frame.
LLI is an underlying principle of relativity, postulating that the outcome of a local experiment is independent of the velocity and orientation of the apparatus. Tests of LLI are motivated by the central importance of this postulate to modern physics, as well as the development of a number of conflicting unification theories, which suggest a violation of LLI at some level. To identify a violation it is necessary to have an alternative theory to interpret the experiment [@Will], and many have been developed [@Robertson; @MaS; @LightLee; @Ni; @Kosto1_1; @Kosto1_2; @Kosto1_3; @KM]. The kinematical frameworks (RMS) [@Robertson; @MaS] postulate a simple parametrization of the Lorentz transformations with experiments setting limits on the deviation of those parameters from their values in special relativity (SR). Due to their simplicity they have been widely used to interpret many experiments [@Brillet; @Muller; @WolfGRG; @Stanwix; @Herrmann; @Antonini]. More recently, a general Lorentz violating extension of the standard model of particle physics (SME) has been developed [@Kosto1_1; @Kosto1_2; @Kosto1_3] whose Lagrangian includes all parameterized Lorentz violating terms that can be formed from known fields. This has inspired a new wave of experiments designed to explore uncharted regions of the SME Lorentz violating parameter space.
Our experiment consists of two cylindrical sapphire resonators of 3 cm diameter and height supported by spindles within super-conducting niobium cavities [@Giles]. The sapphire loaded cavities are situated one above the other, oriented with their cylindrical axes orthogonal to each other in the horizontal plane. The experiment is rotated with a period of 18 seconds around its vertical axis. Whispering gallery modes [@wgmode] are excited in each near 10 GHz, with a difference frequency between the two of 226 kHz. The difference frequency along with various experimental parameters are logged by a stationary data acquisition system as a function of the experiments orientation. A detailed description of the experiment can be found in [@SR2005].
Inside the sapphire crystals standing waves are set up with the dominant electric and magnetic fields in the axial and radial directions respectively, corresponding to a Poynting vector around the circumference. The frequency of each resonator $\nu$ is proportional to the speed of light $c$ and inversely proportional to the electrical path length $L$ of the resonator ($\nu \propto c/L$), where $L$ is dependent on the material properties of the sapphire crystal, which have been shown to have a negligible dependence on orientation [@MullerPRD]. Hence, by measuring the difference frequency between the two orthogonal cavities as they rotate we make a direct observation of the isotropy of the speed of light.
To test for Lorentz violations we derive the perturbation of the difference frequency with respect to an alternative test theory. In the photon sector of the SME this may be calculated to first order as the integral over the non-perturbed fields (Eq.(34) of [@KM], see [@WolfGRG; @SR2005] for an application to our case). The change in orientation of the fields due to the rotation of the experiment in the lab and Earth’s orbital and sidereal motion induces a time varying modulation of the difference frequency, which is searched for in the experiment. In the photon sector of the SME [@KM], Lorentz violating terms are parameterized by 19 independent components, which are in general grouped into three traceless and symmetric $3\times 3$ matrices ($\tilde{\kappa}_{e+}$, $\tilde{\kappa}_{o-}$, and $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$), one antisymmetric matrix ($\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$) and one additional scalar, which all vanish when LLI is satisfied. The 10 independent components of $\tilde{\kappa}_{e+}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o-}$ have been constrained by astronomical measurements to $< 2\times 10^{-32}$ [@KM; @Kost01]. Recently two combinations of these parameters have been further constrained to less than parts in $10^{-37}$ [@Kosto2]. The scalar $\tilde{\kappa}_{tr}$ component has been constrained to $< 10^{-4}$ by [@TobarPRD] through the re-analysis of previous Ives-Stilwell experiments, who also propose interferometric techniques to improve on this by seven orders of magnitude. Seven components of $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ have been independently constrained in stationary optical and microwave cavity experiments [@Muller; @Wolf04; @Lipa] at the $10^{-15}$ and $10^{-11}$ level respectively. The last remaining component $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ was only recently constrained for the first time by a group of cavity experiments [@Stanwix; @Herrmann; @Antonini; @MikeComment; @AntoniniComment] designed to both improve on the results of [@Muller; @Wolf04; @Lipa] and, more importantly, be sensitive to $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ through the use of active rotation in the laboratory.
However, the most stringent independent limits on the isotropy ($\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$) and boost terms ($\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$) can only be achieved with 1 year of data. This is because the maximum boost with respect to the Sun Centered Equatorial Celestial Frame (SCECF) is due to the Earth’s annual motion. Thus, over 1 year of data is required to decorrelate the parameters. Previous analysis [@Lipa; @Stanwix; @Herrmann], which contained significantly less than one year of data, constrained the $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ parameters by assuming no cancelation occurred in the case of a non-zero Lorentz violating effect. We have now acquired sufficient data to remove this assumption, producing independent limits on all of the eight components of $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$.
Alternatively, with respect to the RMS framework, we analyze the change in resonator frequency as a function of the Poynting vector direction with respect to the velocity of the lab in some preferred frame (as in [@WolfGRG; @SR2005]), typically chosen to be the cosmic microwave background. The RMS parameterizes a possible Lorentz violation by a deviation of the parameters ($\alpha, \beta, \delta$) from their SR values ($-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}, 0$). These are typically grouped into three linear combinations representing a measurement of (i) the isotropy of the speed of light ($P_{MM}=\delta - \beta +
\frac{1}{2}$), a Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment [@MM], constrained by [@WolfGRG] to parts in $10^{-9}$ (ii) the boost dependence of the speed of light ($P_{KT}=\beta - \alpha -
1$), a Kennedy-Thorndike (KT) experiment [@KT], constrained by [@WolfGRG] to parts in $10^{-7}$, and (iii) the time dilation parameter ($P_{IS}=\alpha + \frac{1}{2}$), an Ives-Stillwell (IS) experiment [@IS], constrained by [@Saat] to parts in $10^{-7}$. Because our experiment compares two cavities it is only sensitive to $P_{MM}$.
In our previous analysis [@Stanwix] the amplitude and phase of a Lorentz violating signal was determined by fitting the parameters of Eq.\[nuTest\] to the data, with the phase of the fit adjusted according to the test theory used.
$$\frac{\Delta\nu_0}{\nu_0} = A + B t + \sum_i C_i ~ {\rm
cos}(\omega_{i}t + \varphi_i) + S_i ~ {\rm sin}(\omega_{i}t +
\varphi_i) \label{nuTest}$$
Here $\nu_0$ is the average unperturbed frequency of the two sapphire resonators, and $\Delta\nu_0$ is the perturbation of the 226 kHz difference frequency. $A$ and $B$ determine the frequency offset and drift, and $C_i$ and $S_i$ are the amplitudes of a cosine and sine at frequency $\omega_i$ respectively. In the final analysis we fit 15 frequencies to the data, $\omega_i = (2\omega_R, 2\omega_R\pm\Omega_\oplus,
2\omega_R\pm\omega_\oplus, 2\omega_R\pm\omega_\oplus\pm\Omega_\oplus, 2\omega_R\pm2\omega_\oplus, 2\omega_R\pm2\omega_\oplus\pm\Omega_\oplus)$, where $\omega_R$ is the rotation frequency of the experiment in the lab and $\omega_\oplus$ and $\Omega_\oplus$ are the sidereal and annual frequencies of the Earth’s rotational and orbital motion respectively. Since the residuals of the fit exhibit a significantly non-white behavior, the optimal regression method is weighted least squares (WLS) [@Wolf04]. WLS involves pre-multiplying both the experimental data and the model matrix by a whitening matrix determined by the noise type of the residuals of an ordinary least squares analysis. However, this method of analysis proved to be computationally intensive due to the large amount of data we have now acquired. For this reason, an alternative approach used by [@Herrmann; @Antonini] was adopted. Using this technique we reduce the size of the data set by demodulating it in quadrature with respect to $2\omega_R$ in blocks of 40 periods of rotation. The number of periods was chosen to minimize the net effect of narrow band noise (due to instabilities in the systematic at $2\omega_R$) and broad band noise (due to oscillator frequency noise), which is similar to an optimal filter. By fitting the expression of Eq.\[nuTest2\] to each block of data using an ordinary least squares regression technique we determine the coefficients $S(t)$ and $C(t)$, which can be considered linear combinations of the sidereal, semi-sidereal, and annual modulations and combinations thereof. The relationship between $S(t)$ and $C(t)$ and the various modulation frequencies is expressed in Eqs.\[stage2DAS\] and \[stage2DAC\], where $\omega_i = (\Omega_\oplus, \omega_\oplus, \omega_\oplus\pm\Omega_\oplus, 2\omega_\oplus, 2\omega_\oplus\pm\Omega_\oplus)$.
$$\frac{\Delta\nu_0}{\nu_0} = A + B t + S(t) ~ {\rm sin}(2\omega_{R} t + \varphi) + C(t) ~ {\rm cos}(2\omega_{R} t + \varphi) \label{nuTest2}$$
$$S(t) = S_0 + \sum_i S_{s,i} ~ {\rm sin}(\omega_i t + \varphi_i)
+ S_{c,i} ~ {\rm cos}(\omega_i t + \varphi_i)
\label{stage2DAS}$$
$$C(t) = C_0 + \sum_i C_{s,i} ~ {\rm sin}(\omega_i t + \varphi_i)
+ C_{c,i} ~ {\rm cos}(\omega_i t + \varphi_i)
\label{stage2DAC}$$
A comparison was made between the two techniques by performing a complete analysis of 30 data sets (3 data sets were later excluded from the analysis due to overly large and varying systematic signals at $2\omega_R$). Both techniques produced consistent results, with the uncertainties associated with the demodulated technique being lower than the WLS technique by no more than 15 percent. The difference between the two techniques is most likely due to the efficiency with which the data analysis could be optimized for the noise type present in the data. WLS only takes into account the broad band noise (spectral density) whereas the optimization used in the demodulated technique takes into account the extra noise source of instability of the systematic at $2\omega_R$. Hence, the latter approach was adopted in further investigations of the data.
![Cosine, $C(t)$, and sine, $S(t)$, amplitudes resulting from demodulation of the data at $2\omega_R$ in blocks of 40 rotations, with a linear fit removed from each data set.[]{data-label="fig:data"}](StanwixFig1.eps){width="3.5in"}
![The amplitudes $S_0$ and $C_0$ for each of the 27 data sets (squares), used to limit the parameter $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ of the SME. Also shown (circle) is the mean and its standard error ($S_0=2.9(4.6), C_0=-3.0(3.8)\times10^{-15}$).[]{data-label="fig:SvC"}](StanwixFig2.eps){width="3.0in"}
The data used in this analysis spans a period from December 2004 to January 2006. It consists of 27 sets of data totalling approximately 121 days. Shown in Fig. \[fig:data\] are the $S(t)$ and $C(t)$ resulting from the demodulation of the data at $2\omega_R$. An offset and drift has been removed from the coefficients derived from each data set. As described earlier, this data is then used to determine the amplitudes of the frequencies of interest. In [@Stanwix] we describe how systematic effects dominate the data at $2\omega_R$, limiting our ability to constrain test theory parameters associated with this frequency (a detailed discussion of the systematics and their effect is thus left out here). Also, we do not consider the nearby annual offsets ($2\omega_R\pm\Omega_\oplus$) for two reasons. Firstly, the strong systematic signal at $2\omega_R$ has been shown to have a significant effect on nearby sidebands due to leakage [@Stanwix], and secondly, by subtracting a linear drift from the individual data sets after being demodulated (as presented in Fig.\[fig:data\]) it is possible that a signal at the annual frequency may be suppressed. However, all other frequencies of interest (see Tab.\[SMETab\]) are close to the sidereal or semi-sidereal frequencies, so will be unaffected by the removal of an offset and drift from each data set.
In the SME, all $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ parameters other than $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ can be constrained from the sidereal and semi-sidereal frequencies and their annual frequency offsets as outlined in Tab.\[SMETab\]. $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ only appears in the coefficient $C_{2\omega_R}$ so to determine a limit we do the same as in [@Stanwix] and consider the $C_{2\omega_R}$ coefficients for each data set to be independent and treat them statistically. The systematic at $2\omega_R$ has been shown to be primarily due to tilt variations. It remains relatively constant in phase within a data set but varies between data sets. Fig. \[fig:SvC\] shows the $C_{2\omega_R}$ and $S_{2\omega_R}$ coefficients for the 27 data sets. Also shown is the mean and standard error of the mean which is used to calculate $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$. The results for the SME analysis are given in Tab.\[Results\]. We note that the results for $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XZ}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}$ are significant at approximately the $3\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ level respectively. However, we do not believe this to be an indication of a Lorentz violating effect for reasons similar to those given in [@Wolf04], which also used data taken over more than one year. Our result for $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XZ}$ is inconsistent with other recent measurements shown in Tab.\[Results\]. Also, an examination of the corresponding sideband coefficients from an analysis of the individual data sets (not shown here) shows no coherence in the phase of the signal, which would be expected in the presence of a genuine Lorentz violating effect.
$\omega_i$ $C_{C,\omega_i}$ $C_{S,\omega_i}$
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
$0$ $\frac{3}{2}{\rm sin}^2({\chi})\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ -30(38) -
$\Omega_{\oplus}$ $-\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}^2(\chi)({\rm cos}(\eta)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}+2{\rm sin}(\eta)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY})$ $-\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}^2(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY}$
$\omega_{\oplus}-\Omega_{\oplus}$ $\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}(\chi){\rm sin}(\chi){\rm sin}(\eta)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ -2.3(0.7) $-2\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}(\frac{\eta}{2}){\rm sin}(\chi)({\rm cos}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY}-{\rm sin}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ})$ 0.9(0.7)
$\omega_{\oplus}$ ${\rm sin}(2\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XZ}+2\beta_L\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}$ 1.9(0.7) ${\rm sin}(2\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{YZ}+2\beta_L\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ -2.5(0.7)
$\omega_{\oplus}+\Omega_{\oplus}$ $\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}(\chi){\rm sin}(\chi){\rm sin}(\eta)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ -2.0(0.7) $-\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}(\frac{\eta}{2}){\rm sin}(2\chi)({\rm cos}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}+{\rm sin}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY})$ -1(0.7)
$2\omega_{\oplus}-\Omega_{\oplus}$ $-\frac{1}{2}\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}^2\frac{\eta}{2}(3+{\rm cos}(2\chi))\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}$ -0.4(0.7) $-\frac{1}{2}\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}^2\frac{\eta}{2}(3+{\rm cos}(2\chi))\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ -0.7(0.7)
$2\omega_{\oplus}$ $-\frac{1}{4}(3+{\rm cos}(2\chi))(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XX}-\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{YY})$ -0.6(0.7) $-\frac{1}{2}(3+{\rm cos}(2\chi))\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XY}$ -1.7(0.7)
$2\omega_{\oplus}+\Omega_{\oplus}$ $\frac{1}{2}\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}^2\frac{\eta}{2}(3+{\rm cos}(2\chi))\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}$ -3.4(0.7) $\frac{1}{2}\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}^2\frac{\eta}{2}(3+{\rm cos}(2\chi))\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ -0.5(0.7)
$S_{C,\omega_i}$ $S_{S,\omega_i}$
$0$ $2\beta_L{\rm sin}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY}$ 29(46) -
$\Omega_{\oplus}$ - -
$\omega_{\oplus}-\Omega_{\oplus}$ $\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}(\frac{\eta}{2}){\rm sin}(2\chi)({\rm cos}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY}-{\rm sin}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ})$ -0.3(0.8) $\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}(\chi){\rm sin}(\eta)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ -0.8(0.8)
$\omega_{\oplus}$ $-2({\rm sin}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{YZ}+2\beta_L{\rm cos}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ})$ 1.4(0.8) $2({\rm sin}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XZ}+2\beta_L{\rm cos}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ})$ -3.6(0.8)
$\omega_{\oplus}+\Omega_{\oplus}$ $2\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}(\frac{\eta}{2}){\rm sin}(\chi)({\rm cos}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}+{\rm sin}(\frac{\eta}{2})\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY})$ -5.4(0.8) $\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}(\chi){\rm sin}(\eta)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ 0.4(0.8)
$2\omega_{\oplus}-\Omega_{\oplus}$ $2\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}^2\frac{\eta}{2}{\rm cos}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ 1.5(0.8) $-2\beta_{\oplus}{\rm cos}^2\frac{\eta}{2}{\rm cos}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}$ -3.2(0.8)
$2\omega_{\oplus}$ $2{\rm cos}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XY}$ -1.2(0.8) $-{\rm cos}(\chi)(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XX}-\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{YY})$ 2.8(0.8)
$2\omega_{\oplus}+\Omega_{\oplus}$ $-2\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}^2\frac{\eta}{2}{\rm cos}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ 0.5(0.8) $2\beta_{\oplus}{\rm sin}^2\frac{\eta}{2}{\rm cos}(\chi)\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}$ 3.4(0.8)
In terms of the RMS framework, the advantage to be gained by having one year of data is primarily statistical. Due to the symmetry of our experiment we are not sensitive to the boost parameter of the RMS, $P_{KT}$, and cavity experiments are not sensitive to the time dilation parameter $\alpha$. However, we can improve on our previous constraint on the isotropy parameter $P_{MM}$ by taking a weighted average over the results of multiple data sets. We analyze each data set using the WLS technique described earlier. The association between $P_{MM}$ and the coefficients of the frequencies of interest is described in [@Stanwix]. The coefficients of Eq.\[nuTest\] are for the frequencies $\omega_i = (2\omega_R,2\omega_R\pm\omega_\oplus, 2\omega_R\pm2\omega_\oplus)$ only. We calculate a value for the RMS parameter of $9.4(8.1)\times10^{-11}$.
In conclusion, by collecting over one year of data we have been able to set the first independent limits on 8 parameters in the photon sector of the SME, without assuming that no cancelation occurs between the isotropy and boost terms. The results do not indicate any Lorentz violating effects, and compared to previous experiments we see a slight improvement in the constraints on these parameters. We improve on our previous determination of $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ by more than a factor of three. However, due to the systematic disturbances present at twice the rotation frequency we are unable to measure this parameter with the precision of [@Herrmann], who have developed a tilt control system which avoids the major rotation induced systematic. Also, we have reduced the limit on the isotropy parameter $P_{MM}$ of the RMS framework by a factor of two.
To improve on these results we intend to replace the resonators with higher quality sapphire loaded cavities, which have a frequency instability approximately 40 times lower than the current experiment [@HartnettEL]. Considerable effort will need to be invested to improve the rotation system and reduce environmental disturbances for this improvement to be realized.
------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -------------------- --------------------------------
This work Previous Recent short
analysis [@Wolf04] analysis [@Herrmann; @Stanwix]
$\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XY}$ 2.9(2.3) -57(23) -3.1(2.5)
$\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XZ}$ -6.9(2.2) -32(13) 1.9(3.7)
$\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{YZ}$ 2.1(2.1) -5(13) -4.5(3.7)
$(\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{XX}-\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{YY})$ -5.0(4.7) -32(46) 5.4(4.8)
$\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ 143(179) - -19.4(51.8)
$\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XY}$ -0.9(2.6) -18(15) 2.0(2.1)
$\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{XZ}$ -4.4(2.5) -14(23) -3.6(2.7)
$\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}^{YZ}$ -3.2(2.3) 27(22) 2.9(2.8)
$P_{MM}$ 9.4(8.1) 120(220)[@WolfGRG] -21(19)
------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -------------------- --------------------------------
: \[Results\]Results for the SME Lorentz violation parameters determined independently in this work. Also shown for comparison is the previous best independent constraints of seven parameters [@Wolf04] and more recent short term results that assume no cancelation between the $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ terms, other than $\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}^{ZZ}$ [@Herrmann; @Stanwix]($\tilde{\kappa}_{e-}$ in $10^{-16}$, $\tilde{\kappa}_{o+}$ in $10^{-12}$). The $P_{MM}$ parameter from the RMS framework is also listed (in $10^{-11}$).
We would like to thank John Winterflood, Frank van Kann and the technical staff of the School of Physics at UWA for their assistance in this work. This work was funded by the Australian Research Council.
[99]{} Lipa J.A. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 6, 060403, (2003). Wolf P. et al., Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 051902(R), (2004). Müller H. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 2, 020401, (2003). Antonini P., Okhapkin M., Göklü E. and Schiller S., Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 050101(R) (2005). Stanwix P.L. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 040404 (2005). Herrmann S. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 150401 (2005). Will C. M., [*Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics*]{}, revised edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). Robertson H.P., Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{}, 378 (1949). Mansouri R., Sexl R.U., Gen. Rel. Grav. [**8**]{}, 497, (1977). Lightman A.P., Lee D.L., Phys. Rev. D [**8**]{}, 2, 364, (1973). Ni W.-T., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**38**]{}, 301, (1977). Colladay D., Kostelecký V.A., Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 6760, (1997). Colladay D., Kostelecký V.A., Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 116002, (1998). Kostelecký V.A., Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 105009 (2004). Kostelecký V.A., Mewes M., Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{},056005,(2002). Brillet A., Hall J., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{}, 9, 549, (1979). Wolf P., et al., Gen. Rel. and Grav., [**36**]{}, 10, 2351, (2004). Giles A.J. et al., Physica B [**165,**]{} 145, (1990). Tobar M.E., Mann A.G., IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. [**39(12),**]{} 2077, (1991). Tobar M.E. et al., in “Lect. Notes Phys: Special Relativity”, Ed: Ehlers J., Lammerzahl C., [**702**]{}, 416, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, (2006); arXiv:hep-ph/0506200 (2005). Müller H., Herrmann S., Saenz A. and Peters A., Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 116006, (2003). Kostelecký V.A., Mewes M., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 251304 (2001). Kostelecký V.A., Mewes M., arXiv:hep-ph/0607084 (2006). Tobar M.E. et al., Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 025004,(2005). Tobar M.E., Wolf P. and Stanwix P.L., Phys. Rev. A, [**72**]{}, 066101, (2005). Antonini P., Okhapkin M., Göklü E. and Schiller S., Phys. Rev. A, [**72**]{}, 066102, (2005). Michelson A.A. and Morley E.W., Am. J. Sci. [**34**]{}, 333 (1887). Kennedy R.J. and Thorndike E.M., Phys. Rev. [**42**]{}, 400 (1932). Ives H.E. and Stilwell G.R., J. Opt. Soc. Am. [**28**]{}, 215 (1938). Saathoff G., et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 190403 (2003). Hartnett J.G., et al., arXiv:physics/0608124 (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a comprehensive study of Vicsek-style self-propelled particle models in two and three space dimensions. The onset of collective motion in such stochastic models with only local alignment interactions is studied in detail and shown to be discontinuous (first-order like). The properties of the ordered, collectively moving phase are investigated. In a large domain of parameter space including the transition region, well-defined high-density and high-order propagating solitary structures are shown to dominate the dynamics. Far enough from the transition region, on the other hand, these objects are not present. A statistically-homogeneous ordered phase is then observed, which is characterized by anomalously-strong density fluctuations, superdiffusion, and strong intermittency.'
author:
- Hugues Chaté
- Francesco Ginelli
- Guillaume Grégoire
- Franck Raynaud
title: 'Collective motion of self-propelled particles interacting without cohesion'
---
Introduction
============
Collective motion phenomena in nature have attracted the interest of scientists and other authors for quite a long time [@Pliny]. The question of the advantage of living and moving in groups, for instance, is a favorite one among evolutionary biologists [@Parrish1997]. In a different perspective, physicists are mostly concerned with the mechanisms at the origin of collective motion, especially when it manifests itself as a true, non-trivial, emerging phenomenon, i.e. in the absence of some obvious cause like the existence of a leader followed by the group, a strong geometrical constraint forcing the displacement, or some external field or gradient felt by the whole population. Moreover, the ubiquity of the phenomenon at all scales, from intra-cellular molecular cooperative motion to the displacement in group of large animals, raises, for physicists at least, the question of the existence of some universal features possibly shared among many different situations.
One way of approaching these problems is to construct and study minimal models of collective motion: if universal properties of collective motion do exist, then they should appear clearly within such models and thus could be efficiently determined there, before being tested for in more elaborate models and real-world experiments or observations. Such is the underlying motivation of recent studies of collective motion by a string of physicists [@Albano; @Couzin2003; @Czirok1997; @Gregoire2001; @Huepe; @Toner1995]. Among them, the group of Tamas Vicsek has put forward what is probably the simplest possible model exhibiting collective motion in a non-trivial manner.
In the “Vicsek model” [@Vicsek1995], point particles move off-lattice at constant speed $v_{\rm 0}$, adjusting their direction of motion to that of the average velocity of their neighbors, up to some noise term accounting for external or internal perturbations (see below for a precise definition). For a finite density of particles in a finite box, perfect alignment is reached easily in the absence of noise: in this fluctuation-less collective motion, the macroscopic velocity equals the microscopic one. On the other hand, for strong noise particles are essentially non-interacting random walkers and their macroscopic velocity is zero, up to statistical fluctuations.
Vicsek [*et al.*]{} showed that the onset of collective motion occurs at a finite noise level. In other words, there exists, in the asymptotic limit, a fluctuating phase where the macroscopic velocity of the total population is, on average, finite. Working mostly in two space dimensions, they concluded, on the basis of numerical [@Vicsek1995; @Czirok1997] simulations, that the onset of this ordered motion is well described as a novel non-equilibrium continuous phase transition leading to long range order, at odds with equilibrium where the continuous XY symmetry cannot be spontaneously broken in two space dimensions and below [@Mermin]. This brought support to the idea of universal properties of collective motion since the scaling exponents and functions associated to such phase transitions are expected to bear some degree of universality, even out of equilibrium.
The above results caused a well-deserved stir and prompted a large number of studies at various levels [@Albano; @Huepe; @Bertin; @Birnir; @Bussem; @Chate2006; @Couzin2002; @Couzin2003; @Couzin2005; @Csahok1995; @Czirok1999; @Czirok1999_2; @Duparcmeur; @Comment_gg; @Gregoire2001; @Gregoire2003; @Hemmingson; @Levine; @Mikhailov; @Mogilner; @Oloan; @dOrsogna; @Ken; @Simha2002; @Simha2002_2; @Szabo; @Toner1995; @Toner1998; @Toner1998_2; @Topaz2004; @Topaz2006; @Vicsek1999]. In particular, two of us showed that the onset of collective motion is in fact discontinuous [@Gregoire2004], and that the original conclusion of Vicsek [*et al.*]{} was based on numerical results obtained at too small sizes [@Vicsek1995; @Czirok1997]. More recently, the discontinuous character of the transition was challenged in two publications, one by the Vicsek group [@Nagy] and another by Aldana [*et al.*]{} [@Aldana2007].
Here, after a definition of the models involved (Section \[models\]), we come back, in Section \[transition\], to this central issue and present a rather comprehensive study of the onset of collective motion in Vicsek-style models. In Section \[ordered\], we describe the ordered, collective motion phase. Section \[discussion\] is devoted to a general discussion of our results together with some perspectives. Most of the numerical results shown were obtained in two space dimensions, but we also present three-dimensional results. Wherever no explicit mention is made, the default space dimension is two. Similarly, the default boundary conditions are periodic in a square or cubic domain.
The models {#models}
==========
Vicsek model: angular noise
---------------------------
Let us first recall the dynamical rule defining the Vicsek model [@Vicsek1995]. Point particles labeled by an integer index $i$ move off-lattice in a space of dimension $d$ with a velocity $\vec{v_i}$ of fixed modulus $v_{\rm 0}=|\vec{v_i}|$. The [*direction*]{} of motion of particle $i$ depends on the average velocity of all particles (including $i$) in the spherical neighbourhood $\mathcal{S}_i$ of radius $r_{\rm 0}$ centered on $i$. The discrete-time dynamics is synchronous: the direction of motion and the position of all particles are updated at each timestep $\Delta t$, in a driven, overdamped manner: $$\vec{v_i}(t+\Delta t) = v_{\rm 0} \,\, (\mathcal{R}_\eta\!\circ\vartheta)\left[
\sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}_i}\vec{v_j}(t)\right]
\label{EVicsek}$$ where $\vartheta$ is a normalization operator ($\vartheta(\vec{w})=\vec{w}/|\vec{w}|$) and $\mathcal{R}_\eta$ performs a random rotation uniformely distributed around the argument vector: in $d=2$, $\mathcal{R}_\eta \vec{v}$ is uniformely distributed around $\vec{v}$ inside an arc of amplitude $ 2 \pi\,\eta$; in $d=3$, it lies in the solid angle subtended by a spherical cap of amplitude $4 \pi\,\eta$ and centered around $\vec{v}$. The particles positions $\vec{r_i}$ are then simply updated by streaming along the chosen direction as in $$\vec{r_i}(t+\Delta t) =\vec{r_i}(t) +
\Delta t \,\, \vec{v_i}(t+\Delta t) \;.
\label{Evol}$$ Note that the original updating scheme proposed by Vicsek [*et al.*]{} in [@Vicsek1995] defined the speed as a backward difference, although we are using a forward difference. The simpler updating above, now adopted in most studies of Vicsek-style models, is not expected to yield different results in the asymptotic limit of infinite size and time.
A different noise term: vectorial noise
---------------------------------------
The “angular” noise term in the model defined above can be thought of as arising from the errors committed when particles try to follow the locally-averaged direction of motion. One could argue on the other hand that most of the randomness stems from the evaluation of each interaction between particle $i$ and one of its neighbors, because, e.g., of perception errors or turbulent fluctuations in the medium. This suggests to replace Eq.(\[EVicsek\]) by: $$\vec{v_i}(t+\Delta t) = v_{\rm 0} \, \vartheta\!\left[
\sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}_i}\!\vec{v_j}(t)
+\eta \mathcal{N}_i \vec{\xi} \right]
\label{EN2}$$ where $\vec{\xi}$ is a random unit vector and $\mathcal{N}_i$ is the number of particles in $\mathcal{S}_i$. It is easy to realize that this “vectorial” noise acts differently on the system. While the intensity of angular noise is independent from the degree of local alignment, the influence of the vectorial noise decreases with increasing local order.
Repulsive force {#repulsed}
---------------
In the original formulation of the Vicsek model as well as in the two variants defined above, the only interaction is [*alignment*]{}. In a separate work [@Gregoire2003], we introduced a two-body repulsion/attraction force, to account for the possibility of maintaining the cohesion of a flock in an infinite space (something the Vicsek model does not allow). Here, we only study models without cohesion. Nevertheless, we have considered, in the following, the case of a pairwise repulsion “force”, to estimate in particular the possible influence of the absence of volume exclusion effects in the basic model, which leaves the local density actually unbounded. We thus introduce the short ranged, purely repulsive interaction exerted by particle $j$ on particle $i$: $$\vec{f}_{ij} = -\vec{e}_{ij} \times
\left[1+\exp(|\vec{r}_j-\vec{r}_i|/r_{\rm c}-2)\right]^{-1} \;,
\label{Eforce2}$$ where $\vec{e}_{ij}$ is the unit vector pointing from particle $i$ to $j$ and $r_{\rm c}<r_{\rm 0}$ is the typical repulsion range. Equations (\[EVicsek\]) and (\[EN2\]) are then respectively generalized to $$\vec{v_i}(t+\Delta t) = v_{\rm 0} \,\, (\mathcal{R}_\eta\!\circ\vartheta) \left[\sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}_i}\vec{v_j}(t) +
\beta \sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}_i} \vec{f}_{ij}\right]
\label{EVicsek2}$$ and $$\vec{v_i}(t+\Delta t) = v_{\rm 0} \, \vartheta\!\left[
\sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}_i}\!\vec{v_j}(t) + \beta \sum_{j\in\mathcal{S}_i} \vec{f}_{ij}
+\eta \mathcal{N}_i \vec{\xi} \right]\;,
\label{EN3}$$ where $\beta$ measures the relative strength of repulsion with respect to alignment and noise strength.
Control and order parameters
----------------------------
The natural order parameter for our polar particles is simply the macroscopic [*mean velocity*]{}, conveniently normalized by the microscopic velocity $v_{\rm 0}$ $$\vec{\varphi}(t)=\frac{1}{v_{\rm 0}}\langle \vec{v_i}(t)\rangle_i \,,
\label{globalop}$$ where $\langle\cdot\rangle_i$ stands for the average over the whole population. Here, we mostly consider its modulus $\varphi(t)=\left|\vec{\varphi}(t)\right|$, the [*scalar order parameter*]{}.
In the following, we set, without loss of generality, $\Delta t = 1$ and $r_{\rm 0}=1$, and express all time- and length-scales in terms of these units. Moreover repulsive force will be studied by fixing $r_{\rm c} = 0.127$ and $\beta = 2.5$.
This leaves us with two main parameters for these models: the noise amplitude $\eta$ and the global density of particles $\rho$. Recently, the microscopic velocity $v_{\rm 0}$ has been argued to play a major role as well [@Nagy]. All three parameters ($\eta$, $\rho$, and $v_{\rm 0}$) are considered below.
Order-disorder transition at the onset of collective motion {#transition}
===========================================================
![ \[fcompare\] (color online) Typical behavior across the onset of collective motion for moderate size models ($\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, $L=64$) with angular noise (black circles) and vectorial noise (red triangles). The reduced noise amplitude $\varepsilon = 1 - \eta/\eta_{\rm t}$ is shown in abscissas (transition points estimated at $\eta_{\rm t} = 0.6144(2)$ – vectorial noise – and $\eta_{\rm t} =0.478(5) $ – angular noise). (a) Time-averaged order parameter $\langle\varphi(t)\rangle_t$. (b) Binder cumulant G. (c) Variance $\sigma$ of $\varphi$; (d) Order parameter distribution function $P$ at the transition point. Bimodal distribution for vectorial noise dynamics (red dashed line), unimodal shape for angular noise (black solid line). Time averages have been computed over $3 \cdot 10^5$ timesteps.](fig1){width="8.6cm"}
As mentioned above, the original Vicsek model attracted a lot of attention mostly because of the conclusions drawn from the early numerical studies [@Vicsek1995; @Czirok1997]: the onset of collective motion was found to be a novel continuous phase transition spontaneously breaking rotational symmetry. However, it was later shown in [@Gregoire2004] that beyond the typical sizes considered originally the [*discontinuous*]{} nature of the transition emerges, irrespective of the form of the noise term. Recently, the discontinuous character of the transition was argued to disappear in the limit of small $v_{\rm 0}$ [@Nagy]. We now address the problem of the nature of the transition in full detail.
![\[fig2\] (color online) FSS analysis of angular noise dynamics ($\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, time averages computed over $2 \cdot 10^7$ timesteps). Time-averaged order parameter (a) and Binder cumulant (b) as a function of noise for various system sizes $L$. (c) Piece of an order parameter time series close to the transition point ($L=256$, $\eta=0.476$).](fig2){width="8.6cm"}
Even though there is no rigorous theory for finite-size-scaling (FSS) for out-of-equilibrium phase transitions, there exists now ample evidence that one can safely rely on the knowledge gained in equilibrium systems [@Lubeck; @Marcq; @Marcq2]. The FSS approach [@Binder; @Privman] involves the numerical estimation of various moments of the order parameter distribution as the linear system size $L$ is systematically varied. Of particular interest are the variance $$\sigma(\eta, L)=L^d\left(\langle\varphi^2\rangle_t -
\langle\varphi\rangle_t^2\right)$$ and the so-called Binder cumulant $$G(\eta, L)= 1-\frac{\langle\varphi^4\rangle_t}{3\langle\varphi^2\rangle_t^2} \;,
\label{EBinder}$$ where $\langle\cdot\rangle_t$ indicates time average. The Binder cumulant is especially useful in the case of continuous phase transitions, because it is one of the simplest ratio of moments which takes a universal value at the critical point $\eta_{\rm t}$, where all the curves $G(\eta, L)$, obtained at different system sizes $L$, cross each other. At a first-order transition point, on the other hand, the Binder cumulant exhibits a sharp drop towards negative values [@Binder1997]. This minimum is due to the simultaneous contributions of the two phases coexisting at threshold. Moreover, it is easy to compute that $G(\eta, L) \approx 2/3$ in the ordered phase, while for a disordered state with a continuous rotational simmetry one has $G(\eta, L) \approx 1/3$ in $d=2$ and $G(\eta, L) \approx 4/9$ in $d=3$.
![\[ffssvm2\] (color online) Transition to collective motion with short range repulsive interactions. Left panels: angular noise. Right panels: vectorial noise. (a,b): order parameter vs noise amplitude at different system sizes. (c,d): Binder cumulant $G$ as a function of noise amplitude. ($\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.3$, time averages carried over $10^7$ timesteps).](ffsvm2){width="8.6cm"}
Overture
--------
As an overture, we analyze systems of moderate size in two dimensions ($N\approx 10^4$ particles) at the density $\rho=2$, typical of the initial studies by Vicsek [*et al.*]{}, but with the slightly modified update rule (\[Evol\]) and for both angular and vectorial noise. The microscopic velocity is set to $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$.
For angular noise, the transition looks indeed continuous, as found by Vicsek [*et al.*]{}. On the other hand, the time averaged scalar order parameter $\langle\varphi\rangle_t$ displays a sharp drop for vectorial noise, and the Binder cumulant exibits a minimum at the transition point, indicating a discontinuous phase transition (Fig. \[fcompare\]a-b). Simultaneously, the variance is almost delta-peaked. The difference betwen the two cases is also recorded in the probability distribution function (PDF) of $\varphi$ which is bimodal (phase coexistence) in the vectorial noise case (Fig. \[fcompare\]c-d).
![\[fig3D\] (color online) Transition to collective motion in three spatial dimensions. Left panels: angular noise. Right panels: vectorial noise. (a,b): time-averaged order parameter vs. noise amplitude at different system sizes. (c,d): Binder cumulant $G$ as a function of noise amplitude. ($\rho=0.5$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, time averages carried over $10^5$ timesteps).](fig3D){width="8.6cm"}
The qualitative difference observed upon changing the way noise is implemented in the dynamics is, however, only a finite-size effect. As shown in [@Gregoire2004], the transition in the angular noise case reveals its asymptotic discontinuous character provided large-enough system sizes $L$ are considered (Fig. \[fig2\]a-b). Remaining for now at a qualitative level, we show in Fig. \[fig2\]c a typical time-series of the order parameter for the angular noise case in a large system in the transition region. The sudden jumps from the disordered phase to the ordered one and vice-versa are evidence for metastability and phase coexistence.
Note that the system size beyond which the transition reveals its discontinuous character for the angular noise case at density $\rho=2$ and velocity $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$ — the conditions of the original papers by Vicsek [*et al.*]{}— is of the order of $L=128$, the maximum size then considered. It is clear also from Fig. \[fcompare\] that the discontinuous nature of the transition appears earlier, when increasing system size, for vectorial noise than for angular noise. Thus, finite-size effects are stronger for angular noise. The same is true when one is in presence of the repulsive interactions (Fig.\[ffssvm2\]). Finally, the same scenario holds in three space dimensions, with a [*discontinous*]{} phase transition separating the ordered from the disordered phases for both angular and vectorial noise (Fig. \[fig3D\]).
Before proceeding to a study of the complete phase diagram, we detail now how a comprehensive FSS study can be performed on a particular case.
Complete FSS analysis {#FSSstudy}
---------------------
![\[ftau\] Correlation time $\tau$ of the order parameter near the transition point for vectorial noise dynamics with repulsion. System parameters are $\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$ and $\eta \approx
\eta_{\rm t}$. (a) Time correlation function $C(t)$ at $L=128$. The lin-log inset shows the exponential decay. (b) Correlation time $\tau$ as a function of system size $L$. The dashed line marks linear growth with $L$. Correlation functions were computed on samples of $\approx 10^6$ realizations for typically $10^3$ timesteps.](tcor){width="8.6cm"}
For historical reasons, the following study has been performed on the model with vectorial noise and repulsive force (Eq. \[EN3\]). It has not been repeated in the simpler case of the “pure” Vicsek model because its already high numerical cost would have been prohibitive due to the strong finite size effects.
As a first step, we estimated the correlation time $\tau(L)$, whose knowledge is needed to control the quality of time-averaging: the duration $T$ of numerical simulations has been taken much larger than $\tau(L)$ ($T=100\tau$ in the largest systems, but typically $10000\tau$ for smaller sizes). Moreover, $\tau$ is also useful to correctly estimate the statistical errors on the various moments (as $\langle\varphi\rangle_t$, $\sigma$, and $G$ ) of the PDF of the order parameter, for which we used the Jackknife procedure [@Efron]. The correlation time was estimated near the transition (where it is expected to be largest) as function of system size $L$ measuring the exponential decay rate of the correlation function (Fig. \[ftau\]a) $$\label{tcorr}
C(t)=
\langle\varphi(t_{\rm 0})\varphi(t_{\rm 0}+t)\rangle_t-\langle\varphi(t_{\rm 0})\rangle_{t_{\rm 0}}^2
\sim \exp{\left(-\frac{t}{\tau}\right)} \;.$$ We found $\tau$ to vary roughly linearly with $L$ (see Fig. \[ftau\]b). It is interesting to observe that at equilibrium, one would expect $\tau$ to scale as [@Zinn] $$\tau=L^{\frac{d}{2}}\exp (\kappa L^{d-1} )$$ where $\kappa$ is the surface tension of the metastable state. Therefore, our result implies a very small or vanishing surface tension $\kappa\ll 1/L$, a situation reminiscent of observations made in the cohesive case [@Gregoire2003], where the surface tension of a cohesive droplet was found to vanish near the onset.\
Following Borgs and Kotecky [@Borgs], the asymptotic coexistence point $\eta_{\rm t}$ (i.e. the first order transition point) can be determined from the asymptotic convergence of various moments of the order parameter PDF. First, the observed discontinuity in $\langle\varphi(t)\rangle_t$, located at $\eta_\varphi(L)$, is expected to converge exponentially to $\eta_{\rm t}$ with $L$. Second, the location of the susceptibility peak $\eta_\sigma(L)$ — which is the same as the peak in $\sigma$ provided some fluctuation-dissipation relation holds, see the Appendix — also converges to $\eta_{\rm t}$, albeit algebraically with an exponent $\gamma_{\sigma}$. Third, the location of the minimum of $G$, $\eta_G(L)$, is also expected to converge algebraically to $\eta_{\rm t}$ with with an exponent $\gamma_{G}=\gamma_{\sigma}$.
Interestingly, the value taken by these exponents actually depends on the number of phases and of the dimension $d$ of the system: for two-phase coexistence one has $\gamma_{G}=\gamma_{\sigma}=2d$, while for more than two phases $\gamma_{G}=\gamma_{\sigma}=d$. In Figure \[fdisc\], we show that our data are in good agreement with all these predictions. The three estimates of $\eta_{\rm t}$ are consistent with each other within numerical accuracy. Moreover $\eta_\varphi(L)$ is found to converge exponentially to the transitional noise amplitude, while both $\eta_\sigma(L)$ and $\eta_G(L)$ show algebraic convergence with an exponent close to 2. This agrees with the fact that due to the continuous rotational symmetry, the ordered phase is degenerate and amounts to an infinite number of possible phases.
![(color online) FSS analysis of vectorial dynamics with short range repulsive force ($\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.3$). Convergence of the finite-size transition points measured from different moments of the order parameter FSS to the asymptotic transition point $\eta_{\rm t}$ (see fig. \[ffssvm2\]). Upper panels: finite size transition points estimated from (a) time average, (b) variance and (c) Binder cumulant. The horizontal dashed line marks the estimated asymptotic threshold $\eta_{\rm t}=0.5544(1)$. Lower panels: scaling of the finite size reduced noise $\varepsilon = 1 - \eta/\eta_{\rm t}$ transition point. (d) Exponential convergence for the jump location in the time-averaged order parameter. (e) Power-law behavior of the variance peak position. (f) Power-law behavior of the Binder cumulant minimum. The dashed lines in (e-f) mark the estimated exponents $\gamma_{\sigma}=\gamma_{G} = 2$.[]{data-label="fdisc"}](fss_disc){width="8.6cm"}
Hysteresis
----------
One of the classical hallmarks of discontinuous phase transitions is the presence, near the transition, of the hysteresis phenomenon: ramping the control parameter at a fixed (slow) rate up and down through the transition point, a hysteresis loop is formed, inside which phase coexistence is manifest (see Fig. \[hyst3D\]a for the $d=3$ case with vectorial noise). The size of such hysteresis loops varies with the ramping rate. An intrinsic way of assessing phase coexistence and hysteresis is to study systematically the nucleation time $\tau_{\uparrow}$ needed to jump from the disordered phase to the ordered one, as well as $\tau_{\downarrow}$ the decay time after which the ordered phase falls into the disordered one. Fig. \[hyst3D\]b shows, in three space dimensions, how these nucleation and decay vary with $\eta$ at two different sizes. A sharp divergence is observed, corresponding to the transition point. At a given time value $\tau$, one can read, from the distance between the “up” and the “down” curve, the average size of hysteresis loops for ramping rates of the order of $1/\tau$.
![(color online) Hysteresis in three spatial dimensions with vectorial noise. (a) order parameter vs noise strength along the hysteresis loop observed with a ramp rate of $2 \cdot 10^{-6}$ per time step ($\rho=1/2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, $L=32$). Empty circles mark the path along the adiabatic increase of noise amplitude, full triangles for adiabatic decrease. (b) nucleation times from the disordered phase to the ordered phase ($\tau_{\uparrow}$, left curves) and vice-versa ($\tau_{\downarrow}$, right curves) for two system sizes (other parameters as in (a)). Each point is averaged over $1000$ realizations. []{data-label="hyst3D"}](Hyst-new_2){width="8.6cm"}
Phase diagram
-------------
The above detailed FSS study would be very tedious to realize when varying systematically the main parameters $\eta$, $\rho$, and $v_{\rm
0}$, as well as the nature of the noise and the presence or not of repulsive interactions. From now on, to characterize the discontinuous nature of the transition, we rely mainly on the presence, at large-enough system sizes $L$, of a minimum in the variation of the Binder cumulant $G$ with $\eta$ (all other parameters being fixed). We call $L^*$ the crossover size marking the emergence of a minimum of $G(\eta)$. We are now in the position to sketch the phase diagram in the ($\eta$, $\rho$, $v_{\rm 0}$) parameter space. The numerical protocol used is, at given parameter values, to run a large-enough system so that the discontinuous character of the transition is seen (i.e. $L>L^*$). For larger sizes, the location of the transition point typically varies very little, so that for most practical purposes, locating the (asymptotic) transition point from systems sizes around $L^*$ is satisfactory.
![\[Phase\] (color online) Asymptotic phase diagrams for the transition to collective motion. (a) Two space dimensions: threshold amplitude $\eta_{\rm t}$ for angular noise as a function of density $\rho$ at $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$. Inset: Log-log plot to compare the low density behavior with the mean field predicted behavior $\eta_{\rm t} \sim \sqrt{\rho}$ (dashed red line). (b) As in panel (a), buth with vectorial noise dynamics. (c) Noise-density phase diagram in three dimensions for vectorial noise dynamics at fixed velocity $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$. In the log-log inset the transition line can be compared with the predicted behavior $\eta_{\rm t} \sim \rho^{1/3}$ (dashed red line). (d) Two space dimensions: threshold amplitude $\eta_{\rm t}$ for angular noise as a function of particle velocity $v_{\rm 0}$ at fixed density $\rho=1/2$ (black circles) and $\rho=1/8$ (red triangles). The horizontal dashed line marks the noise amplitude considered in Ref. [@Nagy] (see Section \[SumTransition\]).](Phase){width="8.6cm"}
![\[SpecialCases\] (color online) First-order transition for angular noise dynamics at high (left panels) and low velocity $v_{\rm 0}$ (right panels). Typical averaging time is $\approx 10^6$ timesteps. (a) Time-averaged order parameter and (c) Binder cumulant at large particle velocity for angular noise in two spatial dimensions at increasing velocities and $L\gtrsim L*$ ($\rho=2$). (b) Time averaged order parameter and (d) Binder cumulant for $v_{\rm 0}=0.05$ and two increasing system sizes ($\rho=1/2$).](SpecialCases){width="8.6cm"}
The results presented below are in agreement with simple mean-field-like arguments in the diluted limit: in the small-$\rho$ regime, one typically expects that the lower the density, the lower the transitional noise amplitude $\eta_{\rm t}$. Indeed, for $\Delta
t \,v_{\rm 0}$ of the order of or not much smaller than the interaction range $r_{\rm 0}$ and in the low-density limit $\rho \ll
1/{r_{\rm 0}}^d$, the system can be seen as a dilute gas in which particles interact by short range ordering forces only. In this regime, the persistence length of an isolated particle (i.e. the distance travelled before its velocity loses correlation with its initial direction of motion) varies like $v_{\rm 0}/\eta$. To allow for an ordered state, the noise amplitude should be small enough so that the persistence length remains larger than the average inter-particle distance, [*i.e.*]{} $1/\rho^{1/d}$. Thus the transition noise amplitude is expected to behave as $$\label{meanfield}
\eta_{\rm t} \, \sim \, v_{\rm 0}\, \rho^\frac{1}{d} \;.$$
In [@Czirok1997], it was indeed found that $\eta_{\rm t}\sim\rho^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha\simeq\frac{1}{2}$ in two dimensions. Our own data (Fig. \[Phase\]a-c) now confirm Eq. (\[meanfield\]) for both the angular and vectorial noise in two and three spatial dimensions, down to very small $\rho$ values. The data deviate from the square-root behavior as the average inter-particle distance gets of the order of or smaller than the interaction range.
Finally, we also investigated the transition line when $v_{\rm 0}$ is varied (Fig. \[Phase\]d). For the vectorial noise case, at fixed density, the threshold noise value $\eta_{\rm t}$ is almost constant (data obtained at $\rho=\frac{1}{2}$, not shown). For the angular noise, in the small $v_{\rm 0}$ limit where the above mean-field argument does not apply, we confirm the first-order character of the phase transition down to $v_{\rm 0} \approx 0.05$ for both angular and vectorial noise (Fig. \[SpecialCases\]b,d). For even smaller values of $v_{\rm 0}$, the investigation becomes numerically too costly (see section below). Note that $\eta_{\rm t}$ seems to be finite when $v_{\rm 0}\to 0^+$, a limit corresponding to the XY model on a randomly connected graph. Still for angular noise, the large velocity limit is also difficult to study numerically. Again, we observe that the transition is discontinuous as far as we can probe it, i.e. $v_{\rm 0}=20$ (Fig. \[SpecialCases\]a,b).
Special limits and strength of finite-size effects
--------------------------------------------------
We now discuss particular limits of the models above together with the relative importance of finite-size effects. Recall that these are quantified by the estimated value of the crossover size $L^*$ beyond which the transition appears discontinuous. All the following results have been obtained for $d=2$. Partial results in three dimensions indicate that the same conclusions should hold there. Keep in mind that in all cases reported, the transition is discontinuous. We are just interested here in how large a system one should use in order to reach the asymptotic regime.
![\[FS\] (color online) Crossover system size $L^*$ above which the discontinuous character of the transition appears (as testified by the existence of a minimum in the $G(\eta)$ curve). Black circles: angular noise. Red triangles: vectorial noise. (a) $L^*$ vs $\rho$ for $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$; Inset: the low density behavior in log-log scales; the dashed line marks a power-law divergence proportional to $1/\sqrt{\rho}$. (b) $L^*$ vs $v_{\rm 0}$ at fixed density (open symbols: $\rho = 1/2$; filled symbols $\rho = 2.0$).](FS){width="8.6cm"}
Fig. \[FS\]a shows that finite-size effects are stronger for angular noise than for vectorial noise for all densities $\rho$ at which we are able to perform these measurements. Note in particular that at $\rho=2$, the density originally used by Vicsek [*et al.*]{}, $L^*\sim 128$ for angular noise, while it is very small for vectorial noise, confirming the observation made in Section \[overture\].
In the small-$\rho$ limit, the discontinuous character of the transition appears later and later, with $L^*$ roughly diverging as $1/\sqrt{\rho}$ (inset of Fig. \[FS\]a). Note that this means that in the small-$\rho$ limit one needs approximately the same number of particles to start observing the discontinuity.
The large-$\rho$ limit reveals a difference between angular and vectorial noise: while $L^*$ remains small for vectorial noise, it seems to diverge for angular noise (Fig. \[FS\]a), making this case difficult to study numerically.
We also explored the role the microscopic velocity $v_{\rm 0}$ in the strength of finite-size effects. Qualitatively, the effects observed are similar to those just reported when the density is varied (Fig. \[FS\]b). In the small $v_{\rm 0}$ limit, we record a strong increase of $L^*$ as $v_{\rm 0}\to 0$ for both types of noise. In the large velocity limit, $L^*$ decreases for vectorial noise, whereas it increases for angular noise.
Summary and discussion {#SumTransition}
----------------------
The summary of the above lengthy study of the order-disorder transition in Vicsek-like models is simple: for any finite density $\rho$, any finite velocity $v_{\rm 0}$, and for both types of noise introduced, the transition is discontinuous. This was observed even in the numerically-difficult limits of large or small $\rho$ or $v_{\rm 0}$. These results contradict recent claims made about the angular noise case (original Vicsek model). We now comment on these claims.
Vicsek and co-workers [@Nagy], showed that keeping the density and the noise intensity fixed, a qualitative change is observed when decreasing $v_{\rm 0}$: for not too small $v_{\rm 0}$ values, in the ordered phase, particles diffuse anisotropically (and the transition is discontinuous), while diffusion becomes isotropic at small $v_{\rm 0}$, something interpreted as a sign of a continuous transition in this region. Rather than the convoluted arguments presented there, what happens is in fact rather simple: decreasing $v_{\rm 0}$ at fixed $\rho$ and $\eta$, one can in fact cross the transition line, passing from the ordered phase (where particles obviously diffuse anisotropically due to the transverse superdiffusive effects discussed in Section \[superdiff\]) to the disordered phase. Our Figure \[Phase\]d, obtained in the same conditions as in [@Nagy] (apart from harmless change of time updating rule), shows that if one keeps $\eta=0.1$ (as in [@Nagy]), one crosses the transition line at about $v_{\rm 0}\simeq
0.1$, the value invoked by Vicsek and co-workers to mark a crossover from discontinuous to “continuous” transitions.
In a recent letter [@Aldana2007], Aldana [*et al.*]{} study order-disorder phase transitions in random network models and show that the nature of these transitions may change with the way noise is implemented in the dynamics (they consider the angular and vectorial noises defined here). Arguing that these networks are limiting cases of Vicsek-like models, they claim that the conclusions reached for the networks carry over to the transition to collective motion of the VM-like systems. They conclude in particular that in the case of “angular” noise the transition to collective motion is continuous. We agree with the analysis of the network models, but the claim that they are relevant as limits of Vicsek-like models is just wrong: the data presented there (Figure 1 of [@Aldana2007]) to substantiate this claim is contradicted by our Figures \[SpecialCases\]a,c (see also [@Chate2007]) obtained at larger system sizes. Again, for large-enough system sizes, the transition is indeed discontinuous. Thus, at best, the network models of Aldana [*et al.*]{} constitute a singular $v_{\rm 0}\to\infty$ limit of Vicsek-like models.
Nature of the ordered phase {#ordered}
===========================
We now turn our attention to the ordered, symmetry-broken phase. In previous analytical studies, it has often been assumed that the density in the ordered phase is spatially homogeneous, albeit with possibly large fluctuations (see, e.g. [@Toner1995]). This is indeed what has been reported in early numerical studies, in particular by Vicsek [*et al.*]{} [@Vicsek1995]. In the following, we show that this is not true in large enough systems, where, for a wide range of noise amplitudes near the transition point, density fluctuations lead to the formation of localized, travelling, high-density and high-order structures. At low enough noise strength, though, a spatially-homogeneous ordered phase is found, albeit with unusually strong density fluctuations.
Traveling in bands
------------------
![(color online) Typical snapshots in the ordered phase. Points represent the position of individual particles and the red arrow points along the global direction of motion. (a)-(c): Angular noise, $\rho=1/2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, $\eta = 0.3$ and increasing system sizes - respectively $L=64$, $L=256$ and $L=1024$. Sharp bands can only be observed if $L$ is larger than the typical band width $w$. (d) Vectorial noise: $\rho=1/2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, $\eta = 0.55$ and $L=64$: bands appear at relatively small system sizes for this type of noise. For clarity reasons, only a representative sample of 10000 particles is shown in (b) and (c). Boundary conditions are periodic.[]{data-label="Photo1"}](Photo1){width="8cm"}
![(color online) Same as Fig. \[Photo1\] but in different geometries/boundary conditions or space dimensions. (a)-(b) vectorial noise ($\eta = 0.325$, $\rho=1/8$, and $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$), boundary conditions are periodic along the $y$ (vertical) axis and reflecting in $x$. (a): a long single band travels along the periodic direction. (b): the domain size along the periodic direction is too small to accomodate bands, and a single band bouncing back and forth along the non-periodic direction is observed. (c) Angular noise, repulsive force, and periodic boundary conditions ($\rho=2$, $\eta=0.23$ and $v_{\rm 0}=0.3$). (d) High-density sheet traveling in a three-dimensional box with periodic boundary conditions (angular noise with amplitude $\eta=0.355$, $\rho=1/2$ and $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$).[]{data-label="Photo2"}](PhotoBand){width="8.6cm"}
Numerical simulations of the ordered phase dynamics ($\eta < \eta_{\rm t}$), performed at large enough noise amplitudes, are characterized by the emergence of high-density moving bands ($d=2$) or sheets ($d=3$). Typical examples are given in Figs. \[Photo1\]–\[Photo2\]. These moving structures appear for large-enough systems after some transient. They extend transversally with respect to the mean direction of motion, and have a center of mass velocity close to $v_{\rm 0}$. While particles inside bands are ordered and, in the asymptotic regime, move coherently with the global mean velocity, particles lying outside bands —in low density regions— are not ordered and perform random walks.
As shown in Fig. \[Photo1\]a-c for angular noise dynamics (\[EVicsek\]), there exists a typical system size $L_{\rm b}$, below which the bands or sheets cannot be observed. Numerical simulations indicate that $L_{\rm b}$ depends only weakly on the noise amplitude and is of the same order of magnitude as the crossover size marking the appearance of the discontinuous character of the transition: $L_{\rm b} \approx L^*$. It is therefore numerically easier to observe bands in the ordered phase of vectorial noise dynamics (\[EN2\]), as in Fig \[Photo1\]d.
Bands may be observed asymptotically without and with a repulsive interaction (Fig \[Photo2\]c) and for both kinds of noise. They appear for various choices of boundary conditions (see for instance Fig. \[Photo2\]a-b, where reflecting boundary conditions have been employed), which may play a role in determining the symmetry-broken mean direction of motion. For instance, bands travelling parallel to one of the axis are favoured when periodic boundary conditions are employed in a rectangular box (they represent the simplest way in which an extended structure can wrap around a torus, and are thus reached more easily from disordered initial conditions), but bands travelling in other directions may also appear, albeit with a smaller probability.
Bands can be described quantitatively through local quantities, such as the local density $\rho_{\ell}(\vec{x}, t)$, measured inside a domain $\mathcal{V}(\vec{x})$ centered around $\vec{x}$, and the local order parameter $$\varphi_{\ell}(\vec{x}, t)
=\frac{1}{v_{\rm 0}}\left|\langle\vec{v_i}(t)\rangle_{\vec{r}_i \in \mathcal{V}(\vec{x})}\right|\,.$$ Further averaging these local quantities perpendicularly to the mean velocity (\[globalop\]) one has the [*density profile*]{} $\rho_{\perp}(x_{\parallel}, t) = \langle \rho_{\ell}(\vec{x},t) \rangle_{\perp}$ and the [*order parameter profile*]{} $\varphi_{\perp}(x_{\parallel},t) = \langle \varphi_{\ell}(\vec{x},t) \rangle_{\perp}$, where $x_{\parallel}$ indicates the longitudinal direction w.r.t. mean velocity. Bands are characterized by a sharp kink in both the density and the order parameter profiles (see Fig. \[Fband\]a and \[Fband\]c-d). They are typically asymmetric, as it can be expected for moving structures, with a rather sharp front edge, a well defined mid-height width $w$ – which typically is of the same order as $L_b$ – and an exponentially decaying tail with a characteristic decay length of the order of the $w$ (Fig. \[Fband\]b).
![(color online) (a) Typical density (black line) and order parameter (dashed red line) profiles for bands in two dimensions (vectorial noise, $\rho = 2$, $\eta = 0.6$ and $v_{\rm 0} = 0.5$). (b) Tail of the density profile shown in (d) (black line) and its fit (blue dashed line) by the formula: $\rho_{\perp}(x_{\parallel}, t) \approx a_0 + a_1(t)\,\exp(-x_{\parallel}/w)$, with $w \approx 6.3$ (lin-log scales). (c-d) Traveling sheet in three dimensions (angular noise, $\rho = 1/2$, $\eta = 0.355$, and $v_{\rm 0} = 0.5$). (c) projection of particle positions on a plane containing the global direction of motion (marked by red arrow). (d) Density (black line) and order parameter (dashed red line) profiles along the direction of motion $x_{\parallel}$.[]{data-label="Fband"}](Profiles){width="8cm"}
Large systems may accomodate several bands at the same time, typically all moving in the same direction (see for instance Fig. \[Photo1\]c and the density profile in Fig. \[LongBand\]e). However, they do not form well-defined wave trains, but rather a collection of solitary objects, as hinted by the following numerical experiments.
![(color online) Emergence of high-density high-order traveling bands ($d=2$) from a spatially-homogeneous (uniformely distributed random positions) initial condition with all particle velocities oriented along the major axis of a $196\times 1960$ domain with periodic boundary conditions. Vectorial noise of amplitude $\eta = 0.6$, density $\rho=2$, and $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$. (a): space-time plot of the density profile (time is running from left to right from $t=0$ to $t=12000$, while the longitudinal direction is represented in ordinates. Colour scale from blue (low values) to red (high values).). (b): same as (a) but at later times (from $t=148000$ to $t=160000$). (c): spatial Fourier power spectrum $S$ of an early density profile ($t=12000$). (d): early time evolution of selected Fourier modes (chosen between spectrum peaks of (c)), $k = 10, 23, 28, 33, 41, 76, 121$ (inset: average over 50 different runs). (e): density profile at a late time ($t=160000$, final configuration of (b)). (f): same as (c) but for the late time density profile of (e). The quality of this figure has been reduced to meet the ArXiv size constraint. []{data-label="LongBand"}](LongBandT.eps "fig:"){width="8.6cm"} ![(color online) Emergence of high-density high-order traveling bands ($d=2$) from a spatially-homogeneous (uniformely distributed random positions) initial condition with all particle velocities oriented along the major axis of a $196\times 1960$ domain with periodic boundary conditions. Vectorial noise of amplitude $\eta = 0.6$, density $\rho=2$, and $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$. (a): space-time plot of the density profile (time is running from left to right from $t=0$ to $t=12000$, while the longitudinal direction is represented in ordinates. Colour scale from blue (low values) to red (high values).). (b): same as (a) but at later times (from $t=148000$ to $t=160000$). (c): spatial Fourier power spectrum $S$ of an early density profile ($t=12000$). (d): early time evolution of selected Fourier modes (chosen between spectrum peaks of (c)), $k = 10, 23, 28, 33, 41, 76, 121$ (inset: average over 50 different runs). (e): density profile at a late time ($t=160000$, final configuration of (b)). (f): same as (c) but for the late time density profile of (e). The quality of this figure has been reduced to meet the ArXiv size constraint. []{data-label="LongBand"}](LongBand "fig:"){width="8.6cm"}
We investigated the instability of the density-homogeneous, ordered state in a series of numerical simulations starting from particles uniformly distributed in space but strictly oriented along the major axis in a large rectangular domain. Figure \[LongBand\]a,b show space-time plots of the density profile: initially flat, it develops structures with no well-defined wavelength (Fig. \[LongBand\]c). Density fluctuations destroy the initially-ordered state in a rather unusual way: a dynamical Fourier analysis of the density profile show a weakly-peaked, wide band of wavelengths growing [*subexponentially*]{} (Fig. \[LongBand\]d). This is at odds with a finite-wavelength supercritical instability, which would lead to a wavetrain of traveling bands. Furthermore, the asymptotic (late time) power spectra of the density profiles are not peaked around a single frequency either, but rather broadly distributed over a large range of wavenumbers (Fig. \[LongBand\]f). In the asymptotic regime, bands are extremely long-lived metastable (or possibly stable) objects, which are never equally-spaced (a typical late-time configuration is shown in Fig. \[LongBand\]e).
To summarize, the emerging band or sheet structure in the asymptotic regime is not a regular wave train characterized by a single wavelength, but rather a collection of irregularly-spaced localized traveling objects, probably weakly interacting through their exponentially decaying tails.
Low-noise regime and giant density fluctuations
-----------------------------------------------
As the noise amplitude is decreased away from the transition point, bands are less sharp, and eventually disappear, giving way to an ordered state characterized by an homogeneous local order parameter and large fluctuations of the local density.
A quantitative measure of the presence, in the ordered phase, of structures spanning the dimension transverse to the mean motion (i.e. bands or sheets) is provided by the variances of the density and order parameter profiles: $$\begin{array}{lll}
\label{width}
\Delta\rho^2_{\perp}(t) &=& \langle (\rho_{\perp}(x_{\parallel}, t)
- \langle \rho_{\perp}(x_{\parallel}, t)\rangle_{\parallel})^2 \rangle_{\parallel}\\
\Delta\varphi^2_{\perp}(t) &=& \langle (\varphi_{\perp}(x_{\parallel}, t) -
\langle \varphi_{\perp}(x_{\parallel}, t)\rangle_{\parallel})^2 \rangle_{\parallel}
\end{array}$$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle_{\parallel}$ indicates the average of the profile in the longitudinal direction with respect to mean velocity. Indeed, these profile widths vanish in the infinite-size limit except if band/sheet structures are present.
![(color online) (a-b) Time-averaged profile width for both density (a) and order parameter (b) as a function of noise amplitude in the ordered phase (angular noise, $1024\times 256$ domain, global motion along the major axis, $\rho=2$, and $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$). The dashed vertical blue line marks the order-disorder transition. (c-d) Typical instantaneous profiles along the long dimension of the system described in (a-b) for intermediate noise value ((b) $\eta=0.4$) and in the bandless regime ((c) $\eta=0.15$).[]{data-label="BandGNF"}](Band){width="8.6cm"}
In Fig \[BandGNF\]a,b, we plot these profile widths averaged over time as a function of noise amplitude. Both quantities present a maximum close to the transition point in the ordered phase, and drop drastically as soon as the disordered phase is entered. Lowering the noise away from the transition point, these profiles decrease steadily: bands/sheets stand less sharply out of the disordered background (Fig \[BandGNF\]c). At some point ($\eta \approx 0.3$ for the parameters values considered in Fig \[BandGNF\]a,b), bands rather abruptly disappear and are no more well-defined transversal objects. It is difficult to define this point accurately, but it is clear that for lower noise intensities the local order parameter is strongly homogeneous in space. Nevertheless, fluctuations in the density field are strong (Fig \[BandGNF\]d), but can no more give rise to (meta)stable long-lived transverse structures.
Density fluctuations in the bandless regime are in fact anomalously strong: measuring number fluctuations in sub-systems of linear size $\ell$, we find that their root mean-square $\Delta n$ does [*not*]{} scale like the square root of $n=\rho\ell^d$, the mean number of particles they contain; rather we find $\sigma(n) \propto n^\alpha$ with $\alpha\approx 0.8$ both in $d=2$ and in $d=3$ (Fig. \[SDF-GNF\]a). This is reminiscent of the recent discovery of “giant density fluctuations” in active nematics [@Mishra; @Narayan; @Chate2006]. However, the theoretical argument which initially predicted such fluctuations [@Ramaswamy] cannot be invoked directly in the present case. (Indeed, the above value of $\alpha$, although needing to be refined, does not seem to be compatible with the prediction $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d}$ made in [@Ramaswamy].) More work is needed to fully understand under which circumstances the coupling between density and order in systems of “active”, self-propelled particles gives rise to such anomalous density fluctuations.
![(color online) Giant density fluctuation and transverse superdiffusion in the bandless ordered phase. (a) anomalous density fluctuations (see text): $\Delta n$ scales approximately like $n^{0.8}$ (the dashed line has slope 0.8) both in two dimensions (black circles, $L=256$, $\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, angular noise amplitude $\eta=0.25$) and in three dimensions (red triangles, $L=64$, $\rho=1/2$ $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, vectorial noise amplitude $\eta=0.1$, values shifted for clarity). (b) average doubling time $\tau_2$ of the transverse (w.r.t. mean velocity) interparticle distance $\delta_{\perp}$. Black circles: ordered bandless regime ($\rho=4$, angular noise amplitude $\eta=0.2$ in a rectangular box of size $1024 \times
256$). The black dashed line marks the expected growth $\tau_2 \sim
\delta_{\perp}^{3/2}$. Red squares: same but deep in the disordered phase ($\rho=4$, angular noise amplitude $\eta=1$, $L=512$). The dot dashed red line shows normal diffusive behavior: $\tau_2 \sim \delta^2$.[]{data-label="SDF-GNF"}](SDF-GNF){width="8.6cm"}
Transverse superdiffusion {#superdiff}
-------------------------
According to Toner and Tu predictions [@Toner1995; @Toner1998; @Toner1998_2], the dynamics of the symmetry-broken ordered phase of polar active particles should be characterized by a superdiffusive mean square displacement $$\Delta x_{\perp}=\sqrt{\langle (x_{\perp}(t)-x_{\perp}(0))^2\rangle_i}$$ in the direction(s) transversal to mean velocity. In particular, in $d=2$ one has [@Toner1998_2] $$\label{superd}
\Delta x_{\perp}^2 \sim t ^{\nu}$$ with $\nu=4/3$. While this analytical result has been succesfully tested by numerical simulations of models with cohesive interactions [@Toner1998_2; @Gregoire2004], numerical simulations in models without cohesion present substantial difficulties, mainly due to the presence of continuously merging and splitting sub-clusters of particles moving coherently (as discussed in Section \[cluster\]). As a consequence, an ensemble of test particles in a cohesionless model is exposed to different “transport” regimes (w.r.t. center of mass motion) which are not well separated in time. When the mean displacement is averaged at fixed time, this tends to mask the transverse superdiffusion.
To overcome this problem, we chose to follow [@Vulpiani2000] and to measure $\tau_2$, the average time taken by two particles to double their transverse separation distance $\delta_{\perp}$. From Eq. (\[superd\]) one immediately has $$\label{superd2}
\tau_2 \sim \delta_{\perp}^{2/\nu}$$ with $2/\nu=3/2$ in $d=2$. In order to easily separate the transverse from the parallel component, we considered an ordered system in a large rectangular domain with periodic boundary conditions and the mean velocity initially oriented along the long side. The mean direction of motion then stays oriented along this major axis, so that we can identify the transverse direction with the minor axis. Furthermore, a high density and a small (angular) noise amplitude (corresponding to the bandless regime) have been chosen to avoid the appearance of large, locally disordered patches.\
Our results (Fig. \[SDF-GNF\]b) confirm the prediction of Toner and Tu: transverse superdiffusion holds at low-enough noise, while normal diffusion is observed in the disordered, high-noise phase. Note that the systematic deviation appearing in our data at some large scale is induced by large fluctuations in the orientation of the global mean velocity during our numerical simulations (not shown here).
We take the opportunity of this discussion to come back to the superdiffusive behavior of particles observed in the transition region[@Comment_gg]. There, sub-clusters emerge propagate ballistically and isotropically due to the absence of a well-established global order. Particles trajectories consist in “ballistic flights”, occurring when a particle is caught in one of these coherently moving clusters, alternated with ordinary diffusion in disordered regions. The mean square displacement of particles exhibits the scaling $\Delta x^2 = \langle |\vec{x}(t)-\vec{x}(0))|^2\rangle_i
\propto t ^{5/3}$ [@Comment_gg]. In view of our current understanding of the discontinuous nature of the transition, we now tend to believe that this isotropic superdiffusion is probably [*not*]{} asymptotic.
Internal structure of the ordered region {#cluster}
----------------------------------------
We now turn our attention to the internal structure of the ordered regimes. As we noted in the previous section, these regimes do [*not*]{} consist of a single cluster of interacting particles moving coherently. Even in the case where high density bands/sheets are present, these are in fact dynamical objects made of splitting and merging clusters. Note that for the models considered here, clusters are unambiguously defined thanks to the strictly finite interaction range $r_{\rm 0}$.
As noticed first by Aldana and Huepe [@Huepe], clusters of size $n$ are distributed algebraically in the ordered region, i.e. $P(n) \sim n^{-\mu}$. But a closer look reveals that the exponent $\mu$ characterizing the distribution of cluster sizes changes with the distance to the transition point. For noise intensities not too far from the threshold, when bands are observed, we find $\mu$ values larger than 2, whereas $\mu<2$ in the bandless regimes present at low noise intensities (Fig. \[FigCluster\]a,b).
Thus, bands are truly complex, non-trivial structures emerging out of the transverse dynamics of clusters with a well defined mean size (since $\mu>2$). It is only in the bandless regime that one can speak, as Aldana and Huepe, of “strong intermittency”. We note in passing that the parameter values they considered correspond in fact to a case where bands are easily observed (at larger sizes than those considered in [@Huepe]). Thus, clusters do have a well-defined mean size in their case. Consequently, the probability distribution $P(\varphi)$ of the order parameter $\varphi$ does [*not*]{} show the behavior reported in Fig. 1 of [@Huepe] as soon as the system size is large enough. Whether in the band/sheet regime or not, $P(\varphi)$ shows essentially Gaussian tails, is strongly peaked around its mean, and its variance decreases with system size (Fig. \[FigCluster\]c,d).
Although the picture of intermittent bursts between “laminar”intervals proposed by Aldana and Huepe has thus to be abandoned, the anomalous density fluctuations reported in the previous section are probably tantamount to the strong intermittency of cluster dynamics in the bandless regime. Again, these phenomena, reported also in the context of “active” nematics [@Chate2006; @Mishra; @Ramaswamy], deserve further investigation.
![ (a-b) Cluster size distributions (arbitrary units) for domain sizes $L=32$ (black), 128 (red) , and 512 (green) from left to right ($d=2$, $\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$, angular noise). (c-d) Probability distribution functions of the order parameter $\varphi$ (arbitrary units) for the same parameters and system sizes as in (a-b). (The most peaked distributions are for the largest size $L=512$.) Left panels (a,c): $\eta=0.1$, bandless regime; Right panels (b,d), regime with bands at $\eta=0.4$.[]{data-label="FigCluster"}](FigCluster){width="8.6cm"}
Phase ordering {#coarsening}
--------------
{width="5.6cm"} {width="5.6cm"} {width="5.6cm"}
![(color online) Phase ordering as in Fig. \[Coarse-snaps\] ($L=4096$ $\rho=1/2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$). (a) two-point density correlation function $C(r,t)=\langle \rho_{\ell}(\vec{x},t) \rho_{\ell}(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t)\rangle_{\vec{x}}$ (coarse grained over a scale $\ell = 4$) as a function of distance $r=|\vec{r}|$ at different time steps: from left to right $t=50,100,200,400,800,1600$. Noise amplitude is $\eta=0.25$, data have been further averaged over $\approx 40$ different realizations. Inset: log scales reveal the intermediate near-algebraic decay and the quasi-exponential cut-off. (b) Lengthscale $\xi$, estimated from the exponential cut-off positions, as a function of time. Empty black circles: $\eta=0.25$ as in (a) (i.e. regime in which bands are observed asymptotically). Red full triangles: $\eta=0.1$ (i.e. in the bandless regime). The dashed black line marks linear growth.[]{data-label="Coarsening"}](Coarsening){width="8.6cm"}
The ordered regimes presented above are the result of some transient evolution. In particular, the bands/sheets are the typical asymptotic structures appearing in [*finite*]{} domains with appropriate boundary conditions. In an infinite system, the phase ordering process is, on the other hand, infinite, and worth studying for its own sake.
Numerically, we have chosen to start from highly disordered initial conditions which have a homogeneous density and vanishing local order parameter. In practice, we quench a system “thermalized” at strong noise to a smaller, subcritical, $\eta$ value. Typical snapshots show the emergence of structures whose typical scale seems to increase fast (Fig. \[Coarse-snaps\]). During this domain growth, we monitor the two-point spatial correlation function of both the density and velocity fields. These fields are defined by a coarse-graining over a small lengthscale $\ell$ (typically 4). These correlation functions have an unusual shape (Fig. \[Coarsening\]a): after some rather fast initial decay, they display an algebraic behavior whose effective exponent decreases with time, and finally display a near-exponential cut-off. As a result, they cannot be easily collapsed on a single curve using a simple, unique, rescaling lengthscale. Nevertheless, using the late exponential cut-off, a correlation length $\xi$ can be extracted. Such a lengthscale $\xi$ grows roughly linearly with time (Fig. \[Coarsening\]b). Qualitatively similar results are obtained whether the noise strength is in the range where bands/sheets appear in finite boxes or not.
We note that the above growth law is reminiscent of that of the so-called model H of the classification of Halperin and Hohenberg [@Hohenberg]. Since this model describes, in principle, the phase separation in a viscous binary fluid, the fast growth observed could thus be linked to the hydrodynamic modes expected in any continuous description of Vicsek-like models [@Toner1995; @Toner_rev].
General discussion and outlook {#discussion}
==============================
Summary of main results
-----------------------
We now summarize our main results before discussing them at a somewhat more general level.
We have provided ample evidence that the onset of collective motion in Vicsek-style models is a discontinuous (first-order) phase transition, with all expected hallmarks, in agreement with [@Gregoire2004]. We have made the (numerical) effort of showing this in the limits of small and large velocity and/or density.
We have shown that the ordered phase is divided in two regions: near the transition and down to rather low noise intensities, solitary structures spanning the directions transverse to the global collective velocity (the bands or sheets) appear, leading to an inhomogeneous density field. For weaker noise, on the other hand, no such structures appear, but strong, anomalous density fluctuations exist and particles undergoes superdiffusive motion transverse to the mean velocity direction.
Finally, we have reported a linear growth (with time) of ordered domains when a disordered configuration is quenched in the ordered phase. This fast growth can probably be linked to the expected emergence of long wavelength hydrodynamic modes in the ordered phase of active polar particles models.
On the role of bands/sheets
---------------------------
The high-density high-order traveling bands or sheets described here appear central to our main findings. They seem to be intimately linked to the discontinuous character of the transition which can, to some extent, be considered as the stability limit of these objects. In the range of noise values where they are observed, the anomalous density fluctuations present at lower noise intensities are suppressed.
One may then wonder about the universality of these objects. Simple variants of the Vicsek-style models studied here (e.g. restricting the interactions to binary ones involving only the nearest neighbor) do exhibit bands and sheets [@Bertin]. Moreover, the continuous deterministic description derived by Bertin [*et al.*]{} [@Bertin] does possess localized, propagating solitary solutions rather similar to bands [@Bertin_prep]. Although the stability of these solutions need to be further investigated, these results indicate that these objects are robust and that their existence is guaranteed beyond microscopic “details”. However, the emergence of regular, stable, bands and sheets is obviously conditioned to the shape and the boundary conditions of the domain in which the particles are allowed to move. In rectangular domains with at least one periodic direction, these objects can form, span across the whole domain, and move. But in, say, a circular domain with reflecting boundary conditions, they cannot develop freely, being repeatedly “frustrated”. Nevertheless, simulations performed in such a geometry indicate that the transition remains discontinuous, with the ordered phase consisting of one or several dense packets traveling along the circular boundary. Note, though, that these packets intermittently emit elongated structures (bands) traveling towards the interior of the disk before colliding on the boundary. To sum up, bands appear as the “natural” objects in the transition region, but they may be prevented by the boundaries to develop into full-size straight objects.
At any rate, time-series of the order parameter such as the one presented in Fig. \[fig2\] clearly show that the transition is discontinuous irrespective of the geometry and boundaries of the domain, and thus of whether bands/sheets can develop into stable regular structures or not: the sudden, abrupt, jumps from the disordered state to some ordered structure are tantamount to a nucleation phenomenon characteristic of a discontinuous transition.
A speculative picture
---------------------
We would now like to offer the following speculative general picture: the key feature of the Vicsek-like models studied here —as well as of other models for active media made of self-propelled particles [@Csahok2002; @BenJacob; @Bertin; @Topaz2004; @Toner_rev]— is the coupling between density and order. Particles are forced to move, and, since they carry informations about the order, advection, density fluctuations and order are intimately linked. High-density means strong local order (if noise is low enough) because the many particles in a given neighborhood will adopt roughly the same orientation. The reverse is also true: in a highly-ordered region, particles will remain together for a long time and thus will sweep many other particles leading to a denser and denser group.
![(color online) Scatter plots of local order parameter vs local density in the ordered phase (angular noise, $\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.5$ in a domain of size $1024 \times 256$, (same parameters as in Fig. \[BandGNF\]a). The local quantities were measured in boxes of linear size $\ell=8$. Here, the local order is represented by the angle between the orientation $\Theta_{local}$ of the local order parameter and the global direction of motion $\Theta_{global}$. The black solid lines are running averages of the scatter plots. The red solid lines indicate the global density $\rho=2$ (and thus marks the percolation threshold in a two-dimensional square lattice). (a,b): $\eta=0.1$ and 0.2: in the bandless regime, the ordered plateau starts below $\rho=2$, i.e. ordered regions percolate. (c) approximately at the limit of existence of bands: the start of the plateau is near $\rho=2$. (d) at higher noise amplitude in the presence of bands. []{data-label="local-eq"}](local-angle-density){width="8.6cm"}
At a given noise level, one can thus relate, in the spirit of some local equilibrium hypothesis, local density to local order. In practice, such an “equation of state” approach can be justified by looking, e.g., at a scatter plot of local order parameter vs local density. Fig. \[local-eq\] reveals that, in the ordered bandless regime, such a scatter plot is characterized by a plateau over a large range of local density values corresponding to order, followed, below some crossover density, by more disordered local patches. The regions in space where local density is below this crossover level do not percolate in the bandless regime, and order can be maintained very steadily in the whole domain (this is corroborated by the fact that in spite of the large, anomalous density fluctuations, the order parameter field is, on the other hand, rather constant, see Fig. \[BandGNF\]c). The noise intensity at which bands emerge roughly corresponds to the value where the low-density disordered regions percolate. The reamining disconnected, dense patches then eventually self-organize into bands/sheets. The emergence of these elongated structures is rather natural: moving packets elongate spontaneously because they collect many particles; superdiffusion in the directions perpendicular to the mean motion endow these nascent bands/sheets with some “rigidity”. At still stronger noise, the bands/sheets are destroyed and global order disappears.
The above features are at the root of the approach by Toner and Tu [@Toner1995; @Toner1998; @Toner1998_2]. Their predictions of strong density fluctuations, transverse superdiffusion, and peculiar sound propagation properties are correct as long as bands/sheets do not exist, i.e. for not too strong noise intensities. This is indeed in agreement with their assumption that the density field is statistically homogeneous in the frame moving at the global velocity (albeit with strong fluctuations), which is only true in the bandless regime.
Outlook
-------
The results presented here are almost entirely numerical. Although they were obtained with care, they need to be ultimately backed up by more analytical results. A first step is the derivation of a continuous description in terms of a density and a velocity field (or some combination of the two), which would allow to go beyond microscopic “details”. In that respect the deterministic equation derived by Bertin [*et al.*]{} from a Boltzmann description in the dilute limit [@Bertin] is encouraging. However, one may suspect that intrinsic fluctuations are crucial in the systems considered here if only because some of the effective noise terms will be multiplicative in the density. A mesoscopic, stochastic equation description is thus a priori preferable. This is especially true in view of the “giant” anomalous fluctuations present in the bandless ordered phase. These fluctuations clearly deserve further investigation, all the more so as they seem to be generic features of active particle models [@Mishra; @Chate2006].
Ongoing work is devoted to both these general issues.
Most of this research has been funded by the European Union via the FP6 StarFLAG project. Partial support from the French ANR Morphoscale project is acknowledged. We thank A. Vulpiani and M. Cencini for introducing us to the method outlined in Ref. [@Vulpiani2000].
Fluctuation-dissipation relation
================================
![(color online) Test of the fluctuation-dissipation relation on the vectorial model with repulsive force ($\rho=2$, $v_{\rm 0}=0.3$, $L=128$). (a): susceptibility *vs *time at reduced noise amplitude $\varepsilon=1 - \eta/\eta_{\rm t}=0.005$, $|\vec{h}|=10^{-2}$(dashed red line) and $|\vec{h}|=10^{-3}$(plain black line). (b): susceptibility *vs. *correlation at $|\vec{h}|=10^{-3}$ and $\varepsilon=0.08$, $0.26$ and $0.44$ from top to bottom. (c): effective temperature *vs *noise amplitude. The vertical dashed line marks the transition point.******[]{data-label="FFDT"}](fdt){width="8.6cm"}
In [@Czirok1997], Vicsek [*et al.*]{} also studied the validity of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and concluded, from numerical analysis, that it is violated. Here we approach this question again, using the “dynamical” approach put forward in [@Cuku], rather than the equilibrium used in [@Czirok1997]. The fluctuation-dissipation relation is expressed as:
$$R(t-t_{\rm 0})=\frac{1}{T_{\rm eff}}\frac{\partial C(t-t_{\rm 0})}{\partial t}
\label{EFDT1}$$
where $R$ is the response, $C$ the associated correlation function, and $T_{\rm eff}$ is some “effective temperature”.
In both cases, at any rate, the key point is to investigate the effect of an external field on the ordering process. Since here one cannot rely on any Hamiltonian structure, the external field remains somewhat arbitrary, as it cannot be unambiguously defined as the conjugate variable of the order parameter.
In [@Czirok1997], the field $\vec{h}$ was directly confronted to the local average velocity, and the governing equation was replaced by: $$\vec{v_i}(t+\Delta t) = v_{\rm 0} \,\, (\mathcal{R}_\eta\!\circ\vartheta)\left[
\sum_{j\in\mathcal{V}_i}\vec{v_j}(t) +\vec{h}\right] \;.
\label{EVfield}$$ This manner of introducing $\vec{h}$ leads to an effective intensity which depends on the local ordering: $\vec{h}$ is comparatively stronger in disordered regions (an important effect at the early stages of ordering) than in ordered regions. This could in fact prevent the necessary linear regime to occur, even at very low field values (see, for instance, Fig. 6 of [@Czirok1997]). A mean-field analysis has confirmed this view, showing a logarithmic variation of the response with the field intensity [^1].
To bypass this problem, we have preferred to use the following equation: $$\vec{v_i}(t\!+\!\Delta t) = v_{\rm 0} \, \vartheta\!\left[
\!\sum_{j\in\mathcal{V}_i}\!\vec{v_j}(t)
\!+\!\left|\sum_{j\in\mathcal{V}_i}\!\vec{v_j}(t)\right| \vec{h}
+\eta \mathcal{N}_i \vec{\xi} \right]
\label{EN2field}$$ where the vectorial noise was chosen because, as shown above, it leads more easily to the asymptotic regime. The effective intensity of the field is now proportional to the local order.
Two (scalar) response functions can be defined in our problem: the longitudinal response $R_\parallel$ along the field direction, and the transverse response $R_\perp$. We consider the former. In practice, we quenched, at time $t_{\rm 0}$, a strong-noise, highly-disordered system $\varphi(t_{\rm 0}) \approx 0$ to a smaller noise value and started applying the constant, homogeneous field $\vec{h}$ immediately. We then followed the response of the system by monitoring the growth of the order parameter. We measured the susceptibility $\chi_\parallel$ which is nothing but the integrated response function: $\chi_{\parallel}(t,t_{\rm 0})=\int_{t_{\rm 0}}^{t}R_{\parallel}(t,t')dt'$. In practice, we have: $$\chi_{\parallel}(t-t_{\rm 0})=
\frac{1}{|\vec{h}|}\,\vec{\varphi}(t)\cdot \vartheta [\vec{h}] \;.$$ In a well-behaved system, the susceptibility should be independent of the amplitude of the field, at least at small enough values (“linear” regime). This is what we observed, as shown in Fig. \[FFDT\]a.
Correspondingly, the correlation function is defined as: $$C(t-t_{\rm 0})=\frac{1}{v_{\rm 0}^2}\langle\vec{v}_i(t_{\rm 0})\cdot\vec{v}_i(t)\rangle_i \;.$$ The fluctuation-dissipation relation (\[EFDT1\]) can then be written in its integrated form: $$\chi_{\parallel}(t-t_{\rm 0})=\frac{1}{T_{\rm eff}}
\left(C(0)-C(t-t_{\rm 0})\right)
\label{EFDT2}$$ In Fig. \[FFDT\]b, we show that $\chi_{\parallel}$ and $C$ are related linearly in time, confirming the validity of this relation and allowing an estimation of $T_{\rm eff}$.
This well-defined —although not uniquely defined— effective temperature varies as expected in parameter space. In particular, it increases systematically with the noise strength $\eta$ (Fig. \[FFDT\]c), although this variation is not linear. Note also, that, intriguingly, there is a small jump of $T_{\rm eff}$ at the noise value corresponding to the transition in this case ($\eta_{\rm t}\simeq0.55$).
[10]{}
, Naturalis historia, 79.
J. K. Parrish and W. M. Hamner, editors, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
E. V. Albano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2129 (1996).
I. D. Couzin and J. Krause, Advances in the Study of Behavior [**32**]{}, 1 (2003).
A. Czirók, H. E. Stanley, and T. Vicsek, J. Phys. A [**30**]{}, 1375 (1997).
G. Grégoire, H. Chaté, and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 011902 (2001).
C. Huepe and M. Aldana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 168701 (2004).
J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4326 (1995).
T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1226 (1995).
N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**17**]{}, 1133 (1966).
E. Bertin, M. Droz, and G. Grégoire, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 022101 (2006).
B. Birnir, J. Stat. Phys. [**128**]{}, 535 (2007).
H. J. Bussemaker, A. Deutsch, and E. Geigant, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 5018 (1997).
H. Chaté, F. Ginelli, and R. Montagne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 180602 (2006).
I. D. Couzin, J. Theor. Biol. [**218**]{}, 1 (2002).
I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, N. Franks, and S. Levin, Nature [**433**]{}, 513 (2005).
Z. Csahók and T. Vicsek, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{}, 5297 (1995).
A. Czirók, A.-L. Barabási, and T. Vicsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 209 (1999).
A. Czirók, M. Vicsek, and T. Vicsek, Physica A [**264**]{}, 299 (1999).
Y. L. Duparcmeur, H. Herrmann, and J. P. Troadec, J. Phys. I France [**5**]{}, 1119 (1995).
G. Grégoire, H. Chaté, and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 556 (2001).
G. Grégoire, H. Chaté, and Y. Tu, Physica D [**181**]{}, 157 (2003).
J. Hemmingsson, J. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 4245 (1995).
H. Levine, W.-J. Rappel, and I. Cohen, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 017101 (2000).
A. S. Mikhailov and D. H. Zanette, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{}, 4571 (1999).
A. Mogilner and L. Edelstein-Keshet, J. Math. Biol. [**38**]{}, 534 (1999).
O. J. O’Loan and M. R. Evans, J. Phys. A [**32**]{}, 99 (1999).
M. R. d’Orsogna, Y. Chuang, A. Bertozzi, and L. Chayes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 104302 (2006).
N. Shimoyama, K. Sugawara, T. Mizuguchi, Y. Hayakawa, and M. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3870 (1996).
R. A. Simha and S. Ramaswamy, Physica A [**306**]{}, 262 (2002).
R. A. Simha and S. Ramaswamy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 058101 (2002).
B. Szabó [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 061908 (2006).
J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 4828 (1998).
J. Toner, Y. Tu, and M. Ulm, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 4828 (1998).
C. M. Topaz and A. L. Bertozzi, SIAM J. Appl. Math. [**65**]{}, 152 (2004).
C. Topaz, A. Bertozzi, and L. M.A., Bull. Math. Bio. [**68**]{}, 1601 (2006).
T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, I. J. Farkas, and D. Helbing, Physica A [**274**]{}, 182 (1999).
G. Grégoire and H. Chaté, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 025702 (2004).
M. Nagy, I. Daruka, and T. Vicsek, Physica A [**373**]{}, 445 (2006).
M. Aldana, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 095702 (2007).
S. Lübeck, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. B [**18**]{}, 3977 (2004).
P. Marcq, H. Chaté, and P. Manneville, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4003 (1996).
P. Marcq, H. Chaté, and P. Manneville, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 2606 (1997).
K. Binder, Monte carlo investigations of phase transitions and critical phenomena, in [*Phase transitions and critical phenomena*]{}, edited by C. Domb and M. S. Green, Academic Press, 1976.
V. Privman, editor, (ed. World scientific, Singapore, 1990).
K. Binder, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**60**]{}, 487 (1997).
B. Efron, (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1982).
J. C. Niel and J. Zinn-Justin, Nucl. Phys. B [**280**]{}, 355 (1987).
C. Borgs and R. Kotecky, J Stat. Phys. [**61**]{}, 79 (1990).
H. Chaté, F. Ginelli, and G. Grégoire, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 229601 (2007).
S. Mishra and S. Ramaswamy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 090602 (2006).
V. Narayan, S. Ramaswamy, and N. Menon, Science [**317**]{}, 105 (2007).
S. Ramaswamy, R. A. Simha, and J. Toner, Europhys. Lett. [**62**]{}, 196 (2002).
G. Boffetta, A. Celani, M. Cencini, G. Lacorata, and A. Vulpiani, Chaos [**10**]{}, 50 (2000).
P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**49**]{}, 435 (1977).
J. Toner, Y. Tu, and S. Ramaswamy, Annals Of Physics [**318**]{}, 170 (2005).
E. Bertin, M. Droz, and G. Grégoire, Hydrodynamic equations for self-propelled particles: a derivation from the microscopic dynamics, in preparation, 2007.
Z. Csahòk and A. Cziròk, Physica A [**243**]{}, 304 (2002).
E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and H. Levine, Adv. in Phys. [**49**]{}, 395 (2000).
L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan, and L. Peliti, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 3898 (1997).
[^1]: Private communication from E. Bertin.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.